A.

TenTen

[A. @Brainmetry]

https://t.co/UR3oImtZkU

[A. @Brainmetry]

@TeslaLarry @teslayoda Cortex 2 is partially operational.

[A. @Brainmetry]

The haters went quiet because Tesla kept shipping. While they were busy mocking and hating, Tesla was rewriting the playbook in cars, autonomy, robotics, and AI.

FSD keeps getting better, Optimus is real, and Tesla is taking back the title as the world’s best-selling EV maker from BYD this year.

At some point, the product just speaks louder than the noise.

[Maxinomics @maxinomics]

SpaceX doesn’t sell rockets. Rockets are the factory

Launch evolved from the core product to an operating expense for building and running whatever products SpaceX wants to put into orbit. Starlink already proved the model works

If orbital data centers prove to work the way many smart people are suggesting, SpaceX gets the highest-margin compute that exists… defended by a launch monopoly no one can match

That's how you get to this valuation and that's why it's hard for a lot of people to swallow. What you're buying is a call option on orbital data centers working, not revenue generated from launch or even Starlink

[A. @Brainmetry]

@cadinvests Yes, just reserved $SPCX

[A. @Brainmetry]

@SpaceX 100%.

Starship solves the mass-to-orbit bottleneck. Starlink solves global connectivity.

Adding orbital AI infrastructure to that stack creates a hardware and software moat that no competitor can even dream of crossing right now.

[Matthew Prince 🌥 @eastdakota]

Welp, that happened faster than I predicted. Thought it would be end of 2027, then early 2027, but agentic traffic growing so fast that bots have now passed human traffic online for the first time in the Internet's history. https://t.co/2zX5bHdhsa

[A. @Brainmetry]

@cadinvests @Wealthsimple Same here too

[A. @Brainmetry]

This is not a real rebuttal. It is a PR-style deflection piece full of ad hominem, excuses, and irrelevant throat-clearing. Dan spends more time calling Tesla Jigsaw a conspiracy theorist, troll, and emotional than clearly addressing the core issue: why has a channel that once benefited enormously from Tesla enthusiasm gone strangely muted or skeptical during some of Tesla’s biggest product and autonomy milestones?

The response actually reinforces the criticism. He admits personal skepticism toward Elon’s claims, admits audience backlash affected the environment, admits they stepped back from coverage, and then tries to dress that up as neutral editorial judgment. That is not transparency, it is soft ideological filtering wrapped in corporate language.

The legal rebrand story, event logistics, production schedules, and “we speak to Tesla regularly” are all side quests. None of that disproves the obvious pattern people noticed. If anything, the sheer length of the response compared with how little it directly answers says everything.

If your defense starts with smearing the critic and ends with “trust us,” you have not refuted the accusation, you have validated it.

[Sawyer Merritt @SawyerMerritt]

Robert Marks on @Tesla FSD (Supervised) after buying a Model Y:

"Its self-driving is the most impressively engineered consumer product since the smartphone. I say this as a practicing electrical and computer engineering professor with decades of experience in algorithms and artificial intelligence.

Among others, I’ve showed off my Tesla to a control theory professor, a retired Marine fighter pilot, and a retired police officer. All were agog.

Whether Tesla ultimately dominates the future of transportation or merely helps ignite it, one thing is clear: the automobile is being reinvented before our eyes. For those like me who grew up thinking of cars as engines, gears, and gas tanks, stepping into a Tesla feels less like buying a new car and more like getting a glimpse of tomorrow."

Full article: https://t.co/ZMF9QJcd45

[A. @Brainmetry]

Notice how actual engineers, AI practitioners, and fighter pilots are consistently blown away by FSD, while the loudest critics are usually people who have never even sat in the car?

The gap between the media narrative and the engineering reality has never been wider. This is exactly what the iPhone moment for transportation looks like.

[A. @Brainmetry]

Cybercab isn’t WAV-compatible, but it’s designed with accessibility in mind. While not WAV-specific, it includes several features to assist people with disabilities.

The Cybercab offers thoughtful accessibility features for easier transfers. However, it’s a compact two-seater primarily designed for passengers who can move from a wheelchair into the seat. They’re actively developing dedicated WAV options for their Robotaxi fleet, which will be based on the larger Robovan.

Key Cybercab accessibility features include:

- Seat height: Matched to standard wheelchair seats, minimizing height differences and making lateral transfers easier.

- Butterfly doors: Open upward and outward, allowing wheelchairs to pull up parallel to the vehicle with ample space to maneuver. No swinging doors obstructing the path.

- Braille on critical controls: For visually impaired users, including the STOP/hazard button and door releases.

- Open cabin: Lacks a steering wheel and pedals, providing good legroom and trunk space for foldable wheelchairs or other mobility devices.

[A. @Brainmetry]

EDS predates politics and will outlast it. It’s been more than 20 years in the making, fuelled by hatred from legacy auto and aerospace industries, advertising companies, unions, and the oil company that funds the relentless targeting of him and his companies by the legacy media.

While it didn’t begin with politics, it certainly amplified the hatred.

[A. @Brainmetry]

@ApoStructura We’ll see a torrent of terrible and relentless criticism of SpaceX, both in video and written form, from now until the IPO and beyond. His video mirrors the nonsense I just read in The Verge; it’s a complete attack, and I’ve included my response below.

[A. @Brainmetry]

This is written by someone who’s clearly very angry, because it’s pure nonsense.

This is not analysis, it is a tantrum disguised as journalism. Comparing SpaceX to WeWork is laughable: WeWork sold vibes, SpaceX built real infrastructure, real cash flow, and real technical dominance.

Markets are forward-looking, not rear-view mirrors, so valuing launch, Starlink, and long-duration optionality is not “financial nihilism,” it is how growth investing works.

Governance concerns are fair to debate, but calling supporters “losers” just exposes the piece as a biased hack job, not a serious argument.

[Lee Roach @leevalueroach]

If you have under $10 million and you are buying Apple, you have voluntarily entered the one fight in all of public markets where you have no edge, no advantage, and no reason to exist.

There are 40 PhDs, three sell-side teams, and a sovereign wealth fund modeling Apple’s next quarter to the penny, and you, with your brokerage app and your podcast opinions, have decided to join that table. You will not find a mispricing in Apple. The mispricing in Apple was arbitraged away before you finished reading the headline.

Meanwhile there is a $90 million industrial parts distributor in Wisconsin that no analyst covers, no fund can buy because the position would take six weeks to build, and no institution will touch because it would not move the needle on a billion-dollar book. That is your table. That is the only table where being small is an asset instead of a punchline. Your size, the thing that feels like a limitation, is the single greatest structural edge available to a human being in public equities, and you are spending it on the most picked-over stock on Earth.

The big funds cannot follow you down here. That is the entire point. Go where they physically cannot fit.

[A. @Brainmetry]

This is lazy legacy valuation thinking.

You cannot apply “typical” valuation metrics to a company building the core infrastructure of the future across launch, satellite constellations, AI compute, communications, and defense. Standard P/S works for mature, low-optionality businesses, not for a company with winner-take-most dynamics, strategic scarcity, and multiple massive future revenue streams.

People made the same mistake with Tesla when they tried to value it like Ford.

SpaceX is not a normal industrial company, so using normal industrial multiples to call it “ridiculous” just proves you do not understand what you are looking at.

[A. @Brainmetry]

Exactly.

A lot of people are still analyzing SpaceX like it is some legacy aerospace contractor, the same way they kept trying to value Tesla like a normal car company. That is the mistake.

These are advanced platform companies with multiple moats, multiple future revenue engines, and in SpaceX’s case, an almost monopoly-level position in key parts of its market.

Comparing that to old incumbents is not analysis, it is cope.

[A. @Brainmetry]

This is written by someone who’s clearly very angry, because it’s pure nonsense.

This is not analysis, it is a tantrum disguised as journalism. Comparing SpaceX to WeWork is laughable: WeWork sold vibes, SpaceX built real infrastructure, real cash flow, and real technical dominance.

Markets are forward-looking, not rear-view mirrors, so valuing launch, Starlink, and long-duration optionality is not “financial nihilism,” it is how growth investing works.

Governance concerns are fair to debate, but calling supporters “losers” just exposes the piece as a biased hack job, not a serious argument.

[A. @Brainmetry]

@mrfundman Where is the link?

[A. @Brainmetry]

@vinbarnes @unclebobmartin You can test drive a Tesla with FSD without renting one. Visit a Tesla dealership or book a test drive online. They’ll even let you test drive it for two days.

Booking is easy online.