That was an attempt to stop the upgrading of the California rail network to increase high-speed capability and connectivity (adding more lines, stations and connections) as it would hugely dampen the demand for Teslas.
Musk had GPUs that belonged to Tesla (not him) transferred to a company that he owned. He didn't pay anything for the privilege of his company effectively jumping the order queue. It might not have been illegal technically, but it was very shady.
Legally, yes. X is a different legal entity to Tesla.
Tesla and X had both ordered GPUs from Nvidia. The order for Tesla arrived before the factory in Austin was ready to accept them. So instead of storing them in a warehouse, they sent them to X and then used what was supposed to go to X in the Tesla factory when it was ready. Nothing shady about it, unless you can prove Tesla somehow lost money by not having a bunch of useless GPUs setting around taking up space at the Austin plant.
Yeah, you definitely want your GPUs setting around in a warehouse collecting dust for no reason.
Is there any proof of that?
Especially when he can be playing Diablo IV!
Yes, in the emails given to CNBC, Musk made the request to divert the Tesla GPUs to X in December. Then the GPU's that were slated for X would be sent to Tesla in January and June.
www.teslarati.com
Evidence that Tesla had actually purchased the GPUs before they were given to X?
Probably the same project manager who had Tesla cranking out cars while other major manufacturers were sitting around with their thumbs up their butts during the pandemic.
supplychaindigital.com
The GPUs belonged to Tesla, not Elon Musk. The CPUs were in short supply and xAI was able to jump the queue on its order by misappropriating Tesla's GPUs. They paid nothing to Tesla for the privilege.
Evidence that Tesla had taken ownership of the GPUs prior to them being given to X?
The fact that Musk had to divert the order from Tesla to xAI is pretty conclusive.
Most of said cronies in the Solar City fraud being his immediate family.
Kind of an aside the "incredible feat" of catching the booster is so incredible that it was demonstrated back in the 90's, the only difference then being that the earlier demonstration was one of a command module landing directly and upright on the launchpad it took off from.
Be fair - it also showed that he can run SpaceX whilst playing a tier 150 pit dungeon in Diablo IV, and that's no mean feat, I'm struggling with a tier 100 playthrough.
Yes but catching the booster using a massive tower and massive arms means you don't have to put extendable legs on it. That may or may not be quite important.
His "command module" which is the Dragon capsule works fine but it reenters the atmosphere and lands in a conventional way - it has a heat shield and parachutes.
You are completely full of ****.
just commenting on the topic, not really arguing with anyone.
I'll try that line next time I rob a bank. "You had plenty of cash there and I was able spend it all the next day on something I thought was more important."
On the "can't stop playing for important meeting" trick SBF pulled that same nonsense shortly before FTX's fraud was discovered.
It's quite uncommon actually, few company bosses will so openly and so brazenly thieve stock from a company they run but don't own to stoxk one they do own but which has no prospect of ever being profitable.
We already have some driverless buses making the rounds in downtown Orlando. The buses will later operate in a new planned community near the airport.
www.independent.co.uk
What matters is that Musk screwed Tesla shareholders out of money.
i would argue there's no guarantee tesla would even be willing to do that at all if they weren't under the same ownership. gpus are in incredible demand now and even more at that time, the kind of capital project that kind of money is being spent on isn't something that they'd necessarily want to risk and i doubt nvidia would do that alone either.
It's a theft. Even if both companies were privately owned, unless there was a clear agreement between the two to share resources on demand the transfer of goods without consideration would still be legally shaky.