Apparently the ghost of Elon doesn’t like this, telling from the downvotes

We don’t have to do this. Not everything is black and white. Tesla would not be where it is today without his intervention. I expect SpaceX wouldn’t either.

He’s also a Nazi enabler and promoter.

A person can do both good and bad.

I think he contributed to how we see billionaires now. The little money grabbing idiots which contribute nothing to society.

Prefer dead. Estate taxes would be a field day

Nah, fuck that.

Some people, the greatest gift they can give to society and the species, is their removal from the gene pool.

Down for an equitable & fair (based on societal support of/contributions to his empire) redistribution of his wealth especially if it comes with a significant deplatforming, since he can’t stop spewing such vile opinions.

He can have a one-bedroom apartment no problem, heck even a house if he decided to ever see any of his million kids.

Certainly not a desirable fantasy, jumping straight to wanting somebody dead, unless that were the only way someone’s brutality could conceivably be stopped.

What’s sad is that even if he’s gone in body or in wealth, some other jackasses will still be around to ruin everything for us.

The man is an asshole and stain on society, his death would likely marginally improve the world’s future outlook.

What a shit guy who cares more about people who live in thousands of years than people who live today:

https://netzpolitik.org/2023/longtermism-an-odd-and-peculiar-ideology/

https://aeon.co/essays/why-longtermism-is-the-worlds-most-dangerous-secular-credo

Why do I think this ideology is so dangerous? The short answer is that elevating the fulfilment of humanity’s supposed potential above all else could nontrivially increase the probability that actual people – those alive today and in the near future – suffer extreme harms, even death. Consider that, as I noted elsewhere, the longtermist ideology inclines its adherents to take an insouciant attitude towards climate change. Why? Because even if climate change causes island nations to disappear, triggers mass migrations and kills millions of people, it probably isn’t going to compromise our longterm potential over the coming trillions of years. If one takes a cosmic view of the situation, even a climate catastrophe that cuts the human population by 75 per cent for the next two millennia will, in the grand scheme of things, be nothing more than a small blip – the equivalent of a 90-year-old man having stubbed his toe when he was two.

Bostrom’s argument is that ‘a non-existential disaster causing the breakdown of global civilisation is, from the perspective of humanity as a whole, a potentially recoverable setback.’ It might be ‘a giant massacre for man’, he adds, but so long as humanity bounces back to fulfil its potential, it will ultimately register as little more than ‘a small misstep for mankind’. Elsewhere, he writes that the worst natural disasters and devastating atrocities in history become almost imperceptible trivialities when seen from this grand perspective. Referring to the two world wars, AIDS and the Chernobyl nuclear accident, he declares that ‘tragic as such events are to the people immediately affected, in the big picture of things … even the worst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life.’

This way of seeing the world, of assessing the badness of AIDS and the Holocaust, implies that future disasters of the same (non-existential) scope and intensity should also be categorised as ‘mere ripples’. If they don’t pose a direct existential risk, then we ought not to worry much about them, however tragic they might be to individuals. As Bostrom wrote in 2003, ‘priority number one, two, three and four should … be to reduce existential risk.’ He reiterated this several years later in arguing that we mustn’t ‘fritter … away’ our finite resources on ‘feel-good projects of suboptimal efficacy’ such as alleviating global poverty and reducing animal suffering, since neither threatens our longterm potential, and our longterm potential is what really matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longtermism

He does not care about us, why should anyone care about him? Unfortunately other rich people are also into this, because it helps them to ignore the worlds problems and to do whatever they want to the people living now.

The difference being that on wikipedia you could use the sources on there while AI makes those up as well

Yeah, and I have to practice mental arithmetic because I won’t always have a calculator in my pocket.

Yay, electric vehicles are popular! Only bring loads of issues, cost a lot of rare earth metals which are mined by slaves and children, run on fossil fuel electricity (many coal plants and bio gas which are burned forests) and they are too heavy for the roads we have and electricity network, causing both to require many more replacements and maintenance, which costs loads of co2 emissions.

SpaceX is awesome! Costs less materials, so much easier to launch way more rockets into the sky! Like for starlink for example. Luckily the fuel used for it has zero emissions /s

But starlink is nice. Loads of space junk and coverage in most places is where already a different and faster network is, but it’s nice to have connectivity in hard to reach places. But is it worth all the emissions and space junk? And child labor for all the rare earth metals?

Made me check hope, even though I knew it was a shitpost.

ftfy

ftfy

But is it a dead name? Last I looked, the URL was still “twitter.com”.

Removed by mod

xitter, shitter because that’s what it feels like walking under

The dumbass bought a thing that the strongest and most valuable thing it had to offer was brand recognition and immediately eliminated the branding.

Porkilinks

Among all of Peter Thiel’s sins, propping up Musk’s ego by forcing him out of the company to save it is one of them

As much as I am loath to say anything about Musk, but he did actually found SpaceX - although that’s probably the only company he founded (that still exists).

A founder of shit, like most of us. Only with gigantic funds.

Nope. He was an early investor who sued so that he could call himself a founder.

He isn’t an original founder.

I’ll have to try it, I love retro games.

Wikipedia hasn’t been updated, confirmed definitely not dead

But you’re not supposed to trust what you read on the Internet!

When I looked just now it said he did actually die, so maybe it’s a developing story

I feel like we should have specific words to insult people that does that kind of things, like claiming tings they haven’t really done or invented. I think when i was young in the demo scene they were called lamers

Nah, he bought twitter and changed its name to something that looks like a placeholder

I like to think of it not as a prank, but a promise.