He’s just going to get people killed. But that’s ok he doesn’t give a shit anyways, so it’s moot. What are a few thousand dead peasants when we could make big stock number go up?

  • Soulg@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    155
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    You have to remember that musk literally, unironically, thinks we’re npcs. He actually genuinely does not think that the masses of poor people are actually people.

    So no, he won’t fucking care.

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      13 days ago

      You got a little extra negative there.

      Not negativity, you can’t overstate the direness. Just grammar.

      He actually genuinely thinks that the masses of poor people aren’t actually people.

    • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      13 days ago

      Pretty sure that level of delusion is comparable to Chris-chan. Which is fitting because if there are two people I want nothing to do with outside of homicide its them. Musk because he is a sub human Anglo African and Chris-Chan because im pretty sure id default to mercy killing them.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          13 days ago

          General disconnect from tbe underlying functions of reality. In the case of Chris-Chan its a matter of their mind being scrambled by underlying mental health issues and decades of trolling, in Musks case its moreso a matter of being a rich being corrosive as a baseline and him being so narcissistic and maladaptive also a lot of ketamine.

          Frankly I pity Chris-chan, as for Musk I would revel in his death.

          • andros_rex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            12 days ago

            scrambled by underlying mental health issues and decades of trolling

            Hey wouldn’t it be fun if a large group of people spent twenty years convincing a seriously mentally ill person that they have various girlfriends (and trick them into sending porn to those “girlfriends” - usually teenage boys), that Nintendo wants to make their OC official, and then finally that they are an interdimensional goddess with magical powers that needs to have sex with their mom?

            The “Liquid Chris saga” almost seems innocent in comparison to the later shit - but realizing that they probably believed that there was an imposter who had stolen their girlfriend and that Nintendo had been tricked into making the imposter’s Sonichu series… like that’s really fucked up.

            Like, wtf is that other than a mass psychological torture and bullying campaign? Why did no one at any point intervene?

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              There were attampts at intervention but they largely failed, the fact of the matter is there was and is very little legal framework for this type of shit and what does exist is wholly insufficient.

              Personally I am of the documentarian branch when it co.es to observing lolcows, observe but dont interact. If content dries up then thats generally good. Dont harrass dont bother if theyre doing something illegal collect evidence and hand it over to the police, if the police do nothing then you can break them. Serisouly imagine if folks did to the Zoosadists what they did to Chris-Chan.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    12 days ago

    Cool!

    I’ll open up my bakery and sell bread thatbisnhalf saw dust and alteady so old that worms crawl out.

    I’ll sell water that will cure cancer aids and I’ll just hire a few actors to testify to this.

    Man I’m gonna be rich

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 days ago

      And your cancer cure water can be full of sewage and toxins and that’s just fine with Elon Musk, so long as you’re making a profit.

  • DicJacobus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    12 days ago

    Side note, Im still not buying this “Worlds richest man” Label.

    I believe that title still belongs to Vladimir Putin. his wealth is not published though. He Robbed a vast nation blind to the point that he is a living god in Russia.

      • DicJacobus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        12 days ago

        I think its less of a master giving orders to a dog dynamic, and More of a “I’ll have mine, you have yours” dynamic.

        I still dont know if they are fucking crazy enough to try it. but this is whats in the back of my mind with this aggressive and jingoistic rhetoric against Canada, the EU, and Ukraine.

        America may have stepped down from the stage of the Free world, and the Free world may very well be finished. but whats left of it still has nuclear weapons.

    • chilicheeselies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      12 days ago

      He mostly lives off debt with tesla being the collateral. Of tesla shares tank hes going to get margin called so to speak

    • Woht24@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      I’ve been reading for 20+ years that the real richest in the world are oil barons in the middle east. I believe a few people are projected to have up to a trillion dollars in assets/wealth etc, but they aren’t celebs or post about it via publicly traded organisations etc.

      Who knows though

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 days ago

        I mean the House of Saud is worth over a trillion dollars I believe.

        Putin could also easily have over a trillion dollars in assets, but they’d obviously be hidden. Does he? We’ll never know.

    • cia@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 days ago

      If that’s how Putin got rich, Elon is soon to catch up

  • Red_October@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 days ago

    Remember that we’re not allowed to call for violence, but it’s okay when Elon does things like this, because allowing industry to poison whole towns isn’t violence, it’s just capitalism.

    • throwawayainteasy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      12 days ago

      Sharing the names of Musk’s helpers? Not okay.

      Letting nuclear plants operate in a way that risks big swaths of the country uninhabitable? Totally cool.

    • LostWon@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      This horrible for sure, but it’s worth noting they just made it so there are no on-paper repercussions for industry poisoning people. Poor people in rural areas have been getting poisoned (and/or driven from their homes) all along. Major media and unfortunately even EPA officials (as we saw for East Palestine) seem to just ignore or bury it most of the time, similar to the treatment environmental activists have reported when there’s an oil spill/leak and media don’t want to touch it. Here’s the latest example I’ve heard about recently. (I’m not specifically trying to follow this stuff incidentally, but I’m always interested in who corporate media tend to ignore or treat unfairly.)

  • r00ty@kbin.life
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    143
    ·
    13 days ago

    From my point of view from the other side of the Atlantic, you guys in the US don’t have enough regulation as it is. There’s only one class of people that benefit from removal of the regulations you do have, and that’s the top 1%. It’s just going to allow them to do all of the following to make more money, at everyone else’s expense.

    1: Treat their employees worse than they already do, AND put them into dangerous situations legally. 2: Cut corners to save money at the expense of safety. Think airlines, airliner manufacturers, car makers, construction. The list here could be endless. 3: Well, finance/banking regulations. That will be a field day for the finance sector I’m sure.

    I mean the list is potentially endless. But the three points above will keep you busy for long enough I reckon.

    No, I don’t really feel safe even this far away. We’re not immune to all of this anywhere in the world.

    • WideEyedStupid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      13 days ago

      Your list has most of the highlights, but you’re missing 2 really important one: 1. food safety. I guess Americans don’t care what is being sprayed on their vegetables or what diseases their meat might have. And 2. environmental. Burning rivers, even more wildfires, smog in all your cities, toxic waste in your lakes, etc. Don’t think they won’t start polluting like crazy if they can.

      All regulations means ALL regulations; even the ones most people would think are so common sense they don’t expect them to go away. They will. If it makes more money, they’ll get rid of any and all regulations.

      • r00ty@kbin.life
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        13 days ago

        Yeah I stopped at three when I realised I could be there all day when it comes to regulations that private companies need to adhere to. But I would agree those should have been on my abridged list too.

      • naught101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        Number 3 is interesting for me… The finance sector is pretty aware of the need to control stupid risk taking, and the don’t want another GFC, so I guess they’d (broadly) want to keep some of the regulation around that. What else is there? General bad acting and things like excessive fees? That also seems to be a risk driver, in the long term, as it leads to e.g. increased loan defaults… Where do you think the key problems would be?

        Edit: whoops, this was supposed to be in reply to @r00ty@kbin.life

        • freebee@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          12 days ago

          What makes you think big finance likes to keep regulation? Someone’s loss is another one’s profit. Some people become very very rich from financial crises.

          • naught101@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 days ago

            Because market crashes are not good for anyone in the sector… Hence I think the regulations brought in via the FSB in response to the GFC were broadly accepted (though probably with varying degrees of willingness).

            • Mirshe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              And? A lot of the big banking execs, and the rest of the billionaire class in general, seem to largely understand that we’re at the theoretical limit of “line goes up”. They’re happy to squeeze the last bit of juice out of the lemon before they retire to some bunker in New Zealand or whatever.

              Long term thinking is dead in much of the corporate world. The focus isn’t on next year, it’s on next quarter if not next week. A market crash would be easily predictable for a lot of financial firms now - they know what to spot, and the housing crash in 08 showed them that they can jump out pretty scot-free no matter what.

              • naught101@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 days ago

                … seem to largely understand that we’re at the theoretical limit of “line goes up”.

                I’m skeptical of this. I think they are disconnected from a few fairly fundamental realities. Do you have any links that might convince me otherwise?

                The rest of it I agree with, but I don’t know if that’s relevant for their interpretation of market crashes, because I think they see them as internally driven… I might be wrong here though.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 days ago

    Never mind that it is a horrible idea:

    They think know they can just “get rid of” regulations.