zlacker

I was talking about technical talent in general, and using big tech as a yardstick. I think it's even more likely there are a lot more capable antenna engineers outside the world than in the US, since the US didn't spend the past decades vacuuming up talent (then again, it it did, most of those would not be able to get a security clearance).

> Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that SpaceX is making a lot of money while xAI is losing a lot.

Just checked, and SpaceX made $15B last year (with $8B in profit). Afaik xAI spent $12B last year, meaning it would make the whole company operate at a loss, with no clue as to why it would make it profitable (none of the revenue came from AI).

Even if datacenters in space make sense, wouldn't OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc. want those? By merging with a competitor, SpaceX loses all that business, and possibly invites govt scrutiny.

>>torgin+(OP)
So if we assume that the primary rationale is indeed to gain access to non-US talent, and simply having or merging with another company is a workaround for that, why not do this sooner by creating or merging with another company? What is unique about xAI / Twitter?