zlacker

They both are privately held by the same owner! So, with whom are they talking? :-)

>>mandee+(OP)
Is this an actual question? Because it seems kinda obvious that one person can have a majority stake in two companies without those companies being the same company.

The better question is whether or not this merger makes any sense.

>>mandee+(OP)
Musk writes a letter from his ceo@spacex.com email and he reads it from his ceo@xai.com account. And viceversa.

>>RIMR+11
I'd be quick to assume the ":-)" in this context indicates it is not an actual question.

>>kwanbi+k1
The lawyers are the ones talking, and they have to come up with a fair valuation.

If SpaceX pays too much for it, other SpaceX shareholders have a case against SpaceX leadership. If xAI accepts an offer that is too low, other xAI shareholders have a case against xAI leadership. Given that the leadership is basically the same people, they are very well incentivized to come up with a valuation that is as fair as possible.

And this is not just theoretical, Musk has already been sued successfully once on a similar case, when his companies gave out too much free support to the boring company.

>>mandee+(OP)
Two socks and two sets of googly eyes are required for this exercise. Attach googly eyes to socks. Insert hands in socks.

>>Tuna-F+05
Otoh, he is clearly impulsive and doesn’t think the rules apply to him. I am guessing, if one approach benefits him personally the most, there will be enormous pressure to achieve that outcome.

>>mandee+(OP)
Musk is the majority owner, but he is not the only owner. So the discussion is probably amongst senior leadership from both companies and probably involves other significant owners.

>>Tuna-F+05
Tesla engineers being lent out right after the Twitter buyout to eval the codebase was one of many reasons I won’t work there. So unserious.

>>edmund+T5
Otoh, he is clearly impulsive and doesn’t think the rules apply to him.

They don't, so why shouldn't he think that way?

>>mandee+(OP)
"Have your Grok call my Grok!"

>>hex4de+45
Now I'm imagining Musk in a k-hole just staring at his hands in sock puppets for hours.

>>mandee+(OP)
But they don't have all the same owners. If I own company 2/3 of company A and it is worth $0, and I own 2/3 of company B I can't force company B to buy company A for $1. The company B shareholders will be upset and could sue.

Maybe this is a good deal for shareholders of SpaceX and xAI. But then maybe it isn't a good deal for one set of shareholders. I have no idea, but I would love to be a shareholder in SpaceX and would not want to be a shareholer in xAI. Totally depends on the price of course.

>>kwanbi+k1
I was imagining a boardroom reenactment of Geri's Game

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geri%27s_Game

>>george+2a
> Maybe this is a good deal for shareholders of SpaceX and xAI.

Yeah they would totally be doing this if they weren't in dire, desperate need of more money ... pinky promise.

>>mandee+(OP)
Elon talking to Musk.

>>a_t48+k6
There are many valid complaints, but why is engineers working not a serious thing?

>>fragme+Vic
It’s “unserious” in the sense that it’s undisciplined. Don’t those engineers have things to do at Tesla, rather than going to poke around at a social media website codebase? If I were a Tesla shareholder I’d be pretty annoyed - how is doing so advancing making a better car?