It does seem a bit weird to me that SpaceX was never based out of Houston and has such a small presence. They have the NASA base there and scores of private space companies, and the lack of zoning means the housing problem is permanently fixed (at least until someone zones the city). Moving Starlink production to Austin just feels like moving to a worse but slightly cheaper San Francisco.
Well Houston has a massive space industry too (hence why they call it "space city"). My thought has always been that he's been becoming more frustrated with CA for many years, but he just moved from SF to LA, and now he's moving From LA to Austin and Starbase, when (in my mind) it would make more sense to build and design the starlink satellites (among other things) in Houston where the space industry is much stronger.
You do bring up a good point about JPL being in LA, which would certainly have been why he originally started SpaceX there. That used to be the only focus of the company. I was thinking more about starlink just because that's what the article focuses on (among a few other things)
Maybe it was competition in the 1980's with the soviets trailing, but with the fall of the USSR in 91' the competition was over. Through the 90's and 2000's NASA and the DoD kept pushing new exploratory technology and increasingly advanced and technical engine designs.
SpaceX was notorious for eschewing experienced rocket scientists and grinding out work from novice engineers, but I think it is fair to say they still benefited from the pool of experience they did tap into.
I'm afraid you underestimate Moscow space cluster. In '90s, even in '00s their rocket engines - not quite from Moscow, a few kilometers away, from Khimki - remained world class. Realized project from, among others, Korolyov, less than an hour of drive from Moscow - Sea Launch, not realized but seriously pushed - Kliper. In 80's they might be unquestioned champions, not trailing - but I don't know your criteria, it's just what I see. Moscow had Proton-making factory, two significant space-relevant universities - MAI and MGTU, and several strong technical universities also related to space industry - MGU, MFTI, MEI... And there are others. So, in terms of being "the rocket design capital of the world", if you consider "rocket" to mean "space projects", Moscow with immediate neighboring region - not Soviets - was until recently (2008?.. later?..) pretty competitive. What LA region has of similar effects?
Houston has mission control, lots of astronaut training, and a lot of administration in Houston. But Pasadena CA has the Jet Propulsion Lab, which is a big part of the design of the rockets and robots and what not.
The Los Angeles area in general has lots of aerospace engineering: besides JPL, Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing each have a big presence, not to mention the plethora of smaller defense contractors.
I lived in Lompoc, CA for a while (next to Vandenberg -- which is a really cool experience, the rocket launches were absolutely amazing). I had always assumed that the El Segundo presence was in big part due to access to Vandenberg for launches.
That's an odd way of saying they work in an office. Most jobs have been back in the office for ~3 years now, it's really just remote or office work now.
Seems like this would be disruptive to lot of people who would have to uproot their families and move to a new state to keep their job? Kids would have to change schools, spouses get new jobs. Leave neighbors/friends/families. All because of one persons culture war grievances
Yea, it's a meme but let's not exaggerate. When you consider total[1] tax burden, including property tax, income tax, sales and other taxes, California is high, but not the highest, and Texas is low but not the lowest.
There are many other states that also have lower taxes than California that don't have the massive cultural downsides of Texas. Honestly, if I were planning to move out of California (I probably never will) and wanted to pick a state to live in, there are a lot of factors that would come into play and taxes are probably not even top 5. It's just not that big a deal.
sales and property tax aren't trivial, and you'll get some weird cultural artifacts on either side of the Cascades -- literal Portlandia on one side, insane Idaho-militia-wannabes on the other.
“High taxes” is really a question of how rich you are: Texas famously does not have an income tax but they compensate with other taxes and that ends up making it much closer, possibly even in California’s favor, for most people:
Texas also has worse public services so you’re going to be paying more out of pocket for replacements, too, and spending more time indoors due to the climate and lack of things like parks.
Now, if you’re the boss this is fine because you have such high income that the difference in property and local taxes doesn’t come anywhere near cancelling out your savings on income taxes, but that’s not true for most employees. Everyone I know who’s moved from California, DC, or NYC moved back because it wasn’t really cheaper and the quality of life was so much lower.
Yes, those employees will be paying even higher property taxes because their homes will cost more than the U.S. median, which will further lower the benefits of moving to Texas for them.
They use the national 75th percentile household income of $75k, while more local figures have LA at $76k, Austin at 89k, Dallas at $65k, and the Bay Area at $126k so it’s going to under-weight the income tax savings for SF more than anyone else.
Tesla’s median employee earns $45k since they have a lot of manufacturing jobs. SpaceX and X appear to have medians in the low $100k range which gives a household a California income tax rate around 8% or, for a working couple, something like a $16-20k versus the higher local taxes in Texas. Again, likely a modest savings but it’s not transformative the way it is for their boss whose income has 3+ extra zeros on the end.
As someone who actually moved to Texas from California I am calling bs. I pay less in local taxes than I did in CA despite my income growing more than double. It's not just the lack of income tax but also lower sales tax, lower vehicle taxes, lower insurance, lack of CA payroll taxes.
And as for lack of parks and inferior public services, I have not noticed anything like that. Parks in Austin are actually useful as the trails are not blocked by tent cities, like in LA, and the main public service that I use, roads, is vastly superior here too. Frankly I don't even know how they managed to keep roads and streets in such a bad shape in LA, where the temperature never drops below freezing.
I agree with Musk about the California law, but a CEO is supposed to make decisions for a company to increase shareholder value (and arguably benefit other stakeholders), not to make political points.
'His disclosures followed the move by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, to sign a new law Monday that aims to prevent schools from informing families if their children identify as gay or transgender.
“This is the final straw,” Musk wrote on X, the social-media platform he owns. He cited the law as well as “many others that preceded it, attacking both families and companies.”'
>“This is the final straw,” Musk wrote on X, the social-media platform he owns. He cited the law as well as “many others that preceded it, attacking both families and companies.”'
Man who hates that his trans child hates him angry that the government isn't forcing trans children to tell their hateful parents they're trans.
If your children aren't comfortable telling you things like this, that's a failure of you as a parent. I'm not going to pretend there isn't social contagion or a bunch of teenagers questioning things out of peer pressure or that actual rates of transness are much lower than their visibility or a million other things. What I am saying is that if your kids are not comfortable talking to you about serious topics like this, you've failed as a parent. Your kids should know you'll love them no matter what and will support them in trying to build a happy life for themselves.
My friend's child believes they are trans, and while the parents are skeptical, there was never any doubt in that kids mind that their parents should know what they are going through and feeling or that they would love them no matter what.
I think this is a very important post; thank you for writing it. In general, if your kids don't trust you then fixing that should be your first priority before you start pointing fingers everywhere but inward.
Parenting looks very very hard and I'm not implying this is easy - being worthy of trust is one of the hardest things in all our relationships. I do, however, think people need to reckon with the fact that a lot of the time the bad thing teachers are protecting kids from (or at least trying to) is their home life.
This is a bad solution to a bad problem. I dont think teachers are qualified to do this nor do I think they are in a position to do it safely but I do think it is important to help kids get out from under abuse.
I think more community would be a better general solution so it isn't just an underpaid, overworked, and opinionated government employee vs an underpaid, overworked, and opinionated parent with the kid crushed in the middle with no outside help they can turn to.
> if your kids don't trust you then fixing that should be your first priority before you start pointing fingers everywhere but inward
While the present state of Musk and his daughter's relationship is detestable, I don't think we can conclude they didn't try--in private--to mend the relationship before she concluded it was a lost cause.
There's some interesting behavioral evolutionary calculus that might be interesting here though. If you find out your kid is trans there is a much lower chance they pass on your genes, could it be natural for the relationship to be more likely to break down after that?
I would think evolution would tend to more or less force the most parental resources to go to the most likely propagation of those genes. Especially if there are lots of other children to vie for attention and resources.
> If you find out your kid is trans there is a much lower chance they pass on your genes, could it be natural for the relationship to be more likely to break down after that?
While we know transexuality—people having gender identities or conforming to gender norms other than those corresponding to their assigned sex—is preserved across millennia and disparate cultures [1], it’s unclear if it generalises beyond humans [2].
We do, however, see homosexuality across both time and cultures in humans and in animals [3]. That preservation strongly implies evolutionary benefits, whether as a side effect or—more likely, given its strong presentation in social animals—group selection.
So no, I don’t think there is evolutionary pressure for parents to reject trans (or gay) kids. Especially when they’re in a resource rich state.
> not sure history shows parents have on average been comparatively kind to gay children
Historically parents weren’t kind to any children because they were costly and died a lot. (Almost no ancient culture condemned—as we do today—a parent exposing an unwanted baby, for instance, for reasons ranging from birth defect to family rivalry [1]. This behaviour, too, in conserved in animals [2].)
There was a good thread on this a few days ago [3], but TL;DR gay stigmatisation is more recent than homosexuality (or trans sexuality). The behaviour that is older and better conserved across geography and cultures is the underlying one, not the negative backlash. (Also conserved: bad parents.)
Using absolute across the board lesser investment to dismiss comparative investment is a bit sloppy and a red herring.
The thread you reference is criminality and infanticide, not parental prioritization of kids old enough to be known as gay/trans. I suspect most people don't know if their infant is gay/trans. I also assert there is a difference between prioritizing relationships and resources on a parent to child level and views on what should be illegal.
A gay or trans person probably has as much evolutionary value to society as anyone else, the fallacy you've fallen into from your prior post is to confuse that population level dynamic with the parents drive to pass on their particular genes.
It seems absolutely insane to me that it isn't even possible to consider the parent has an instinct to prioritize relationships and resources with children most likely to reproduce. It seems some want to work hard to make sure it isn't seen as a reasonable hypothesis, because if it were those feelings would be as valid and baked in as homosexual feelings.
> thread you reference is criminality and infanticide
The point is historically--and across the animal kingdom--the default is parents minimally "prioritising relationships and resources on a parent to child level." Irrespective of odds of survival.
> fallacy you've fallen into from your prior post is to confuse that population level dynamic with the parents drive to pass on their particular genes
The drive to pass on genes is biological. It operates at the individual and group levels. We have no evidence the desire to pass on one's genes has any biological roots; reckless abandon produces more offspring, after all, and plenty of species, including humans, show both kin preference and out-of-group sympathies.
> insane to me that it isn't even possible to consider the parent has an instinct to prioritize relationships and resources with children most likely to reproduce
We're having a discussion. It's being considered. The problem is the evidence is stacked against it. If a phenotype is conserved across animals and humans, the simplest hypothesis is it has utility. At that point, evolutionary pressure at all levels will tend to work to conserve it. Including through parental instincts.
> some want to work hard to make sure it isn't seen as a reasonable hypothesis
It's a reasonable hypothesis. The problem is it has no evidence for it and plenty for the null. Pigs roll over and smother their piglets. That isn't a sign of hidden selection pressure, it's just bad parenting.
That said, I'm not cleanly rejecting it. We don't yet have a good model for the genetic basis of mental disorders. And a lot of mental disorders, e.g. a tendency towards random violence, could have served someone well in antiquity. So it very well could be that parents rejecting kids who won't have children in high school is innate to some. But again, we have no evidence for it.
The motherfucker has 11 kids _that we know about_, maybe he should stop being so worried about passing on his genes Nick Cannon-style, and more worried about being a father to the ones he has.
> What I am saying is that if your kids are not comfortable talking to you about serious topics like this, you've failed as a parent. Your kids should know you'll love them no matter what and will support them in trying to build a happy life for themselves.
When Hacker News hits the heartstrings. Great life principle, rjbwork.
She is quoted saying she no longer wishes "to be related to [her] biological father in any way, shape or form" [1]. Musk has publicly ranted about the estrangement, which isn't usually how one mends ties with family [2]. While I have no personal insight into the situation, it's fair to say Musk hates the estrangement and that his child, at the very least, wants nothing to do with him.
This is discussed in the Walter Isaacson biography that came out last year. Saying he “hates” his daughter is completely wrong and ignores first hand claims from both Musk and his biographer.
>Musk only learned she had transitioned through a secondhand source
>The wife of Elon's brother got a text, Isaacson wrote, which said: "Hey, I'm transgender, and my name is now Jenna". The text from the child, as in the biography, added: "Don't tell my dad."
>The biographer said that Musk was "generally sanguine" when he found out she had transitioned but was hurt when she cut off communication with him.
>The rift pained him more than anything in his life since the infant death of his firstborn child Nevada," Isaacson wrote of Musk's feelings about his relationship with his 19-year-old daughter.
>Isaacson said that Musk blamed the disconnect between him and his daughter on her schooling at Crossroads, a private school she attended in Los Angeles. Musk has made similar comments publicly.
>Last year, he told the Financial Times his daughter didn't want to be associated with him because of what he called the "full-on communism" taught in schools.
Yeah it's pretty crazy considering Musk's own family backstory. Is he butthurt that his transgender child went no-contact on him before he could kick them out of the family himself?
Elon doesn't live with most of his kids - why would he even care? His reason for moving is the taxes are less in Texas for now and the laws will turn a blind eye to environmental damage his companies do. As the population continues to grow in Tx that will change. Elon should be required to get a trolling license.
Yes - I agree (I am a parent) that the law is stupid. If a kid doesn't want their parents to know something they should do it the old fashion way and lie as I did and my parents did before me etc:)
My favorite thing lately is that NYT dedicated and entire article [1] to Elon goal 1 million people on Mars in the next twenty years. Tesla has been working almost that long not getting self driving cars to work. Why on Earth would anyone bother to take seriously putting 1 million people on Mars in 20 years - something several orders of magnitude more difficult.
> Yes - I agree (I am a parent) that the law is stupid. If a kid doesn't want their parents to know something they should do it the old fashion way and lie as I did and my parents did before me etc:)
The law seems to be about making it possible for kids to lie without the school snitching on them. You should be in favor of this law, no?
Exactly. The law is about preventing abuse from fundamentalists towards their children. If the school must snitch and the school must report then a person who believes their kid being gay will go to hell will abuse their child until they pretend to no be gay.
First the :) means I was somewhat joking. Second as much as I love CA the state has become increasingly interested in creating unenforcible and intrusive laws. Although I can see a case for protecting children from abusive parents (we have laws for that already) it seems to ignore other things. Like the following:
1. AFAIK - If a kid decides to change their pronoun around their friends the school is not required to report that now and would likely not even know or care. If they do no make an official request to Teachers or staff etc then who's to know. This reminds of when fundamentalist claimed prayer was banned in schools. That has never been the case. School lead or Staff lead prayer was banned. Any child that wished to pray before eating lunch was totally free to do so.
2. It assumes that knee jerk reaction on the part of all fundamentalist parents. (feels weird for an atheist to defend fundamentalist but here we are)
3. Where's the data to back this decision up?
4. There are likely situations where it might be important for the parent to know what their child is doing. What if they are in a cult and want to change their name to unintelligible gibberish - wait Musk is probably ok with that. What if someone is convincing them to get illegal surgery?
LGBTQ kids report homelessness at much higher rates than their peers[1], are heavily over-represented in foster care[2], and report substantially higher rates of abuse[3].
In what way will this law prevent or improve the situation?
This law seems to be in reaction to laws that were passed in other states requiring the reporting. We don't have that in CA. Having looked at your sources I would agree there are problems but pronoun protection seems to be the least useful solution and likely posturing by certain politicians with Presidential ambitions. IMHO
Some school districts in California already tried to implement forced outing policies. The policies were tied up in California courts so they weren't in practice but this law cuts them off completely. It also lays the groundwork and starts the process of fending off legal challenges that will hopefully make laws like this easier to pass in other states. Agreed that there are many related issues that CA and elsewhere should be tackling. But we aren't talking about the law because its proponents think its a complete solution, were talking about it because Elon and many others are apoplectic about this simple common-sense policy.
> Although I can see a case for protecting children from abusive parents (we have laws for that already)
There are laws preventing gross abuse, yes, but there’s still a great deal of harm which won’t get action or won’t get it in time. If you beat your gay/trans child, yes, the cops are in your future but you can ground them forever, surround them with people who tell them they’re going to burn in hell for expressing their identity, or ship them off to some kind of unregulated Bible camp/school and likely see no consequences.
Not LGBT but if you haven’t read Jesus Land, it’s brutal and a good reminder of what happens at these private “reform” schools – and I note that the decades of abuse finally being disclosed meant that a different church bought it and hired many of the staff:
That’s a common problem with laws like this: they sound over the top - and will be the target for lazy jokes – because they’re focused on stopping the edge cases which most people aren’t really aware of.
Sure, but about what? To me it came across as "I acknowledge my kids' right to privacy and chose to phrase this humorously". Now it sounds more like "I deny my kids' right to privacy and chose to phrase this humorously".
> 3. Where's the data to back this decision up?
As I understand it from other posters, individual schools had already ordered their teachers to snitch to parents. (How is that for government overreach?) The bill still allows teachers to snitch to parents, it just prevents the school from ordering them to snitch.
"The measure Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Monday, is the first to rebuke laws in a handful of other states that say educators must alert parents if a student requests to go by a different name or pronouns. At least 10 states say educators and classmates don’t have to use a student’s name or pronouns if it doesn’t align with a student’s sex assigned at birth." [1]
> So the law was passed to fix a problem that does not exist in CA.
No, it wasn't. The article is, at best, abusing "rebuke" to mean "buck the trend", but the law does not literally rebuke foreign state laws.
It addresses two related issues, both of which do, in fact, exist in California:
(1) It provides school-based support and resources for LGBTQ+ students and families thereof responsive to research on specific needs of that community, including the significant effect of family support on well-being,
(2) It prohibits local districts from forced-outing policies, which have been adopted by at least four districts (at least one of which has been forced to put enforcement on hold because of a temporary restraining order issued in a lawsuit brought against the policy), and are under discussion by more than a dozen more.
I understand what it does. I asked a different question - is it necessary? Please give your references. I am not able to find any data on school districts in CA doing what you said. It could very well be true - I would likely change my opinion with more info.
I do not disagree with the intent of the law. Previously I was pointed to a bunch of research on foster care LGBTQ+ youth in good knows what state being bullied or having problems with their foster care. None of which specifically pertained to CA. I do not see how we can continue to create laws to solve problems we do not understand. CA is a large state and can afford to do the home work. S
So let me see if this is a rephrasing of your point: I don't need this sort of protection so no kid should be protected because I think that protection hasn't been proven effective and the school shouldn't need to be a safe space for kids if the circumstances of their birth affect that.
Totally missed the point I'm afraid so I don't feel bad or inhuman like you intended. I asked multiple questions
1. What data backs up the law? Answer a bunch of studies primarily on foster kids in some unidentified State. This could be a state like Louisiana for example. So it did not answer the quest whether CA had this problem and had nothing to do with districts policy.
2. What does the law accomplish? If it is intended to help foster kids it may do so tangentially but given we don't see studies on CA foster kids I guess we still don't know.
3. Is this a problem in CA? It was commented by several people that districts in CA were trying to make reporting mandatory. No references or data were supplied. I finally found my own reference and supplied it to the thread.
There is actually a district, Chino, was trying to to make it a policy. My mind has now changed about the law.
To paraphrase you - "So let me see if this is a rephrasing of your point: I am not going to put forth the mental effort necessary to take you points seriously so I will make a snide comment instead."
Given the current CA tax situation and the fact that other companies have already led the way he's probably doing just that. Besides my understanding was that the bill was "the last straw" according to Musk.
To be clear, the main animating force in Elon's life over the last few years is his oldest coming out as trans. That's why he bought Twitter and turned it into a nonstop Klan rally, that's why he supports Trump, that's why he opposes this law. His first-born is trans.
Isn't the legislative climate and the perceived wisdom of a state's political leadership something that might reasonably impact shareholder value? Can making political points ever increase shareholder value in and of itself? Isn't that sort of the premise of ESG?
Musk pretending to care about children is like an animal hoarder claiming to care about the welfare of the 20 dogs they have crammed into a small house.
