A fun case of "rules for thee, but not for me" when it comes to anti-moonlighting clauses and such. I can't "give it my all" if I take some weekend gigs, but you can hold two C-suite positions, be on two boards, plus have an "advisory" role with some startup? It's a lot like drug testing for front-line folks while the C-suite are exempt (and would fall apart if denied their various chemical habits).

The moonlighting employee has the same options. Don't get caught. If you do get caught, you get fired, just like the CEO.

This is also a good portion of why CEOs get paid so much. The average person doesn't like to inhabit the Hobbesian reality that CEOs do, where they're accountable for results and any bad things happening are automatically their fault. They want a world where if they take the right actions and follow the rules, they get some reasonable amount of security. Employment is basically a way to create an artificial island of "if you follow the rules, you get paid", at the expense of the company capturing much of the value you create. Most people take this bargain, because they value security over maximizing profit. Those who don't are always able to take the opposite side of the trade, and become an owner/executive, at the cost of being exposed to all the risks of the real world.

Does this actually happen though? I'm not sure I've ever seen a President or CEO of a company be held accountable for bad behavior or bad decisions in any meaningful way.

Best case scenario, you mess up and get "fired" (with a million-dollar-or-more severance/contract payment attached, or similar in stocks -- enough cash paid out that you can basically retire for life). Worst case scenario, seems to be that you get hauled in front of Congress to answer questions and/or get teased on the internet for a few days -- stuff that has almost no lasting effect.

The difference is entirely in how people view those consequences. For most line-level workers, getting fired or laid off is a source of intense shame, as well as a big logistical inconvenience. As a result, they'll do almost anything to avoid it, including making bad economic decisions for job security. For CEOs, it's an opportunity to do the same shit to other people. As a result, they have no inhibition toward taking risks that might potentially get them fired, as long as the payoff is worth it. And then part of the reason why CEO searches are so challenging and CEOs get paid so much is that it's hard to find someone who is rational about this - willing to take risks when the payoff is high, but prudent about it so they don't tank the company on a whim.

Sure there is also a bit of pride and sense of responsibility involved but shame and complications are strong drivers.

What do you think motivates people to avoid messing up at work?

I guess I'm assuming an American perspective because we were talking about an American company, but maybe others are not. I realize the stuff I'm saying does not apply in many other countries.

There are plenty of other jobs that will provide both healthcare and a good income. You get them by making yourself seem indispensable to the people with hiring authority. How do you do that? It varies by field. In software engineering you usually just need to seem personable and confident, ace all the Leetcode interviews, and have some basic subject matter relevant to the job. In finance, you need to know rich people, and you need to convince them to give you money to manage, which usually means feeding them some potentially profitable insight that they didn't think of themselves but can trade on and then offering to manage part of their portfolio in exchange for 2 & 20. In sales, you're doing this all the time (for your employer's product, not for yourself), so the interview is the job and the job is the interview. You don't need to actually be good at the job but you need to plant the idea in their head that you'd be better at it than they are, and so it's worth paying you to do it for them. In other words, be shameless.

Rational people, when they get fired, think "Oh, it's time to fall back on this algorithm until I get a new job." Irrational but normal people think it's a personal failing that they got fired and tend to avoid dealing with it until desperation (their bank statement) sets in. That also makes normal people very averse to being fired, but this makes them lack practice in the skills that will get a new job.

I read this as that it's inconvenient both from a psychological as well as a practical perspective.

You want to avoid shame/guilt, and you want to avoid the hassle of having to run to job interviews, get recommendation letters from old jobs, perhaps move to a new place closer to better employment, get a haircut etc. There are a lot of practical inconveniences to getting fired that could be classified as "logistical".

(the above is just my interpretation of what OP said)

This isn't to say that investors shouldn't make money, I just find this (often presented as) quasi-moral justification for it absurd.

Why aren't you founding a company, then? Or a cryptocurrency token, or selling NFTs? Or leveraging up to become a landlord on borrowed money? Or hobnobbing with executive recruiters and VCs while setting yourself up as a thought leader? Or raising capital for a hedge fund? These are all things you can do right now, with potentially (but risky) multi-million-$ payoffs. For many of them you don't even need to quit your day job - your employment contract might say otherwise, but the actual work involved can be done on your downtime without them knowing.

For most people, the real reason they don't do this is because they're uncomfortable with it. They don't want to inhabit a world of secrets, lies, non-aligned interests, and risk, so they take a job that lets them ignore all that and get paid for doing a specific task according to the specifications of their boss.

I've repeatedly seen people use risk to justify returns on capital in relation to wages—but the risk is all bullshit, in many cases. Again, I'm not claiming that investment shouldn't yield returns, but I've seen the "risk" argument used to justify income inequality, while the actual real-world risk workers & capital are exposed to are the inverse of what that would imply.

Mine is essentially an argument for the marginal dis-utility of risk, I guess. "Capital deserves a huge up-side for the moral reason that investors take great risk" is a BS argument, IMO, yet one that crops up from time to time. I don't think "deserves" has anything to do with it, and I don't think that framing holds up to any amount of scrutiny.

The reason this was relevant is that you see similar arguments for why CEOs are so well-compensated—"if things go poorly, they'll see the consequences for it!" Except the "consequences" (short of actually criminal activity, and even then, see e.g. Wells Fargo) look an awful lot like what would be a life-changing-for-generations windfall for normal folks. Their worst day, after all of the shit has hit all of the fans, would be 99+% of people's best day of their life. So... is that, meaningfully, risk that justifies crazy-high compensation? My objection isn't even that the compensation is high, but the way supposed risk is used to justify it. Their compensation is, for a bunch of reasons, a fact, but I don't think "it's fair because they take on so much risk" is even a little valid. More likely is that it's not, by many folks' reckoning, anywhere near "fair", and that's just how the system, and perhaps life, is. Investment is, largely, similar, once you're past the smallest of small-fry investors, or people investing in their own small business ventures.

[EDIT] To be clear, I'm not arguing that investors (and certainly not arguing that entrepreneurs, in general) do not expose themselves to risk. Of course they do. Lots of it, by some entirely-reasonable reckoning. Rather, I think the kind of risk makes trying to use that as some kind of moral justification for their returns, to be blunt, extremely dumb.

And then my interest is primarily in understanding why does the system function the way it does and secondarily which organ should I try to occupy myself, given how it functions.

Questions about why people choose (not) to occupy various roles or what's holding them back this are very germane. Up-thread, I listed a bunch of CEO-like or investor-like roles that people can occupy without any particular connections or cultural capital, merely by looking the part. Why don't more people go for them? After all, another property of capitalism is that lucrative positions attract competition, and in the absence of barriers to entry, the profit gets competed away. Why hasn't this happened with CEOs? Arguably, it is happening - more people are starting startups or micro-businesses and playing the CEO role than in the 80s/90s, and we're posting this on the forum of an accelerator devoted to helping people with this trend.

I've played both the founder/CEO role and the lowly-engineer role, and currently am back in the lowly-engineer role because I realized I enjoy it a whole lot more (and hence am more effective in it). So there's some personal experience backing it up, in both the pleb and the capitalist role.

> Why don't more people go for them?

This is definitely an interesting area to explore, and I think it does partly relate to the rest of our discussion: if the key to winning big is to keep taking shots until you score (this seems to be the most-commonly-advanced route to success in entrepreneurship and investing, both), the kind of risk that "taking shots" entails makes a huge difference.

If it means the second-from-the-left number in your net worth dropping by one, but nothing else about your life changing, well, that's not so bad. Might go right out and take another "shot" immediately. Hell, do two or three at once. You could make several attempts before deciding maybe you're just not cut out for this, without much risk to your everyday life.

If it means: leaving your job and losing all stable income because you're not yet high enough in the hierarchy to be permitted multiple well-paid simultaneous jobs and are subject to far-reaching non-competes, exclusivity, or IP clauses; having to deal with marketplace health insurance & costs at the same time that's happening (maybe for a family!); dropping more money on projecting an image of success or of being the right kind of person for investors to "believe in" and on networking; all that before before you even get to the part where you put the bulk of your savings into the company & product itself; and with the most likely outcome being really bad and leaving you needing years to recover for another shot, assuming you ever do—I'd say that's at least part of why people don't bother.

I do not think this is the only reason people who aren't already quite well-off don't "shoot for the stars", but it's a not-insignificant part of it. Background and family also advantage people in business just like anything else (see also: Hollywood dynasties) by providing not just good connections for networking, but direct, inside knowledge about how things work in fact, not just on paper. There are, truly, lots of people who just haven't a clue how to, say, start a business, seek investment, et c., so much so that it wouldn't even occur to them as a possible course of action even if a great opportunity were handed to them on a platter. Their understanding of the space is so weak, as they've had so little exposure to it, that they don't know what's possible, so don't know what they could try, even if they were willing to go figure out the "how" (which willingness is, admittedly, far from a given). It's a widespread case of don't-know-what-they-don't-know for practically the entire body of knowledge required to launch a business, and it's the state most people live their whole lives in. Some do find their way out of it. Others are simply born to the right circumstances to learn all about this with little effort, and may not even realize how uncommon are the thousands of little pieces of info they picked up by existing around the right people during their formative years.

I'd add, as an aside, that founder-CEOs may very well not be in the capitalist class, really. Founder-CEOs who don't start with lots of capital may in fact be taking both the risk-in-a-finance-sense that (say) an angel investor does, measured in cold dollar terms, plus the totally different, actual, can-I-put-food-on-the-table-next-month risk common to ordinary workers. That's the subset of the "job creator" category, if you will, that really is taking on meaningful risk, and doing hard work besides.

> After all, another property of capitalism is that lucrative positions attract competition, and in the absence of barriers to entry, the profit gets competed away. Why hasn't this happened with CEOs?

Eh, that's a property of ideal markets, not of capitalism, which shouldn't get the credit for everything that markets do. In practice (I'm sure this isn't news to you–I'm just structuring a line of reasoning here) things are much messier, and IMO sky-high executive compensation is all tied up in out-of-control principal agent problems and just-enough-removed-you-can't-prosecute self-dealing that's widespread at the highest levels of our economy, to the point of practically being the defining feature of its operation.

One of the major barriers to entry, in this case, is having something to offer—personally, or (better) via family & friends connections, or through control you can exert over businesses you're already involved in—to the people selecting for CEO roles or board seats, even if it's only the future potential of doing a few favors for the right folks, and nothing's ever even implied out loud. Happily for the corrupt, the same traits that make these kinds of arrangements and mutual-aid-for-the-rich environments possible can also be justified for business reasons—well, having high-level personal and family connections with several other businesses will help with sales, right? And having already made money is a sign that this candidate is good at business (never mind the family money & connections that put these endeavors on easy-mode). So we'd better hire the Yale MBA who comes from money, has a cousin in congress, and could already, at least, pay their kids through prep school and college without working another day in their life.

Down in mid-size company territory, even, you see similar stuff, thought pedigrees are (of course) a bit less impressive. Kids groomed to inherit a CEO position, grandkids shipped off to start in a high-level management position at some golfing buddy's other mid-sized company to lever them up to CEO candidacy at a smallish publicly-traded company later, that kind of thing. At all levels, companies performing acquisitions to bail out friends, family, and business allies (who'll return the favor later).

I have a sense this has gotten worse over the past decades, but have not done the legwork to prove it. This is part of a broader (also very much "gut") sense I have that we, as in humanity as a whole, are getting better at playing games and at identifying them in larger systems, in a game-theoretical sense, to the detriment of anything that's not aligned with those games, while we're also getting worse at discouraging people (using means outside the strict ruleset) from playing these to the letter of the rules rather than in the spirit of the rules.

Okay, and somebody who was born in poverty in a low-income country might be happy with far less money than even the lowest wage earner in America. All you're saying is wealth is relative. But we already know that, and it's not really an argument for anything!

This isn't even an argument against the compensation itself, but an argument against a particular justification for why it's "right" that things are structured this way, or why it's necessary that they are, which argument is fairly common, but, IMO, laughably weak. Yet you see this argument advanced fairly often, in exactly these terms: "well of course megacorp CEOs are paid millions per year, look at all the risk they take that you don't have to, that's why they're paid the big bucks!" or "it's not just necessary but right that we reward capital, look at all the risk capital takes!" Meanwhile, my oh my, please, give me their "failure" state when that risk is realized.

Okay, and roofers and oil rig workers have far more fatal injuries than software devs, so then the person who works the riskiest job should get paid the most? Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to base an economy that way, but that is a whole another discussion.

>This isn't even an argument against the compensation itself, but an argument against a particular justification for why it's "right" that things are structured this way, or why it's necessary that they are, which argument is fairly common, but, IMO, laughably weak.

Wait, so if your not against the higher compensation, and you do acknowledge that capital takes at-least some risk, what is your real argument here?

Obviously, a C-suite can have certain sway in these situations and a company might not go after a lowly grunt's pet project, but there is a wide gap between these two situations where there are worse ramifications than losing a job.

It's the same for programming projects. It's good to work on more than one, so you can pick apart intrinsic problems that nobody knows the answer to and just artifacts of one particular codebase.

You have to collect this data for yourself because it's not like there's a service you can subscribe to that shows you all the problems that various public companies have.

[EDIT] Oh, and:

> You have to collect this data for yourself because it's not like there's a service you can subscribe to that shows you all the problems that various public companies have.

Actually, there is! It's called management consulting. The main value they provide aside from the much-cited blame-absorbing one, is being a normalized and accepted method of corporate espionage. They call it stuff like "industry best practices" but what they're doing is telling you what your competitors are up to, so you can mimic the good parts.

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

That applies to no-moonlighting clauses, but also to no sexual harassment clauses, no insider-trading clauses, and plenty more. It’s not just that the rules don’t apply to some people, but the rules and system are set up to protect them from the rules.

With sexual harassment, for example, it’s not just that HR looks the other way when they are accused: HR often works to protect them from consequences and punish/dismiss/pay off the victims.

Source: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progre...

Can you help me connect the two or at least help me understand the underlying proposition?

This is rather one-sided interpretation, but it definitely has its precedences in history and even in our times.

(FWIW I think he's got the wrong word. He says "For millenia, conservatism had no name..." and then cites divine right of kings.)

Moving forward with caution doesn't mean you absolutely don't trust others but they are the out-group, if we assume there are two groups here. Those others won't get the same benefit of the doubt as your in-group and thus any mistake they make will be magnified (in relative terms).

> For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.

> As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.

That is to say: the past is built around this one proposition. Moving forward "with caution" translates to "how can we move forward (solve some current problem) without jeopardizing this essential proposition?"

So, both because these positions are sometimes occupied by full-on capitalists (who will accept very few restrictions on their behavior) and because, when that's not the case, they're occupied by people who are being rewarded by capital (often for nepotistic reasons) they have much greater freedom than those lower down the org chart.

I do think this is a general behavior of class systems—and so, probably any large human organization—however, and not particular to capitalism, and certainly there are better-off and worse-off classes in term of norms and treatment by society, short of the capitalist class (as Fussell observes in Class, with his "mid-proles" subject to close monitoring, tight restrictions on time, drug testing, and other humiliations, while his upper-middle drinks on the job, has their own office with no-one watching what they do, would be outraged at having to submit to piss tests, and cuts out early for golf without consequence).

In this case the name just happens to tell us, very directly, who's on top of the pyramid. Not like other systems that may try to obscure who's the most-favored group.

Feudalism is about a structure of hierarchical allegiences. You swear fealty to your count who swears it to his duke, etc.

The conflation is basically a shibboleth for Marxists in the same way that creationists pluralize evidence as evidences, and holocaust deniers ask if a conclusively documented and damning event happened.

I'd bet in most companies the CEO is basically just a buffer between the board and the rest of the company, and essentially a fall guy position so the board can avoid accountability.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Comments get more shallow as they get more grand and generic. "Vanishingly little value" is a dismissal. Note also the dismissive use of the j-word ("just") and the implicit admission that there's no particular support for the claim ("I'd bet"). Also the snark ("Careful, you're dangerously close to realizing"), which invokes an entire genre of internet putdown.

There's no information here other than booing a class of people. Most people enjoy that when the class is high-status, but we're trying to optimize for curiosity on this site, and that genre is something else entirely.

I have reasonably decent leadership where I work, and the only times I have much contact outside of my direct reporting line is when something has gone (or might go) seriously wrong. Outside of that, I'm given direction, expected to execute, and left to get on with it as I touch base every few days.

That's the point. The best managers/CEOs are mostly getting out of the way and telling person A to CC person B about a new idea. Not screwing up a system that works isn't the same as adding value.

Are you thinking of companies in general, or of reasonably prominent/stable publicly traded companies? The CEOs at the startups I've worked at did a heck of a lot more than that -- fundraising, strategy, resolving personnel issues, talking to clients, etc.; I'm thinking of a small company (10-20 employees) and a mid-sized one (400-500).

As it should be if the executive isn’t micromanaging. If a crisis erupts and they’re nowhere to be found, on the other hand, that’s a problem.

It happens when the CEO has put out any fires before they've grown big.

Or possibly when, by dumb luck, the organization runs well without any such interventions.

And companies certainly do recognize that not everyone has to sit at a desk - all the expensive consultants...

On one hand, you have Elon Musk at Tesla and Zuck at FBMeta. Their board is essentially non existent.

On the other hand, we had Carly Fiorina, who wasn’t even buffering the board, and was quite horrible at executing.

I agree. As much as he tried to justify the dual CEO roles, it never made any sense.

It was also maddening to watch him shift to a 3rd focus of promoting cryptocurrency and his own cryptocurrency investments. Hanging on to the CEO role of both Twitter and Square put him in a great position to push both companies toward more cryptocurrency integration, but it never felt like it was being done for the benefit of the users of each platform.

Cynically, I'm yet to see any crypto that benefits anyone but the people that invented it (they benefit the most) and the savvy traders trying to make a buck (and sometimes succeeding at the expense of others).

Not to mention, for an everyman living in one of these countries, how feasible is it to actually participate in crypto to the point where it is useful in day-to-day living? How much upfront investment will it cost? How much ongoing investment? Will the local merchants accept crypto? Will they do so any time soon?

(I'm honestly not fond of crypto but I also honestly have no idea about these questions, which seem practical to know before buying into an "advantage" of crypto.)

Venezuela aside, naturally. Because the way this statement comes across to me is is that crypto is a viable alternative even without government oversight and/or precisely because of its lack of central authority. Venezuela's crypto has support all the way from the top.

It's not so much a day to day living with crypto kind of situation but rather a being able to save one. Say you have a salary that's getting devalued by the month yet doesn't raise at the same rate.

If you're lucky enough to be able to save say 10% of it, you want to stabilize it's value somehow. I don't even mean invest at a profit, I mean have a way to save that money so when you do need to spend it down the line (say to buy a 100k USD no-bedroom apartment to live in), you wouldn't have lost most of your savings' value due to inflation.

You can't hold value in land since there's no credit, cars are 10x as expensive due to the economy being so protectionist, and you likely don't have space to hold a stock of long-lasting food that you might be able to sell. Crypto, particularly stable coins, is then a very attractive option in such a situation. You could buy 50 DAI a month for example and then have a good shot that when you need it a few years later, it'll still be as valuable as it was when you bought it.

A lot of old people who trusted cash and didn't realize how bad things are getting and didn't invest in a solid keeper of value, are only now realizing that their whole life savings are worth about as much as a TV, and even less every month.

Nowadays, even kids need to learn about exchange rates to keep up.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-13/argentina...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7lm7IHnKDw

What is?

"Anti-fraud" is especially funny considering how fraudulent the whole cryptocurrency space is.

But anyway, to quote Nicholas Weaver (https://youtu.be/xCHab0dNnj4?t=1667), "[the people proposing those projects] are never actually even able to even articulate what the hard problems are, like what data, what formats, what honesty, who's adding the data, what enforcement — shoving garbage into an append-only ledger doesn't solve your problems!"

The game is - the more people/demand who come into the place, the greater the asset value. Earliest in benefit the most.

Sure there are benefits from crypto (but those are mostly a distraction for its core use case and a way for murky individuals to validate investments to the real bagholders) but the costs and the model works in that you keep having to find more people to buy into the asset class in order to validate the most recent purchases.

In traditional equities - you get some kind of return on your investment through traditionally dividends/share buybacks from profits generated from the business - right now its a lot of capital appreciation not to dissimilar to what I described above (i.e. TINA)

But many coins have mechanisms to give dividends in the form of their coin, which have liquid trading markets. You can say they’re being propped up by the next buyer, but many of these are used by the product as “gas” for transactions, creating a real use based demand economy. I’ll readily admit that speculation has massively inflated these markets past their fundamental value, but that’s not unique to cryptocurrency.

Look man, cryptocurrency isn't some kind of pyramid scheme! It's just a bisected cube!

Or that I injured my back and had to spend 2 grand at Er for a standard 7 day steroid pack to calm inflammation because doctors don’t like prescribing them.

I can't imagine that you wouldn't take a substantial haircut... way more people would want to sell monero on Binance because the benefits of selling there are way more than the unique benefits of buying there (it is easy to buy monero, it is not easy to sell monero without getting dirty coins).

Edit: I misread, you're talking about Monero -> Other coin swaps. My bad.

USDC can be converted from / to USD for free on Coinbase.

Honest question, because it's eerie how you could swap Dorsey for Musk and the statements would still apply but seem much less true.

I'm also skeptical of Jack's claim about founder led companies. When you're the exec handing things over you'd have to make some comment like that to show your trust is entirely behind the new person. I don't really buy it though.

Also I thought Evan Williams and Biz Stone were the Twitter founders? Maybe I'm forgetting the history.

He was a founder...ish.

From reading his Wikipedia, it seems like it was an x.com / PayPal situation. He joined their company to help them with the idea then when they spun Twitter out, he became CEO.

From digging in a bit deeper, the lineage of Twitter seems fascinating. It seems like it was the result of the companies of the co-founders putting together that created something even better than their own parts.

Seems like a bunch of people had a hand in creating it in various ways.

I think even the Musk superfans eyeroll whenever he gives a date for some new advancement. For example, didn't Musk say the test orbital launch for Starship was goign to be last July or something?

Absolutely. Musk's companies manage to get stuff done, but are any of them particularly "well run"?

> I agree. As much as he tried to justify the dual CEO roles, it never made any sense.

If I remember correctly he was originally going to step away from Twitter to focus on Square, but then Twitter couldn't find a replacement and basically begged him to stay.

The point of platforms is not to benefit the users, otherwise, every successful platform has failed.

The type of synergy you are describing, is what builds value for the only people which count... shareholders.

> Parag started here as an engineer who cared deeply about our work and now he's our CEO... Parag will be able to channel this energy best because he's lived it and knows what it takes.

Facebook is a giant VR company and three-four giant social networking companies. Google runs phone infrastructure, search, self driving cars. Amazon is a giant retail outlet plus a giant cloud services company.

Is running both a social media company and a fintech firm that different, even though they aren't grouped under a single corporate owner?

Stunning article. Everyone has a bit of dirt on them I suppose, and it's more important than ever to safeguard one's privacy.

Jack explicitly says that Parag Agrawal (current CTO) is replacing him.

https://twitter.com/paraga?lang=en

Edit: typo + speaking as an ex-Twitter engineer circa 2011

Seems more likely that Jack has been the puppet of activist employee's not investors. Hopefully Twitter will hire someone to have a back bone in the face of the activist employee's that want twitter to be a political echo-chamber / safe space

The people who live here and complain about that are talking their book, they universally pay like $3000/year property tax on $3 million mansions and don't want Prop13 repealed.

Is Twitter the way it is because of activist investors, or just capitalists (in the literal, neutral sense of the term) who know that certain crowds are easily manipulated?

edit: a month or two ago there was this huge increase in SpaceX development all of a sudden that has since dwindled. I wonder if that was Musk working on SpaceX but now back at Tesla? of course i could be way off base too ( FAA thorn in SpaceX's side etc )