But these seem to be two well-funded companies? I.e. both with $100M+ funding within the last 12 months

pg on X (formerly Twitter):

"It's a very exciting time in tech right now. If you're a first-rate programmer, there are a huge number of other places you can go work rather than at the company building the infrastructure of the police state."

https://x.com/paulg/status/1913338841068404903

How did the acquirer decide to pay a $2.85B for a company with only $200M in annual revenues? That's a whopping 14x.

It's a designation on paper, essentially

The company that filed the patent didn't sue anyone. It died almost 2 decades ago. The entity that acquired the assets is the one doing the suing.

He seems to want both, and also a change in voting power would be illegal per the article:

"Musk then went on to say that he would like a dual-class voting structure similar to the one at Facebook that gives CEO Mark Zuckerberg control of that company but which would be an illegal restructuring post-IPO."

> Since Obama became president, all legislation basically needs 2/3rds of the senate to pass if it's remotely controversial and every tax change is controversial.

This is an odd way to mention (abuse of) the filibuster

Of 2017 technically, although it was passed right at the end of the year.

This legislation is colloquially known as the "Trump tax cuts"

What exactly is the "abyss" you're referring to here?

At the very least, the struggle of making things and building an organisation.

Actual suffering mentioned in that hour-plus long interview: None.