Fair point. Even if it was intentional, it’s still good

One of these lives quite near me actually. I live about 5 to 10 minutes from an Aston Martin garage (in the U.K.) so I see quite a few Astons round here but none of them make me smile as much as the little BRG Cygnet. It’s a funny little car.

I daily a classic style mini. I can tell you for sure that Rover we’re making cars with manual chokes until at least 1994 when they installed basic fuel injection. The original mini continued until 2000/01 with the same steering rack it left the factory with in 1959 (100% manual) and I don’t think they ever installed…

We put some pretty ugly people on TV here. It’s a national pastime.

I don’t get it. What’s the joke here? That I like Elon Musk?

That’s a fair point. But given his track record of not doing the things he says he wants to, why would you act if he says he wants to do something. I’m not saying that the SEC shouldn’t get involved, only that people decided to gamble based on the words of a man who repeatedly forgets to think before he speaks and now…

The guy’s not thinking before he speaks but he’s said numerous things like this and most of it hasn’t happened. Why would this be any different? On the other hand, people aren’t thinking before they act either. If someone has a track record of doing something, you assume they’ll keep doing it.

I don’t know if he is trying to mislead people. I truly don’t care that much. My initial point was that you shouldn’t act on something as flimsy as this. Musk is well known as someone who comes out with fantastical thoughts and that’s all this was to me.

You’re right, I prefer when everything is very cloak and dagger with big multinational corporations.

Considering is the polar opposite of set in stone. It’s on a level with “maybe” which definitely doesn’t mean yes

Maybe you’re right. I don’t know the first thing about US law. I’m just saying you’d be stupid to think that anything was set in stone because of how it’s worded. Laws shouldn’t just exist to protect idiots. Laws should exist to catch people doing something genuinely wrong and trying to deceive people in this case.

That entirely depends on how you choose to interpret it. I choose to interpret the words “I am considering...” as meaning that I haven’t decided. Because that’s what they mean.

It seems a strange thing to tweet but it’s still very different than if he said “Tesla is going private at $420. Buy it now.”

I have funding secured to buy a new car should I decide to. Have I bought the car yet or is that set in stone?

I didn’t forget that part. It’s just irrelevant. There’s no way to gauge public opinion about something without asking.

It’s neither one. If I want to buy a house and the bank offers me a loan, do I have an obligation to buy the house at that point?

If I say “I’ve found a house that I like, the mortgage broker has offered me a loan. I’m still thinking about it though,” have I decided to buy that house?

I’m thinking about buying a new car. The bank have offered me a loan. What do you think?

That’s what’s confusing me too.

I like the pun. Even if it was unintentional