$OUST Cheer up on an ugly day! 😎
In a @redbull stunt at Scania’s truck test grounds in Sweden, mountain biker Matt Jones attempts to jump his bike between two moving trucks, through an impossible gap that exists for less than a second.
The two trucks are autonomously controlled by @Scania_UK, driving in opposite directions with incredible precision to create the tiny window for Matt to jump through. 🚛
And yes — each @ScaniaGroup truck is equipped with 8x @ousterlidar sensors to achieve cm level precision.
It’s only a matter of time before the Republican Party cuts ties with Trump. But the damage has already been done.
BREAKING: Billionaire Republican megadonor Peter Thiel, the Palantir co-founder who helped bankroll JD Vance’s political career, is now breaking with Trump over the Iran war, admitting, “I think we should not have done it. There were a lot of mistakes that were made.” Thiel also warned America could lose its global influence.
If you’re in a red state, vote blue.
If you’re in a blue state, vote red.
Both parties are full of evil motherf*ckers who don’t give a sh*t about voters—and cowards who don’t dare to stand up to the devils.
Put checks and balances in place so neither side gets too comfortable—or too powerful.
TO THE GREAT PEOPLE OF TEXAS, GET OUT AND VOTE FOR:
– Ken Paxton for U.S. Senate
– Greg Abbott for Governor
– Dan Patrick for Lieutenant Governor
– Mayes Middleton for Attorney General
– Don Huffines for Comptroller
– Dawn Buckingham for Land Commissioner
– Nathaniel Moran for U.S. Congress (TX-01)
– Steve Toth for U.S. Congress (TX-02)
– Keith Self for U.S. Congress (TX-03)
– Pat Fallon for U.S. Congress (TX-04)
– Lance Gooden for U.S. Congress (TX-05)
– Jake Ellzey for U.S. Congress (TX-06)
– Jessica Steinmann for U.S. Congress (TX-08)
– Alex Mealer for U.S. Congress (TX-09)
– Chris Gober for U.S. Congress (TX-10)
– August Pfluger for U.S. Congress (TX-11)
– Craig Goldman for U.S. Congress (TX-12)
– Ronny Jackson for U.S. Congress (TX-13)
– Randy Weber for U.S. Congress (TX-14)
– Monica De La Cruz for U.S. Congress (TX-15)
– Pete Sessions for U.S. Congress (TX-17)
– Tom Sell for U.S. Congress (TX-19)
– Mark Teixeira for U.S. Congress (TX-21)
– Trever Nehls for U.S. Congress (TX-22)
– Brandon Herrera for U.S. Congress (TX-23)
– Beth Van Duyne for U.S. Congress (TX-24)
– Roger Williams for U.S. Congress (TX-25)
– Brandon Gill for U.S. Congress (TX-26)
– Michael Cloud for U.S. Congress (TX-27)
– Tano Tijerina for U.S. Congress (TX-28)
– John Carter for U.S. Congress (TX-31)
– Jace Yarbrough for U.S. Congress (TX-32)
– Eric Flores for U.S. Congress (TX-34)
– Carlos De La Cruz for U.S. Congress (TX-35)
– Brian Babin for U.S. Congress (TX-36)
– Jon Bonck for U.S. Congress (TX-38)
These Great Patriots have my Complete and Total Endorsement — They will never let you down! President DONALD J. TRUMP
swampthevoteusa.com/texas/
holy shit $OPEN President stepped down 2 weeks prior to earnings is not a good sign.
Can't you just wait for 2 more weeks and explain it on the earnings call?
What a mess. WTF is going on with this company?
After a great deal of thought, I’ve decided to step down as President of @Opendoor. This was a deeply personal decision, and I’m grateful to have worked alongside an incredible team - working on an incredible mission. Looking forward to staying involved as an advisor. @Nejatian, thank you for everything! 🏡
Despite all these arguments, @elonmusk has little incentive to merge $TSLA into $SPCX at a high valuation. He owns roughly 20% of Tesla but reportedly 48% of SpaceX, with much greater voting power at SpaceX. The lower Tesla's valuation relative to SpaceX, the more favorable the deal could be for Elon in terms of control over the combined company.
That's why I wouldn't expect $TSLA shareholders to get the merger premium they're hoping for.
Why I believe Elon Musk and SpaceX owe Tesla shareholders a substantial acquisition premium.
1/2 - Most people agree that Tesla shareholders will demand a hefty premium to approve a SpaceX acquisition, and rightly so.
But with SpaceX’s revenue and profits accelerating at an incredible pace, driven largely by the insane demand for AI compute and their extraordinary ability to build massive data centers faster and cheaper than most competitors, I can see some Tesla shareholders becoming willing to accept a much smaller premium just to participate in that growth.
IMO, that would be a mistake. And here is why.
I’m not even going to bring up the promises made over the years about taking care of Tesla’s long-term investors. I’ve learned not to base strong convictions on promises. Actions matter a lot more, and there are three important things Tesla shareholders shouldn’t forget:
1. Tesla helped build the talent that helped create xAI.
Elon founded xAI, and some very talented AI engineers who had worked at Tesla ended up joining his new company.
I know Elon explained that those engineers were being aggressively recruited elsewhere and would probably have left anyway. Fine, I can accept that explanation.
But it doesn’t change the fact that Tesla invested years and substantial resources developing talent that ultimately helped build another company controlled by Elon.
Tesla shareholders helped finance that development, yet the economic benefits of xAI’s success ended up largely outside Tesla.
2. The Nvidia GPU diversion.
Back in 2024, roughly 12,000 Nvidia H100 GPUs originally allocated to Tesla were redirected to xAI, delaying Tesla’s access to those chips and remember, this happened when advanced AI GPUs were extremely difficult to obtain.
Elon explained that Tesla’s data center wasn’t ready and those GPUs would have been sitting in a warehouse. Again, that’s a reasonable explanation.
But let’s not pretend xAI wasn’t an enormous priority for Elon. He was racing against time to compete with OpenAI, Google and other AI leaders, and getting those GPUs sooner was a significant advantage.
Whether the decision was justified or not, Tesla’s position in the allocation queue was used to accelerate Elon’s new AI business.
3. SpaceX got xAI, not Tesla.
When Elon decided to combine xAI with SpaceX, he effectively placed one of the fastest-growing AI businesses inside the company where he had substantially more ownership and control.
From Elon’s perspective, I understand why that made sense, but from Tesla shareholders’ perspective? Not nearly as much.
Tesla had spent years positioning itself as an AI and robotics company, yet the enormous potential value of xAI ended up benefiting SpaceX shareholders directly, not Tesla shareholders.
We were left holding the short end of the stick.
And now, with SpaceX reporting extraordinary growth in AI compute revenue, the financial consequences of that decision are becoming increasingly obvious.
These three points matter when negotiating a Tesla acquisition.
I’m sure SpaceX shareholders couldn’t care less about any of this. They want the best possible deal for their company, and I don’t blame them.
But Elon has far greater ownership and voting control at SpaceX, and I believe he has a responsibility to make sure Tesla shareholders are treated fairly.
Many of us have supported Tesla for years, through extraordinary volatility, repeated delays, missed expectations and enormous opportunity costs.
Those who invested around five years ago have seen relatively modest returns compared with what they could have earned elsewhere, while remaining committed to Elon’s vision and supporting him unconditionally.
I’m one of those investors, and I still believe enormously in Tesla’s future.But supporting Elon doesn’t mean giving SpaceX a discount at Tesla shareholders’ expense.
$TSLA $SPCX
#Tesla #SpaceX #ElonMusk #xAI #TeslaShareholders #Merger #AI
"Forterra has integrated AutoDrive across more than 50 vehicle platforms deployed in over ten countries. This includes the Squad Multipurpose Equipment Transport (SMET) program and the Marine Corps ROGUE Fires platform, which recently entered Block 2 production, making it the most widely deployed autonomous driving system in the defense industry and the first system fielded by the U.S. military to enable autonomous maneuver of ground vehicles."
"Forterra’s AutoDrive capability is built upon Forterra’s 24 years of operational experience and over $500 million invested in engineering development and operations. Throughout a multi-year partnership, Ouster digital lidar has been a key part of Forterra’s AutoDrive platform and its operational success."
Each Lancer has two Ouster OS1 lidar sensors. Keep in mind that Lancer is just one of the 50 vehicle platforms integrated with Forterra's AutoDrive, and Forterra is just one of the 1,000 customers of @ousterlidar's. $OUST
$OUST lidar sensors enabled autonomous defense company, Forterra, to complete 1,426 missions and 88 casualty evacuation operations in Ukraine.
“Forterra exists to take people out of harm’s way, and in Ukraine, Lancer is doing that every day under constant drone surveillance,” said Forterra CEO Josh Araujo. “As we advance AutoDrive toward higher levels of autonomy, Ouster sensors give us the perception foundation required by the next generation of vehicles.”
Full press release:
businesswire.com/news/home/2…
While the whole market is cheering for $SPCX , I'm remaining cautious.
The business model is simple: spend astronomical amounts of CapEx building data centers and computing infrastructure, then rent out that compute capacity.
The key is that these investments aren't expensed upfront. They're depreciated over 3+ years. As long as compute rental rates remain high, the income statement can look great. EBITDA looks even better because it adds depreciation back.
Think of it like building houses to collect rent.
But there's a crucial difference: real estate often retains significant residual value. GPUs and servers, on the other hand, can become obsolete within a few years, and their resale value can drop sharply.
In other words, you're not just collecting rent. You're also consuming the value of the assets generating that rent.
We also need to note that profits and cash flow are two very different things.
SpaceX could generate massive EBITDA and even report solid net income, yet still have terrible free cash flow if it needs to spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on new data centers and GPUs.
The entire business model hinges on one simple assumption:
Demand for compute must remain strong, and rental rates must not decline significantly.
Only then can these enormous investments generate sustainable revenue and cash returns.
If compute supply eventually exceeds demand or rental rates collapse, SpaceX could face a serious problem: its assets could lose economic value before they've even been fully depreciated.
At that point, reported earnings might still look healthy, but cash flow and actual returns on invested capital could tell a very different story.
That's why I believe the real test for $SPCX isn't Revenue, EBITDA, or Net Income. It's how much sustainable free cash flow all that CapEx can ultimately generate.
And based on the current CapEx plans, SpaceX will almost certainly need to raise hundreds of billions of dollars in 2027. Otherwise, its cash could run out by early 2028. Even assuming a massive increase in revenue next year, it still won't be nearly enough to cover the spending.
But I still give Elon credit for lifting the AI stocks like $OUST , lol.
$SPCX has pivoted from a pure space giant into a major AI and data center operator. Elon needs the demand for AI compute to stay robust and, crucially, compute pricing to hold at current levels. Otherwise, this heavy CapEx cycle will severely strain the balance sheet.
As for the next few years, I'm not sure if it's going to be smooth sailing, considering the Democratic Party is likely to win Congress—not to mention his friend, the lame Donald Duck. Is that a net positive or negative for @elonmusk and $SPCX ?
There we go! Thank you, inverse @jimcramer . 😂
$SPCX has pivoted from a pure space giant into a major AI and data center operator. Elon needs the demand for AI compute to stay robust and, crucially, compute pricing to hold at current levels. Otherwise, this heavy CapEx cycle will severely strain the balance sheet.
As for the next few years, I'm not sure if it's going to be smooth sailing, considering the Democratic Party is likely to win Congress—not to mention his friend, the lame Donald Duck. Is that a net positive or negative for @elonmusk and $SPCX ?
Guys. Listen up. I have very smart friends that are currently laughing about SpaceX valuations, arguing how it's overvalued and mostly a "hype stock" thanks to Elon
Respectfully, these otherwise smart folks could not be any more wrong. This is precisely the situation we had with Tesla in the late twenty teens before they achieved profitability - a few of us following the company closely knew what was coming, the majority of people were clueless
I think this situation is even more egregious with SpaceX because the average person knows nothing of space, nor of compute, nor of connectivity, nor of SI beyond the chat bots they occasionally use
People are SEVERELY misunderstanding the story and the underlying technology and the resulting competitive moats SpaceX has established
Save this post. Buying SpaceX at a $2T valuation will look like an ABSOLUTE ROBBERY by 2030
As I have been hammering all year, people still largely sleep on the compute lease agreements and the payback periods and continued demand, and now they are sleeping on the hyper-growth adoption rates SpaceX is seeing with Grok Bot as enterprise just gets started
And Elon is DIALED IN. I mean, leather jacket Jensen vibes...the man is in his prime and laser focused. This company is on fire and really is at a serious inflection point. The next few years are going to fun $SPCX
See that LiDAR? @ousterlidar $OUST
Our Co-founder and CEO, @jakeloosy, joined @FoxBusiness to discuss Gecko's $300m contract with the U.S. Navy.
Speaking with @RiggsReport, Jake outlined the importance of this technology to ensure America's ships stay at sea for longer, instead of stuck in drydock.
Gecko can save the Navy up to $8m in repair costs alone per ship, and carry out inspections in a matter of days instead of months. The initial $71m contract was more than quadrupled in the space of six months to $300m following these results.