No, he's talking about The Mod.
Ah ok... @raffiniert I understand what you meant now, and your SW comments make sense... thanks,
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, he's talking about The Mod.
Fossil externalities are the issue.Fossil fuel interests have spent over a century piling up special tax credits, all while literally dumping all their externalities on Earth at no cost.
As EM said it best, "If I wanted subsidies, I'd be in the fossil fuel business." [paraphrased]
And a big reason why that this compensation package vote is turning into a vote of no confidence.Irrespective of his pay packet, he should be more selective about what he shares with the world on X... It's not a trait I admire him for, but for better or worse it's part of his DNA.
We just heard that 90% of retail shareholders who have voted thus far voted yes for both the comp plan and Texas move.And a big reason why that this compensation package vote is turning into a vote of no confidence.
This very useful post points out a very basic principle that "sunk costs" should never be the basis for negating an otherwise good decision. Decades ago something like this was called 'zero based budgeting'. That concept was polluted quickly by counting depreciation. However, if the project was never implemented, but completed revised prior to deployment there would be no depreciation, just R&D expense.The post of the person one cannot say anything against without having more spare time in the near future clearly shows a complete lack of understanding on how software development works.
I am personally in charge of a very small project currently where we just rewrote everything from scratch for the 4th time because things have changed. Not because anyone was lying. Not because we are stupid.
But I understand that this is too complex for some to grasp.
Free markets require a pricing system for externalities. In this case, Climate change from vehicle emissions. You cannot have a free market where one product destroys the environment and another does not. Even super hard core capitalists accept that externalities need a pricing mechanism, which requires govt legislation or taxes/subsidies to account for them correctly.He used to have a Tesla. He's not against EVs, he's against subsidies and mandates to end sales of ICE cars. He's also against capping our fossil fuel production. In short, he favors free markets.
OK? So. That doesnt mean that people voting against him arent using the voting as a vote of no confidence. What else do they have? It is a unique opportunity.We just heard that 90% of retail shareholders who have voted thus far voted yes for both the comp plan and Texas move.
While I do not agree that we need a different CEO for Tesla, I certainly agree with you in general.
A DEAL IS A DEAL.
Anyone voting NO cannot be trusted anymore, since this SIMPLY means this person finds it fair to in retrospect void an already made deal.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Personal opinions about Musk: don't matter
Personal opinions about the compensation plan: don't matter.
It is a contract that was agreed upon by shareholders and voided by a 9-share-guy and a judge.
If someone cannot get these facts straight and take the right consequences, then I fear we are even more "advanced" in the wrong direction than I already knew.
How would he know this?We just heard that 90% of retail shareholders who have voted thus far voted yes for both the comp plan and Texas move.
From what I understand (and have seen), a company called Broadridge handles the proxy voting process for most companies and they can provide real-time results to the company during the proxy voting period.Who is tabulating the votes such that Elon already knows how retail is voting?
Why was it a terrible compensation plan? Everyone was laughing at how impossible it was, and yet most of the milestones got hit and a lot of folks on this board got very wealthy on the back of that. Granted Musk took some of that wealth back with his antics, but if you look at the actual Tesla achievements during that time they were amazingHe voted no the first time, people were not paying attention then. It is a terrible BOD, it was a ridiculous comp plan. It is bad for shareholders then and now.
Yes and Amy & Charlie Munger's old law firm is now part of it.Q: even when pay package is affirmed, does the fight for the lawyer fee still continue?
I would gather yes but I guess easier to dust off.
From what I understand (and have seen), a company called Broadridge handles the proxy voting process for most companies and they can provide real-time results to the company during the proxy voting period.
"Plan to throw one (implementation) away; you will, anyhow." - Fred Brooks - decades ago.This very useful post points out a very basic principle that "sunk costs" should never be the basis for negating an otherwise good decision. Decades ago something like this was called 'zero based budgeting'. That concept was polluted quickly by counting depreciation. However, if the project was never implemented, but completed revised prior to deployment there would be no depreciation, just R&D expense.
These issues have never impeded the most innovative companies, and never impeded anything Elon has led simply because the development process is defined as iterative. So long as a software version can remain, for example, Beta, the accounting impediment never interferes.
Elon has, in common with few public company leaders, an acute understanding of Free Cash Flow as a superior metric, in part because that eliminates the decision paralysis caused by capitalized asset fixation and partly because a company with positive Free Cash Flow does not typically need bankruptcy as a 'solution'.
Exactly.OK? So. That doesnt mean that people voting against him arent using the voting as a vote of no confidence. What else do they have? It is a unique opportunity.