zulgin

I think if you read a little bit further in the article you would find that this attitude is exactly why the author believes there is a collapse in non-fiction book.

> The collapse of nonfiction is [...] a massive breakdown in the social fabric of trusting education, expertise, or any authority

People don't want to read non-fiction because they don't trust the people writing it.

There is a famous story about how an F16 got grounded because an half inch metal pin was missing from the cockpit canopy. Nobody knew what the pin did or if it was even necessary but you can't fly a plan that 'missing a part'. After several days of being grounded they finally reached out to a guy who had retired 20 years ago who told them the pin was a part of a analogue sensor that had been replaced nearly 30 years ago. Only the pin remained as a vestigial organ since it was part of the airframe design.

It doesn't matter how well you document things there will always be tribal / personal knowledge.

Even if stuff is written down you have to know where to look.

I think you are broadly correct, but just to pushback on a few points: (1) Ability to solve hard problems in days vs weeks as immense value (2) Back-end improvements (if done right), should improve platform speed, stability, scalability etc. which should have revenue implication (3) Ability to on-board a SWE equivalent entity in minutes, have them work on a specific hard problem and then off-board them in minutes can have value

All of the above, of course, depends upon Fable consistently being a 2x-3x SWE at minimum.

Look I don't like Tesla as much as the next person, I think it is wildly over-hyped and over-valued. But this article is just slop.

The headline says - "How Tesla hid accidents to test its Autopilot" but the actual article has no explanation as to (1) how Tesla hid anything or, for that matter, (2) who did Tesla hide this information from

It mashes together a Tesla data leak from 2022 and an unconnected lawsuit from 2026 without ever explaining how those 2 are connected.

Tesla has a pattern of making deceptive promises and deceptive disclosures but this article doesn't make that case at all.

Coca Cola indeed has a lot of value its market capitalization is USD 76 billion making it one of the 30 most valuable companies in the world!

The problem with SpaceX is that its valuation is almost entirely driven by its expected future growth. For 2025 SpaceX reported EBITDA of USD 7.5 billion. Other mature aerospace companies (Lockheed, Northman, Airbus, Boeing etc.) are currently valued as ~19x EBITDA (i.e., Market Cap / EBITDA is ~19x). But SpaceX is being valued at 166x EBITDA (USD 1.25 trillion market cap / USD 7.5 billion EBITDA).

What drives this difference in valuation? The answer is quite simple, investors expect the EBITDA to grow and quite rapidly. EBITDA could grow via higher margins (EBITDA margins is EBITDA / Revenue, and for SpaceX it is already a decent 50%), but even at 100% EBITDA margin (i.e., zero operating cost) its valuation multiple would b 83x EBITDA. So the only way to justify SpaceX valuation is if its revenue grows and gorws rapidly.

A quick back of the envelop calculation would shows that investors expect SpaceX revenue to grow at minimum of 65-70% annually for the next 5 years. If the revenue grows at less than that the investors are unlikely to earn a good return on their investment.