> So you’re asserting that the ends justify the means or?
They claim that spacex has competitive advantage. They take no stance on condoning spacex’s behavior. Personally I strongly dislike musks behavior, but I appreciate discussion of competitive advantages/disadvantages, independent of moral views. I liked the thread, it adds new info to the conversation.
Crazy that posters here don't know the difference between a "fine," a "judgment," and a voluntary settlement. Anthropic didn't even train on the pirated libraries, they said. Still, they made copies. Probably the biggest legal blunder I've seen given the size of the settlement. Alas, it's not a fine.
What's wild to me is that today there are more companies with more than 100 unsupervised self driving cars out on the road that DID NOT exist (as a company) back when Tesla CEO told investors they're a year away from FSD.
There’s some number of supposedly unsupervised Teslas actually operating in Austin, but what I’ve seen suggests it’s more like a dozen.
And extreme skepticism is warranted that they’re actually fully unsupervised, given Tesla’s repeated lies about this. They’re likely remotely monitored and operated.
From Matt Levine's description, SpaceX has a governance model that explicitly makes it resistant to shareholder lawsuits. It's not a Delaware corporation.
It might or might not work long-term, but I wouldn't count on courts to help.
Corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder's value. If reaching that goal requires them to pretend to be transparent, or fudge the numbers that they show to the public, then that's what you can expect them to do.
SpaceX is run by an absolute ghoul who managed to get away with securities fraud ("funding secured"), what makes you think there's any accountability left in public markets?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/15/elon-musk...