Paul Jacobson

Delivering fact-based market analysis. Two degrees in biomedicine.

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

That's not evidence that the vehicle was an empty shell. LeCun is making a theoretical estimate based on assumptions about mass and propulsion, not presenting specifications or an inspection of the actual prototype.

Tesla's own website explicitly describes the Rocket as a one-seater.

I agree that compressed-air propulsion severely limits flight duration. But that doesn't establish your claims about missing components or a fake car.

You're presenting an inference as a verified fact. Those are two very different things.

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

You're making a legitimate criticism of Tesla's marketing, but you're undermining it with claims that aren't supported by evidence.

First, calling the Roadster an "empty shell" or a "drone disguised as a car" doesn't make it so. Where is the evidence that it had no functional drivetrain, battery, or other essential vehicle components?

Second, saying the technology has existed for decades completely misses the engineering challenge. The individual technologies may not be new, but integrating high-pressure propulsion, precise thrust-vector control, and stabilization into a vehicle-sized platform capable of performing controlled aerial maneuvers is not trivial.

By your logic, almost any engineering breakthrough could be dismissed because its underlying principles were already understood.

Third, a prototype demonstration is not the same thing as a production vehicle. That's a perfectly reasonable distinction to make, and Tesla absolutely deserves scrutiny over what it can realistically deliver, especially given its history of missed Roadster deadlines.

But there's a considerable difference between saying "Tesla hasn't demonstrated a commercially viable flying car" and claiming "Elon staged a fraudulent demonstration with an empty shell."

The former is a defensible technical criticism. The latter requires evidence you haven't provided.

I would actually like Tesla to disclose the prototype's exact weight, battery configuration, drivetrain, thrust duration, and how closely it represents the intended production version.

Until then, skepticism is justified. But dismissing a potentially impressive engineering achievement simply because you dislike the person presenting it isn't objective analysis either.

You can criticize Musk's marketing without pretending the engineering is meaningless.

[iwwon @iwwon_official]

Yesterday was Elon’s greatest magic trick.

It got everybody believe an amazing technological gap had just been made.

I got fooled too.
At first, I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. I was so excited.
And don’t get me wrong , the technology, the precision at which the car did what it did, was fabulous.

However, it was not a car doing it.

And that is the true, Machiavellic genius of Elon.

There is no flying car.
There is no car at all.

It was an empty shell. As light as possible. No seats. Nothing.
Full of gas tanks.

With a maximum of 2 secs of thrust usage.

In other words, it was a drone.

A drone with a shell that looked like a car.

Imagine if it had been a square piece of metal instead.

You would have said “nice”.

The truth is, it is nothing more than that.

It was not the car that you will see in the street. It was just a piece of light metal, that had the same body as the one you wil buy.

The technology exists since a long time.

If nobody did it, it’s not that they didn’t think about it’s it’s because it is not sustainable.

It is not achievable.

So why were we fooled ?
Because most people can’t imagine the biggest entrepreneur and genius of our century would have put millions into a show and be ruthless enough to put a fake car in a demonstration with the goal of selling something that will have nothing to do with what he is showing.

It was a show. A spectacle. Pure manipulation. Ruthless, immoral marketing.

The whole “ socialism vs capitalism” or “Europe vs America” we are seeing is the result of a fabulously done propaganda.

The car doesn’t fly.
It never will.

Most importantly,

there wasn’t any car on that show.

But the brainwashed idiots that we are will rush to buy it, waiting for another two years ( 9 have passed already since the preorders), only to receive something that has nothing to do with what we have seen.

Expect the shell.

But in 2026, it seems it is what we are. Empty shells for which entertainment and lies are enough to make us dance like apes.

Porsche maybe didn’t do a flying demonstration.

But at least they will deliver exactly what they have shown. And it will drive better than any Tesla ever will ( especially if it weights two fugging tons).

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

@MarciSilfrain Subscribed on youtube, looking forward

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

@AngelaBelcamino I have a feeling like the right liked you from the get go. I.e even before you turned.

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

@carlmoon Carl is on some flat earth shit.

[jfab @josefabregab]

It may sound like a joke, but @TheLinkPanda is right: @Chainlink does fix this.

Today, a network disruption at Nasdaq’s Carteret facility caused intermittent gaps across its U.S. equities data feeds. Even both the primary A and secondary B feeds from Carteret were impacted.

Chainlink Data Streams are specifically designed to make onchain markets more resilient to this.Instead of depending on a single exchange feed or data source, Data Streams aggregate market data from multiple primary and backup sources, then process it through a decentralized oracle network.

The feeds also include timestamps and market-status metadata, allowing applications to identify stale prices, detect market interruptions and implement safeguards such as pausing trading or freezing positions. So if one venue or data path goes down, an onchain market doesn’t have to blindly consume stale data or immediately lose its pricing infrastructure.

Multiple data sources → decentralized aggregation → stale-data detection → circuit-breaker logic.

This is exactly the kind of redundancy you need if tokenized equities are going to trade onchain at scale.

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

@carlmoon @aibek_design Dude are you for real?

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

@lolitadiariess @takoraism Ouch

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

@Giuliano_Mana 100%. Its uncomprehensible unless you can do it yourself. In other words... No one understands how intelligent he was.

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

@TheH0n3stTrader The only way they would be thankful is if they lived out two timelines simultaneously. One where they listened to this advice and one where they didn’t.

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

@MarciSilfrain Where will the livestream be broadcasted? On youtube? X?

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

@RaminNasibov That one was really pretty. Did you use AI for this?

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

@fergalpha As the spartans said: ”If”.

[Chainlink @chainlink]

CCIP 2.0 is officially live.

The infrastructure for the next $600 trillion in onchain finance is now in your hands.

🧵⬇️

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

@TheMarinesX Nice space but why "The war room" 😂😂😂😂

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

@dsanger34 @DiGiTxero 🤣

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

@chaseposts @TheH0n3stTrader 🤣

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

@Bradgohtrades playbook

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

@E_Invests Jag tycker inte det är fel att deriska när det finns många osäkerheter i marknaden!

[Paul Jacobson @PaulJacobson92]

@cryptolyxe I have a background in biomedicine and I have actually spent 16 years of my life developing brain training techniques for this exact purpose.

If you are interested send me a DM and I can give you more info.