You are suggesting quite a few things, except you don't like to actually say directly what it is that you want to happen. Here is one thing you said: "Elon Musk should be a wealthy man, no doubt about it but a trillionaire or hell even a $100B is a failure of our economy, our culture, our society or our politics." - 100B is not Musk anymore, it's more than Musk, who I consider to be a con artist.

What you are implying to calling 100B owner a failure of economy and culture and society and politics is that it should be impossible for some reason for a person to accrue enough ownership of private resources to be at that level. It is your inadequacies that are showing here and it is your word play that we are debating. What you are suggesting is oppression and tyranny, nothing less, which is what is required for a person not to be able to accrue any amount of wealth regardless of how it is obtained.

How about this: "I mean, he does. He also still is one person with 24 hours a day, does he actually provide enough productivity to justify tens of millions every day?" - nobody has to justify anything, if they are able to accrue some wealth beyond your imagination does not make it wrong that a person should be able to do so.

To this I have already answered: "Explain this (i am fully anticipating Libertarian-Randian gobbledygook)" - obviously a large amount of accumulated wealth is represented by a business and this business clearly benefits the society much more than the individual who runs it, otherwise the company wouldn't be valuable enough for you to pay attention how wealthy the owner of this company becomes.

This: "Everything you said would equally apply if he was worth $1B as it does $1000B so what does he need the extra 999B? His lifestyle changes 0%. He can still own and run companies." - implies that a person shouldn't be able to have ownership in a company that is growing in value, Musk or anyone else. So if you build a company that becomes so valuable people invest into it enough that its market share, its profits are so large that the value exceeds 100B (on paper, doesn't matter). If you are the single largest owner of the stock in this company your shares go above and beyond 1B.

You are pretending that you are not suggesting confiscation (oppression by the voting majority) yet what else are you suggesting? Be clear, what are your demands and goals? I already see the reasons, jealousy and ideology with a strange belief that a person shouldn't be able to own something of serious value for some reason.

This: "And I would ask just the same what the unhealthy fixation on defending the massive wealth inequality?" - I am FOR wealth inequality, it's the only thing that actually motivates people to move forward with business ideas in the first place. If wealth equality was the goal, nobody would be ruining their lives trying to run a business.

This: " I'll guess if I ask for the alternative you'll point to "communism" and I will just say you are not a serious person with a serious position. Like I said, Randian nonsense." - you are the one bringing up communism and Randian ideas, whatever, you are fixated on the nomenclature.

This: "You say you want to "protect private property" as if what I am suggesting eliminates private property in any fashion." - of course you are. You are suggesting this exact thing, you wouldn't be happy until there wouldn't be "wealth inequality". This requires that people cannot own things cannot operate things as they see fit, cannot go beyond some artificial number that is stuck in your head. You think 1B is plenty and 100B is too much, whatever that is all about. In reality it's all garbage. A person who made a billion dollar company can use the money that he makes to start more companies and eventually go much further than 1B dollars and this bugs the shit out of you because you are on a mission.

Most of it.

And yet, there's a long way yet to go.

I am 100% certain you were the one bringing up communism, I was not. I am against destruction of private property rights, which is what you are suggesting.

what is unsatisfying to you? I am absolutely against majority oppressing a minority via government intervention, a minority in this case is people with more money than most The tyranny of majority leads to redistribution of resources. Communism is not even supposed to have a government. As someone born in the former USSR half a century ago I can point at that system and absolutely refuse it. I can also point at any oppressive system and refuse it. You are proposing an oppressive system, oppression by the force of government backed by the tyranny of majority. I am against it, it leads to destruction of freedoms, economic freedoms being the only ones that matter.

Making a better battery, or commercializing it, is a milestone. Putting a research battery into an airplane is not a milestone. It's a publicity stunt.

The first computers were extremely good, that's why they built them. Before that, tabulating machines were also extremely useful.

If you're going to make an analogy, make it factual.

This is the kind of stunt you do if you want people to believe in your vaporware. Instead of releasing actual stats about your battery, or simply building a mass scale factory, you put it into a little airplane. Small commercial electric planes are here now and you can buy them.

Wikipedia has a list of companies that claim they have invented solid state batteries, but none of them have entered scalable production. Another sign of vaporware.

There is no reason to prefer solid state batteries. It's just another battery technology, with charge times, weight, temperature safety ranges, mechanical stress limits, etc. If another battery technology gets you the better numbers in those metrics, then use the other battery technology. If the solid state battery does better, then prefer that.

Solid state isn't magic fairy dust.

I assume once they go public, the hype will kind of die down.

Either that or it will become more shrill, as hot air is passed through a narrower and narrower factual space.

Humor is the only thing that gets me through the day, along with amphetamines.

But no Blackjack, it's mathematically solved.

inequality is the resulr of ability to own property and I want this to be protected regardless how much property because I have seen the alternative and it is misery.

Nice, you figured it out.

I've suspected they were overbuilding/overpromising but I couldn't find the hard data to be sure.

No LOL. These datacenters don't employ many local residents. They wouldn't be getting the money.

They're not replacing them with software, they're just firing them. The AI is an excuse.

It's been happening:

I don't think AI deserves the blame, though.

Otherwise, the executives will have to admit they are wrong, which is career suicide. If you admit you were wrong, another executive can use that admission to backstab you.