zlacker

> Well surely this acquisition is above board.

What makes you think it isn’t?

>>andsoi+(OP)
lol

>>andsoi+(OP)
It's just "Elon zomg lulz" trolling for updoots. This place pretends to know better.

>>andsoi+(OP)
There's an epic conflict of interest here with Musk owning most of both companies. And they're in entirely separate fields, there is no plausible synergy here to be gained.

>>andsoi+(OP)
Musk is notorious for shuffling assets across his companies to make some financials look better. For example, shuffling Twitter servers (and then all of Twitter) under xAI.

>>fabian+Y1
he is literally going to launch datacenters into space to train ai so they are a little related

edit: these replies aren't going to age well

>>andsoi+(OP)
Musk's involvement for one.

>>fabian+Y1
Yeah but who can be hurt by this, these are both private companies? So whose interest is his "conflicting" with? I'm sure the shareholders will raise it with him and/or bring a lawsuit if they aren't happy (they probably are happy).

>>AceJoh+e2
Need any solar shingles?

>>spulla+y2
No, he's not. And if he does, he's as big of an idiot as his detractors say that he is.

>>andsoi+(OP)
Musk has a history of having one of his more successful companies buying one of his less successful companies. xAI bought X, and Tesla bought SolarCity

>>spulla+y2
No he is not. It makes no sense from a physics standpoint or an economic standpoint. And even if they were, it wouldn’t require whatever this acquisition is.

>>fabian+Y1
Oh man, I sure hope he disclosed that

>>spulla+y2
Yeah, I'm not buying that. I don't see how that could be any cheaper than regular datacenters. It might just be technically feasible, but launching stuff into space will always be more expensive than not launching stuff into space. And all those pesky technical issues like cooling might be solvable, but I doubt they're that cheap to solve.

>>spulla+y2
He says he is going to launch data centers in space. We should all know better than to take him at his word on that by now.

>>spulla+y2
You're right, but in this sense:

literally (adverb)

informal : in effect : virtually

Used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible.

Ex: I literally died of embarrassment.

>>fabian+Y1
How can you have a conflict of interest if they're entirely separate fields? They have different interests, so where's the conflict?

You don't need synergies to justify a merger. They're often used as justification as in paying well above market price. But it has nothing to do with actual justification. You can just have a holding company of businesses

>>AceJoh+e2
Apparently SpaceX is the ultimate vehicle for buying Elon's shit that no one else wants. They're also buying thousands of Cybertrucks.

https://futurism.com/advanced-transport/spacex-buying-unfath...

>>bko+p4
The conflict of interests here is the conflict between musks interests and the other shareholders interests

>>readth+u3
my partner got shingles a couple years ago, it was a very painful experience!

(to be crystal clear, I am making a joke equating the failed SolarCity/Tesla solar shingles to the (generally considered very painful) Herpes Zoster manifestation also called "shingles")

>>andsoi+(OP)
And hey, look at that, pure coincidence, Tesla just gave xAI $2B! Now it's back in Musk's private pockets! How handy!