21
votes
US judge asks Tesla's Musk and SEC to justify fraud settlement as 'fair and reasonable', while Musk continues tweeting complaints about SEC
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Robert Ferris
- Published
- Oct 4 2018
- Word count
- 373 words
Jesus Christ, the dude doesn't know how to stop digging, does he? I kinda felt bad for him at first and hoped he would just eat his humble pie, grow a little and move on to keep doing interesting things. But now I am honestly starting to root for the SEC nailing his ass to the goddamn wall for all his childish bullshit.
Did he even secure the settlement with the SEC yet or are they just talking about it?
Nope, not secured... in fact the opposite. According to the NYT Elon threatened to resign if the Tesla board didn't resist the SEC and they seem to have caved to his demands and rejected the SEC offer. So I suspect there will be no more sweetheart deals and the SEC is likely going to be out for blood now... especially after this tweet.
If I understand this correctly, on 09/27 Musk/Tesla rejected a favorable settlement offer as a result of Musk's threat to resign that was cited in NYT. As a result, the SEC initiated legal action and on 09/29 Musk/Tesla accepted a much worse settlement. The second settlement has not been rejected, but its provisos haven't gone into effect, so Musk has no twitter leash (which he really needs imo).
Ah, I think you might be right. Although I suspect this tweet and the judge asking for justification for the settlement from both sides isn't going to help the settlement get finalized. Musk really needs to just keep his damn mouth shut for a bit so this deal can go through already. :/
I don't know if he would have been able to make this tweet if the settlement had been secured. My understanding is that part of the settlement is that he's going to start having his communications monitored and approved, but I don't know if the details of it are clear yet. The settlement document says that he agrees to:
Given that he was able to cow the board the previous time I'm curious how much oversight they'll actually be able to enforce.
In between his Twitter rants, accusations of excessive drug use, baseless accusations against others of pedophilia, and his whining about TSLA, I finally unfollowed Elon about a year ago, and frankly am glad I did.
His signal to noise ratio in the past 3 years has just plummeted. It's such a shame, I used to respect him for his actions. Now I couldn't care less.
I don't know what action you ever respected him for, he literally put aside the Tesla founders and took over the vision they created and made it his. From the start he was an awful person.
I think he's accomplished a lot of good things at SpaceX, for example.
Wanna hook it up with a list of personal accomplishments?
Well, I was a moderator of r/SpaceX for the better part of 4 years, so, I can expand if you'd like. Here goes:
I genuinely could go on and on. I may no longer be a Musk fanboy, but the companies that he runs are indeed revolutionising their respective industries.
Such a shame most fanboys don't have the faintest idea of what they're talking about; which has perpetuated this culture of "Musk-bros" and probably emboldened Elon's attitude.
I think you're just misunderstanding each other. They were asking what Elon Musk personally accomplished. At least as far as I know, all of the achievements you listed aren't something that he did personally, but were done by employees of the company. They're certainly all impressive, but you can't give the credit entirely to Elon Musk for them.
Oh, of course not. But it's definitely clear companies can be run successfully, or into the ground. Apple in the 90's for example, and the turn around when Steve Jobs took the ship back. Not necessarily the best human, but someone I'd consider a visionary.
Elon appears to be similar. He's got a vision and has managed thus far to mostly correctly execute it; which is something worth speaking towards, IMO. But again, apparently not the best human.
To expand on @lukeify’s comment: Let’s say that in 15 years, Tildes is a site that is known throughout the world as a center for good dialogue about a wide variety of topics. There are millions of active users. There are novel mechanics that were invented in the course of the site’s growth, most of which were created by other contributors over those 15 years. However, it was Deimos’s direction and singular vision which kept everything on track.
Would it be wrong to assign much of the credit to Deimos, who personally funded and intitially developed the site which then grew into a much larger team? Of course Deimos would often call out his team in speeches and interviews, but the credit would rightly go to Deimos, right?
That’s what happened at SpaceX, IMHO.
Edit: sorry for responding to you in third person, wasn’t sure how else to phrase it without being even weirder.
You said it better than me. This might be a weird concept, but I think the very human approach to "dividing" credit among people is incorrect. Credit can be shared without being made smaller, whether that's part of a team, or a group, company, etc.
I think you can totally award credit to more than one person without feeling like your contribution was minimal at best. Everyone involved gets credit, and the more people who do doesn't diminish your own :)
So yes, @Deimos is certainly responsible for Tildes' success, and so are its users, for sure.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex.rss ?
https://spaceflightnow.com is a good source for general news. I work at a space-related company and links to that site get posted on our Slack, so it seems to be something my coworkers read and trust.
I've edited this post to point to an article about the status of the settlement (thanks @MimicSquid). It was originally linked to this tweet of Elon's: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1047943670350020608, which reads:
I added a reference to that tweet in the title so that the existing comments in here wouldn't seem like nonsense.
I've also removed the comments arguing about whether the tweet was appropriate to submit or not. I don't think it was bad, but him making poor decisions about Twitter usage isn't really new or newsworthy unless something more significant happens as a result of it (again).