The situation in Bordeaux right now feels close to apocalyptic. I left yesterday. Two hundred thousand people are evacuated, hundreds of homes destroyed, and the fire about 10 miles from the edge of the city.
These train workers in northern Ontario had an intense view of a wildfire up close. I would have freaked out. They're acting like there's a cute animal on tracks.
This video is so insane. They're in a combustion engine. I can not fathom why they survived let alone managed to drive out of this. Trains are not build for fire resistance.
I also left yesterday. I thought the mood was still surprisingly calm, considering that there was already enough smoke in the city to make it look like a foggy winter day and smell heavily of campfire.
Now I am wondering if my return flight from Bordeaux in a few days will actually happen. Currently the airport is still operating, although the surrounding area has been evacuated. It really looks apocalyptic there, though:
Had to evacuate a few years ago: south-west of France. We could see 20 meters high burning flames on the closest hill. But weirdly enough it wasn't the most terrifying: the most terrifying was driving back (to the same place) at night time, in the summer, and feeling like it was snowing... for ashes from a huge fire about 20 kilometers away (?) were raining down the sky and covering everything. I could hardly see the road and didn't understand at first what was happening.
It impacted the north of Bordeaux too. from Thursday to saturday, a lot of small fields/forest in Charente/Charente maritime started to catch fire because of the embers. The smoke was also so dense it completly modified the local climate and fucked up the wind prevision (i know because i was suppose to wingfoil all afternoon saturday and we had no wind until like 18-19), also dropping the temperature 2-3C (150km away).
That’s a common idea but I don’t think it holds up to scrutiny.
Putting poetry to music has a long history: see Homer, for example. And I don’t think there is much continuity between people that were writing poetry who later started writing rap. Different worlds, different audiences.
I do agree that some of the cultural desire for complex and creative language-play definitely is met in hip hop and rap, though.
I can see them as a shared fate for a couple reasons:
* the obvious one is Elon - both valuations are largely propped up on belief in Elon. Whenever he falters, his companies that are speculation-based (all of them) will take a hit
* Elon pitched SpaceX as an AI company. Tesla needs better AI because they keep sending signals that they won't be at L5 anytime soon, and Tesla's valuation is still very speculative[0]at least in part due to the race to L5 autonomy. i.e. Tesla will need better AI , and SpaceX is that natural fit (on paper, at least, I'm not sure SpaceX has any useful AI for any use case, let alone self-driving).
[0] Tesla's PE ratio of is still 30x massively out of line with it's actual earnings and ~30x the American automotive industry.
> Tesla needs better AI because they keep sending signals that they won't be at L5 anytime soon.
China now insists that self-driving cars be "SAE level 3.5" if they let the driver take their hands off the wheel. "If the driver fails to respond within the specified timeframe or is physically unable to take control (e.g., due to unconsciousness), the system must automatically initiate a Minimal Risk Manoeuvre (MRM). This includes the ability to change lanes and park the vehicle safely in a location that does not obstruct traffic, while minimising risks to passengers and other road users."[1] That takes effect in China July 1, 2027. Mercedes Drive Pilot is close to this level. Tesla, not even close.
That's probably the right answer in the assisted self driving space.
There are rumors that the next step is a TSLA-SPCX merger. Each company has something that Elon wants but is hard to get: Elon has super-voting controlling shares of SPCX, but TSLA is part of the S&P500.
Once a company is listed, exchange rules prohibit adding super-voting shares, it has to be done prior to listing. In order to qualify for the S&P500 a company has to have a large enough market cap and be net profitable over an entire year in the market. It seems unlikely that SPCX will qualify for that bar in the foreseeable future.
However, a merger can combine both features into one company. TSLA recently rechartered in Texas, which makes it very hard for shareholders to sue. Presumably most of the TSLA shareholders today like Elon Musk, so they would be okay with the merger, and as mentioned above Elon has full control over SPCX. Since they are in totally different markets it is hard to see what sorts of anti-trust arguments even a hostile government (e.g. Europe or Democratic state level AG's) could convince a judge of. But he does kinda need the merger to seem like something of equal companies, not an acquisition of a failing company by a successful one, so that he can keep both of the features that he wants.
> (A) TSLA recently rechartered in Texas, which makes it very hard for shareholders to sue. (B) Presumably most of the TSLA shareholders today like Elon Musk.
If (B) was true before (A) happened, it's very likely it changed after that.
Elon likes his companies financially intertwined. He convinced the Tesla board to invest in xAI to help get it off the ground, which converted to SpaceX stock after the merger, so Tesla has about $2B in SpaceX stock on its balance sheet. SpaceX is also a pretty major customer of Tesla's batteries and cyber trucks and they're partners for his terrafab scheme. Plus, Elon is likely to sell some of his personal 15% stake in Tesla if he feels it's necessary to help SpaceX, which is his favorite child. The financial ties are likely to get stronger over time.
Also, the vibe is harshed, which is actually the most important factor for these kinds of wild valuations.
It would seem extremely dumb for a market stock to move significantly, based only on livestreams of designated test missions.
I mean wow, the Starship test flight today probably gave a lot of useful data during the countdown and fueling and preparations. I sort of had deja vu because there was recently another aborted launch (Electron? Rocket Lab?) where the engines ignited at T-00:00, and shut down immediately.
It was honestly majestic to watch that machine shut down gracefully and abort for the day. Nonetheless, it failed to influence my stock purchase decisions in the slightest.
How many years till it works and it's in service for regular missions? SpaceX says just a few more test flights hopefully, it's years later from earlier optimistic completion dates and they made progress of course, but it's not close.
I'd say 4-5 years. It's huge and impressive and has lots of development work left.
> It would seem extremely dumb for a market stock to move significantly
The stock market has been doing extremely dumb things for as far as I personally remember. It’s an aggregate of biased and dumb actors chasing trends, so that’s pretty much expected
Whats the point of taking passengers if they aren't going to be paying attention. Leave them on the ground and take someone who actually enjoys the experience.
reply