What would the alternative have been? Not reporting that they were purchased at all?
The premise here seems to be that spacex purchased the trucks for the sole purpose of inflating the tesla reporting, which of course makes no sense from a business perspective
Elon keeps doing things that make no sense from a business perspective and he’s defended by people who exclaim it couldn’t have happened like that because it makes no sense from a business perspective.
The general behavior of doing things that don't particularly make sense from a business perspective, to make numbers look better, is unfortunately common. People exploit it by doing things like trying to get a discount near end of quarter.
I'm fairly certain that a lot of Musk's recent moves of creating that umbrella AI company, doing things like this, etc. are all to pass around the dept he took on when he purchased Twitter. He's effectively money laundering his debt through a ton of shenanigans.
The unfortunate corollary to that reasoning: Elons shenanigans and election interference were well aimed efforts to create favourable regulations and a regulatory that would directly enrich him and enable more shenanigans.
Seen as a corrupt investment, with DOGE data access in the middle, buying an election through Twitter has been directly profitable for Elon with obvious and visible downstream upsides for his financiers partners and collaborators in such shenanigans.
> What would the alternative have been? Not reporting that they were purchased at all?
They could have purchased any other vehicle, from any other manufacturer. Any other heavy duty truck would be a better choice than the Cybertruck, which is impractical and poorly designed.
> The premise here seems to be that spacex purchased the trucks for the sole purpose of inflating the tesla reporting, which of course makes no sense from a business perspective
It's almost like the owner of SpaceX, which is doing quite well right now, made a decision designed to benefit the owner of Tesla, which is struggling to sell a bunch of 2-ton chrome shitboxes. Wonder what those two individuals have in common. I'm sure that anyone, even you, will be able to figure it out with a little googling.
> The premise here seems to be that spacex purchased the trucks for the sole purpose of inflating the tesla reporting, which of course makes no sense from a business perspective
I think you missed the part where Tesla is overevaluated and any bad news could utterly crush it's share value.
This extension is for "pure" Swift development, not iOS development. I doubt the latter will ever officially happen. It's possible to make it work for iOS at an unofficial capacity though by hooking into the extension's LSP support. We did this at Spotify to enable iOS development in Cursor for Bazel iOS projects: https://github.com/spotify/sourcekit-bazel-bsp
You do need the Android SDK to build, Android Studio makes things easier (even though the Bazel IDE plugin is a whole other topic itself..) but isn't mandatory to develop or run your app.
Are you sure about that? Flutter development for Android works great in VS Code/Codium. The Android extension [0] for VS Code has also worked fine in the past on a small Java-based App for me.
Android Studio is a probably the best IDE for this usecase but is not the only way.
That's just untrue on the face of it. All of the build tools are open and cross-platform. Is there a specific piece of Android Studio that you require for Android app development?
Not certain if this answers the question, but it seemed like you're generally expected to install Android Studio to get the correct build versions of all of the tools and libraries. I guess theoretically you could repackage them yourself, but also not entirely clear why you would—other than perhaps download size. The tools can be driven externally, once installed, but so could XCode projects (with `xcodebuild`).
This is not an expectation, no. Libraries are managed via Gradle or whatever build system you use. Android-specific host tools are Gradle-managed, installed via the sdkmanager tool, or managed via other means; I maintain a repository to install them via Nix [0], and many Linux distributions package them. The Android Studio IDE is not required, and doing so would pretty much break everyone's CI setup.
Incorrect. You can (if you really want to) build an Android app without having any Google tools.
But even if you don't want to do any crazy stuff, Android SDK itself is just a bunch of Gradle scripts and Java apps. You can download and install them without any GUI in the way.
Sorry, but Android and iOS are simply incomparable in their quality. Android SDK is a high-quality tool for developers that provides all the expected interfaces.
iOS SDK is a lock-in GUI hell that requires you to use a shitty macOS-only tool to even _upload_ apps to Apple Store. Never mind doing headless builds in CI/CD. Why that tool is shitty? It uses its own protocol for upload and doesn't do proper PMTU, so if you have a misconfigured MTU somewhere in the chain between you and Apple, uploads will just silently hang.
Just to nit pick a bit, that link is for Android Studio and downloads from the "Google for Developers" website, then instructs how to install and manage the the command line tools using the GUI
Not trying to argue but you can indeed pretty much completely avoid Xcode at this point. I’ve been doing it the past few weeks, including pushing to my phone and AppStore connect
No, you can't. You'll need to hit "xcodebuild" somewhere in the chain. It's just that you can offload it to someone else (e.g. EAS Build) or use pre-built apps that only need JS/LUA/Python code package swapped.
> Because nobody use Swift outside of iOS app development
Because that isn't true, people do use it outside of iOS app dev, and is becoming more true as time goes on to boot.
It's also a chicken-and-egg problem: no one will use Swift for non-iOS tasks if the tooling support isn't there. The more investment into it, the more it will be picked up for other tasks.
But it's been used outside of Apple-specific things since the early days in various niches.
I hate that I need to create an Apple account (with email and phone verification) just to be able download the sdk to use MacOS APIs. To make things worse I tried for like one hour to create an account and couldn't because for some reason I was no receiving the verification email.
1. Tesla was priced at $2.5b end of 2010.
2. Tesla started production that year of the model S, with nearly 500km range and 0-100 in 4.4 seconds, still competitive 16 years later. It was an obvious disruption of a proven market.
3. that car market was valued at half a trillion at the time.
So Tesla being valued at 0.5% of the market, with disruptive technology, seems fine. Of course it was a moonshot, but hindsight is 20/20.
But what is the total market here that it's stepping into? Seems like SpaceX is servicing the majority of the market for years, yet it just has 16 billion revenue. How that gets you to 1.75 trillion, I don't know.
Tesla's highest market cap in 2010 was $3.3B. Tesla has more net income, sometimes multiples more, per year, from 2021 to 2025.
For comparison, it is routine to see sale prices of 3x to 5x revenue for many, many kinds of everyday businesses that have much less potential than Tesla.
There are very, very few businesses whose shares one could have purchased in 2010 that performed better over the subsequent 15 years. That is about as objective as one can get about determining whether or not something was under or over valued (in 2010).
Let’s ignore things like the pedoguy incident and his ridiculous defense it was South African slang.
Or how he helped dismantle USAID which leads to real death of people.
You’re being spoiled with not having a fake PR mask. He‘s just spared from real consequences because of his wealth. As soon as real consequences are at the horizon that changes pretty quickly. It just happens too rarely.
Society seems to favor sociopaths who destroy everything for their own benefit.
Do you think DOGE has done something good or did it just help authoritarians to dismantle opposition?
Since Musk, Trump, Thiel & Co. started to implement their vision of a society the world turned to the worse.
And they won‘t be the one who habe to endure the harsh consequences
Worth noting that this model, unlike almost all qwen models, is not open-weight, nor is the parameter count exposed. Also odd that it is compared against opus 4.5 even though 4.6 was released like 2 months ago.
"[...] In the coming days, we will also open-source smaller-scale variants, reaffirming our commitment to accessibility and community-driven innovation. [...]"
In a practical sense, I'm primarily interested in small to medium sized models being open. I think that might be common sentiment.
However, my hope is that there will be at least somewhat competitive big and open models as well, from an ethical/ideological perspective. These things were trained on data that was provided by people without their consent, so they should at least be be publicly accessible or even public domain.
Qwen3.5-Plus is the largest variant of the open weight Qwen3.5 model, expanded with a 1M context window and fine-tuned on the Qwen-native harness’ specific tools.
Qwen 3.5 Plus was closed weights too. It was supposedly the same model as Qwen3.5 397B, just with 1 million context size and only available on the API and their website.
This is of course true as a blanket "gotcha" headline- although I wouldn't call a failed test the CI itself failing. A real failure would be a false positive, a pass where there wasn't coverage, or a failure when there was no breaking change. Covering all of these edge cases can become as tiresome as maintaining the application in the first place (of course this is a generalization)
True, but you can't have complete tests without 100% coverage. It's a necessary, but not a sufficient condition; as long as it doesn't become the sole goal, it's still a useful metric.
The premise here seems to be that spacex purchased the trucks for the sole purpose of inflating the tesla reporting, which of course makes no sense from a business perspective
reply