Most likely because what they say is technically true, but not really, actually true. Kind of like saying something like: "all I had to do was push a button, and a rocket carrying a moon mission launched!" Technically true, but ignores what was probably a fair bit more that actually went into it.

Like, for example, if you told it: "Make a clip that's just like X, but with the fighters faces replaced with Y and Z." That could be all it would take to get it to make something like this, but obviously the output depends pretty heavily on everything that went into creating X in the first place.

That's ridiculous on multiple levels. One is because it wouldn't prove anything at all. Two because they would just stare at me blankly (actually, more likely with that cop "death-stare" they often default to when they don't know how to react). Three, because there are these things called RICO statutes that the cops enforce. The Mafia, for example, are well known for establishing local monopolies where they collude to set prices and control entry into the market. When it's for markets for contraband like drugs, you could argue that it isn't an antitrust issue, but it also happens for markets like building supplies (concrete, etc.), construction in general, waste management, garments. While the monopoly isn't technically in the US, a significant fraction of canned tomatoes in the US have come from a Mafia monopoly in Southern Italy.

So, basically your point is actually a really bad one because, in their role enforcing RICO statutes, the statement that "the police protect against monopolies" would technically be true, even if it is only a tiny fraction of their job and indirect.

I also have to point out, yet again, that this is all ridiculous because the only reason I even ever said anything about the claim that the SEC protects against monopolies is true is because another poster claimed it - implying that the SEC's actual main job was protecting against monopolies - and I was telling they they were WRONG.

Then you're an idiot. Or, as we've established, you're a troll. It's tricky though. You seem to want your opinions to matter based on many of your posts, but you admit to being a troll. So, by definition, you're admitting that your opinions don't matter. I'm not sure what the point is.

All sorts of sources, but the main one was Fidelity. You might have heard of them. One of the world's largest brokerages and asset management companies. Also a major investor in both X and xAI and SpaceX and, therefore, an organization that did have insider access to the company financials. Ring a bell? They valued SpaceX at $9.4 billion around 6 months before the merger. There were many others, but they were mostly just echoing Fidelity. I mean, aside from that, there were tons of financial rags reporting their drastically fallen ad revenue. Not to mention Musk's own reply to questions about their financial status, which was _poop emoji_, indicating things were clearly pretty bad. Then there's Musk literally publicly threatening to sue advertisers for not advertising and also telling them "fuck you" in public. This, on top of the well known total failure of Musk's plan to drop the advertising part of the business and make the company profitable through subscriptions and vanity check marks. Or turn it into a streaming TV replacement. Or the one true payment processor. Or an "everything" app. Or, really adding any new features in the two and a half years he's owned it that are not basically just adding existing features other platforms already have.

So, yeah, Twitter was a financial boondoggle that Musk paid too much for and declined under his leadership. However... Suddenly, totally mysteriously near the end of January 2025, that started to turn around. Despite Musk actually suddenly being busy with a government advisor job, there started to be financial movement with Twitter. Not profits, or anything like that. Just, all of a sudden, mysteriously, investors were interested in new valuations and funding rounds for his companies, including Twitter. For about a month or so it was just about funding rounds, then the Fidelity valuation suddenly jumped to the Musk original purchase price (which was already overvalued). Then about a month after that, the merger was announced out of the blue. It wasn't much of a surprise at that point of course. Anyone with half a brain and who was paying any attention knew something was going on behind the scenes with the dramatic turnaround.

So why all the lies and manipulations of the truth?

Not all of them. Just some. This is my overall impression, mind you. I also don't see the point of bringing up a dispute with serviscope_minor. They also have their right-wing opinions. As for that second link, when it actually gets to a comment from you, that just appears to be you misinterpreting what other people are actually saying again. I am not going to discuss any specifics of any of it and add yet another tangent to this mess.

I admit when I am wrong quite readily. All it requires is for me to actually be wrong (which I am sometimes) and for the other person to actually point out what specifically I am wrong about. Often, of course, the argument seems to persist after that because you are not wrong that a lot of people on Slashdot have serious fixed-idea problems and, by the time someone has gotten past personal attacks and insults, straw man arguments, goal post shifting, trolling, etc., etc. to actually address the factual basis of what has said, everything about the discussion has grown and they're not done arguing even after the original point is conceded because now they are still arguing about some secondary or tertiary point you made in response to something else you said five layers deep.

Then why throw reason out of the window right at the start?

Now, that's the sort of thing that requires some analysis of what you are actually claiming. A lot hinges on what created means. If by "created" you mean at the moment of conception, then the answer might be that all people are created equally uninformed. However, even then you could argue about what you might call genetic knowledge in human DNA and meta-factors connected to human DNA (plus mitochondria and other hereditary factors) which contains information that might count as one individual being more "informed" than another. If by creation, you mean at some particular point of development, where being "created" means conception, followed by growth, development, acculturation, education, personal activities (basically, past growth and development, just see Bronfenbrenner's theory), then I would agree that not all people are created equally uninformed.

What that has to do with what I said, I have no clue. The point is that you are a self-admitted troll. Unless we have really different understandings of what a troll is, that means that your stated opinions are worthless by definition.

So, the answer was that I'm supposed to tell you what? What a dumb game. So, my point still stands since you aren't saying anything: Musk largely did have control of the whole process and also it's not relevant since it doesn't matter either way for the SEC to be able to investigate.

I mentioned that he was an accountant specifically because you wrote: " just the same as any ordinary accountant might.". Of course your original statement didn't mean much. Therefore my reply to it didn't mean much.

Yes I do. Wow, that argument was easy to counter.

Largely that your argument that goes (to paraphrase): "HA HA. I'm an insincere troll who is winning because, even though nothing I am writing makes sense, I am wasting your time and believe I am emotionally damaging you!" is pointless because I get a guilty enjoyment about your own ridiculous debasement of yourself.

If you recall, this ended up merging in a post from another thread. In any case I'm allowed to complain about the limitations of Slashdot if I want. There are plenty of ways to either handle posts of any practical length, or provide explicit warnings about the length of posts before submission. Also, by bothering to comment on it, you made the post longer.

They did know they had it. That's the point. The plaintiff's expert showed that their access was logged. If we had more information, we could probably look into whether the service center fraudulently took their money by taking their money while lying about the services provided (just like any other car diagnostic a service center claims to have done but lies about the results of). Also what "third party" are you talking about? At the point in the case we're discussing, there was just the plaintiff and Tesla. Other parties didn't come in until later.

What are you talking about? Judges order defendants in these kinds of cases to pay for third party services all the time. It may end up part of the legal costs the plaintiff has to pay if they lose, but judges are legally allowed to demand it of defendants and do. Defendants can appeal, but seldom do because it's usually better for them that way anyway.

Wow. I am definitely not in awe of your writing. I am also definitely not in awe of your reading. Otherwise, you might have been able to understand that my reply was directly to this (since I quoted it alone):

So it is pretty clearly that "they" who have an obligation in my original sentence refers to my management, who field data recovery requests from customers. The management has an obligation because the customers have service requests that they pay for and this is part of the service they contracted for. See how easy things are if you just read?

Aside from the fact that, even if what you were saying were the case, you would be using a strange definition of custody, they certainly should have been following a proper chain of custody at that point, because the hardware actually went from the Florida Highway Patrol yard to the Tesla service center and then back to the FHD. If they were not following and documenting chain of custody, then they were doing something wrong.

What I said was that "The judge at the time gave Tesla a total pass allowing that they were just confused, rather than very, very obviously lying." with "total pass" meaning that they were committing multiple felonies and were not referred for prosecution. The judge used terms like "false" and "inexplicable" for what Tesla was claiming. In judge-speak, that means lying. Think of the general form as like this (not an actual quote): "You're lying. I know you're lying, the plaintiff knows you're lying, the jury knows you're lying, and you know you're lying. However, I'm not saying so explicitly. Criminal prosecution of corporations is almost impossible; when it does happen they get civil consequences, not criminal; Every prosecutor and judge up the chain will get mad at me for wasting their time; corporations are de facto allowed to commit perjury. Still, if the jury can read between the lines, the judgement is going to hurt."

Which was? If I recall, it was when a poster reminded us all of a case where Tesla claimed a drive was corrupted and it turned out it wasn't and it shows that Tesla are liars and you wrote "That doesn't tell you anything at all..." then gave excuses for Tesla that maybe they couldn't technically handle the data recovery? Was that the point? Do you still stand by the idea that Tesla was truly technically incapable of getting the data and are therefore not liars? Even after we have established:
1> The drive was not damaged.
2> Tesla was able to access it.
3> Tesla also had the data on its servers.
4> Tesla maintained the claim about the data for five years.

Are any of those actually in dispute?

What a feeble excuse. "Incompressible fluid" is a standard term in fluid dynamics, which was under discussion. Simple as that.

I didn't make a misstatement. You tried to claim equivalence to hitting water at high speed to hitting a gas bag. That was idiotic.

Freefalling into water was your extreme example, moron. I was pointing out that your example was stupid by showing that freefall into an airbag is a lot safer than water after you inexplicably brought water into the conversation. Is this all you do, make the conversation ridiculous and then turn around and try to blame the other person for what you did?

I am talking about the distance from one side to the other, which is what is normally referred to when someone mentions thickness. Use "chamber depth" if you like, but don't pretend to be confused. I meant the distance over which the person landing on it is decelerated.

Look, whatever nonsense you keep trying to pin on me, like that I brought up free falling in the first place, or that I am somehow claiming that air bags are like bouncy castles, etc. I don't understand the point of this nonsense. About 5-12 PSI is what I came up with too. Not a very high pressure. Also, from your own post "peak" pressure after inflation. It starts deflating as soon as you hit it. Once again, my point was that one of the major goals of the airbag is to make the deceleration of the crash victim gradual, to lower the G-forces. Which is exactly what they do. Ironically, you focused on the bag conforming to the victim's shape, to spread out the forces, which I also agreed was part of the goal. However, you keep on trying to somehow emphasize that airbags have some supposedly high pressure (which 5 to 12 psi really isn't), but you haven't considered that the problem with a really high pressure airbag would be that it wouldn't conform to your face. You're just so focused on trying to attack the other person's position, that you forget to have one of your own.

Not mistaken. Then you provide another link that supports my point that increasing the distance over which you slow down in order to reduce g-forces is a large part of the point of safety devices like seatbelts and airbags. Add that to the link you provided on crash safety with and without airbags and/or seatbelts that concluded that both together was safest.

No, I have you to blame for not making a relevant point.

No I didn't. You brought up airbags in the first place, then wouldn't let it go.

Can it? Aside from the fact that you are apparently carrying these things around unsecured, asking to be killed in a crash, can you actually tell me what obstacles these things are punching through on the way to the MCU?

Your memory appears to be as deranged as the rest of you. I didn't keep "going on about g-forces", I simply responded to you. You're driving all of the nonsense that diverged from the original point, which was that companies that can't manage some sort of data recovery in house can always hire outside, in response to your defense of Tesla that maybe they just didn't have the expertise (both negated now anyway by the knowledge that outside help was never actually necessary).

You are such a tryhard.

What you might call my conclusions are driven by the data. The term "conclusion" might not be accurate to use though, since nothing is ever 100% certain.

I would say pot, kettle, black, etc. except of course that since you're a troll, your claims about what you believe I am saying are probably deliberately wrong. After that, you babble on about how I supposedly babble. As always though, basically everything I have written in this thread is in response to you and all the ridiculous directions you go off in to avoid ever admitting to being wrong. An accusation you throw at others, but that you know is especially true of yourself.

An attack without evidence. How atypical for you.

Uh, no. We knew from this post which precedes either of our posts on the thread, that the drive was undamaged enough that the data could be extracted. It's ironic that you're making claims now about what was reasonable to infer at that point in time considering that you were defending Tesla as not having the internal experience to recover the drive when all you knew at that time from the previous poster was that Tesla had lied about the data being unrecoverable. You have gone to ridiculous lengths to defend Tesla against the indefensible.

Easy enough to do since you continuously lengthen the conversation and leave me to reply to you, but selectively ignore responding to anything you can't handle. Also, not my fault that you're obsessed with airbags. They are irrelevant to the conversation as my first post regarding airbags in response to yours stated.

Actually bothered watching the movie. It looks really fake. Polished, but really fake. Of course, that just means that it looks very much like the kind of boring, canned fight choreography you would expect in many big budget films where the script itself basically says "insert fight scene here", so I can see why an MPA/MPAA CEO would be worried. Oh, and my heart truly, truly weeps for them, really. Basically, if an extraordinarily generic fight scene generated from recycled crap with different actors faces pasted on makes them worried, I think that demonstrates a lot about what they think about the art of film making.

There is a decent point in there though. One that should be considered by any of the big businesses trying to replace all of their employees with AI (and that includes the big AI companies looking at valuations in the hundreds of billions or even in the trillions), and that is that is that spread of this technology really can lead to a future where these big money industries that centralize all this power and control can end up obsolete. Of course, as they realize this, that could mean that they see that the world is changing and realize that new ways of doing things are coming. Small creators in their homes will be able to do most of what they can do, so they need to provide something better or be irrelevant. For the AI companies, the computing power and resources for AI could sit on people's desktops, in their handheld devices, etc. working directly for people and using public repositories of knowledge not controlled by anyone (I mean, not current "AI" necessarily, but some future AI) and not controlling them, tracking all of their personal details to commercialize them, etc. They could see that. More likely though, they will see that now is the time to use their existing power, control, and wealth to lock things in so that they can extract rents from us forever.

So, just a bit more on the video. Amazingly generic. Fight on a rooftop with cityscape in the background. Lots of posing, extremely basic fighting moves cribbed from other fight scenes. I could swear that last kick was ripped right out of a Chuck Norris movie from about forty years ago. They start by running at each other in a long shot, then slowing and basically winding up fro a punch in extremely generic fight choreography. The motion is choppy, the faces are blurry, mask-like, and a little distorted, which is hidden by the jerky motion. The fight moves are just a bunch of pretty basic punches and blocks except for that last kick and block. There's a punch at about 0:10 where Cruise punches (connects? misses? doesn't seem like it makes a difference to the other guys face), doesn't withdraw his arm, then Pitt blocks his arm, then makes another move to deflect it (an arm that's just held out pointlessly after the punch) after the punch. That last kick at the end, there was too much distance between them for it to have much of a chance of contact. For the majority of their punches, in fact, they weren't closing. Basically, this wasn't just a fake AI generated fight, it was an fake AI generated fake fight. The fighting was all the kind of choreography that Hollywood uses for closeup shots of multimillion faces fighting, where the faces are too precious for real fighting moves, but they really want to show the action hero faces.

I don't know. Someone else might have a different opinion on it, but it mostly seems like crap to me. A threat to Hollywood crap sure, but still crap. Of course, at this point I am tempted to tell everyone to get off my lawn, so take with a grain of salt.

If you could make the car battery with no lithium carbonate at all, but everything else the same, it would still be about 85% to 90% of the same price and the battery is about a third of the price of the car. So, even if the lithium is were free, which it is not, that should only mean about a 3% to 5% reduction in the price of the car.

Was that a joke, or do you actually believe that? I mean, I'm not even going to argue the reality of, for example, how many birds they actually kill. Why bother when the notion that typical Republicans actually care about that stuff in the first place is a joke. For just this administration, they have eliminated $7 billion for the solar for all grant program, ended or reduced many types of renewable credits that apply to all types of renewables, slowed down issuing permits, cut the rural energy for america program, put huge tariffs on solar panels, and set the IRS against renewables businesses. Trump may have a bizarre fetish for slandering wind power, but he hates all renewables. Outside the Trump administration, republican politicians in Congress and at the state level are always going after renewables.

Meh. Those regulations are nothing compared to trying to maintain compliance with various US government bureaucracies. DoD is a notorious example.

Tons of prior art. I am pretty sure I've seen it on Black Mirror, but it's been suggested long before then. A quick search finds Hans Moravec writing about it in 1988. Since the restrictions on patents for prior art or for them being non-obvious to one skilled in the art have been watered down to the point of meaninglessness, that doesn't stop patent examiners from just rubber stamping garbage like this.

That wasn't in direct reply to you, for one thing. For another, it was very clearly proceeded by the autoclitic: "I think". For another, it was perfectly valid since you were dodging, any way you could, actually answering fluffernutter's question. Given the criticisms you made, imagining what you might mean is pretty typical. I will note that, aside from attacking what I said, you have not actually clarified. So, there's really nothing hypocritical about what I was saying and it wasn't anything like quoting snippets out of context to change the meaning.

So, this tautology entirely misses the point of what I was saying. What I am saying is that, regardless of where and in what situations people live, whether they are in the most "walkable" subsector of a city, or the most isolated rural environment, the travel opportunities available are never _less_ with a car available than without one. To be clear, my point from the start, which you have not really addressed, but just talked around is that your claim that being car dependent is the worst thing you can do exercise wise is far from universal because many people live in places where they are car dependent, but are offered so many other opportunities (and requirements) for outdoor activities that your statement is clearly too strong. Being car dependent is not the worst thing you can do exercise wise. Aside from the fact that you ascribe way to much personal responsibility for being "car dependent" in the first place, it is clearly not the worst thing you can do exercise wise, because the worst thing you can do is simply refuse to exercise. Which is something that someone living a non-car dependent lifestyle is perfectly capable of doing as well. You've made it clear with all the "carbrain" and "carosexual" stuff that this is not merely an argument on exercise logistics for you, but that you are moralizing. No one is making any similarly moralizing argument in favor of cars or fetishizing them in any way. We are simply recognizing them as a pragmatic necessity. I will note that, in one of their posts, karmawarrior, with whom you have been having a mutual hatefest of the "carosexuals", etc., admitted to being car dependent by necessity. Somehow though, they are not a "carosexual" with "carbrain' but you appear to think that fluffernutter, who points out that they are car dependent by necessity is.

Basically this whole ridiculous conversation has gone on and on because you insist on attacking rather than simply considering other people's circumstances.

This tautology was not the context of the conversation at the time.

How is it called for? It was a perfectly reasonable review of the actual technical issues raised and the solutions.

Also, why did you respond to only that part of the comment? The onus is on you at this point to explain what challenges remain for dealing with the lunar dust (in the context of the habitat interior, since dealing with it outside the habitat is another discussion) that I have not covered. Do you actually disagree with each item about the toxicity, the eletrostatic charge, etc.? If so, why? If not, then what other issues do you see with the dust that makes it somehow more challenging to deal with than other similar dust on Earth?

Just insulting people isn't an argument. This is meant to be a nerd site, we should be able to do better than that.

I think that iggymanz was referring to how easy charged dust is to attract out of a stream of air. Of course, the reality is that, other than the magnetic stuff, the electrostatic charges will disappear inside. Although, I did suggest that you could use lasers, microaves, etc. to charge them inside a confined area in the vents so that you could then attract them. So that might still be workable. Regarding ULPA 17 filters, those might be nice, but workers on Earth who deal with that kind of dust usually only get HEPA filters or worse.

Charges that will go away very quickly in a pressurized airlock and almost instantly in soapy water. There isn't anything really special about this dust. It's "fresh" in the sense that it's unweathered, but plenty of processes on Earth produce unweathered dust of similar kinds. Anything that involves cutting, drilling, cracking rock, for example. It still gets managed. The other thing is the electrostatic charge from exposure to solar wind and high energy rays as well as some radiation of cosmic origin. That has the result of producing some dangerous radical chemicals as well as electrostatic charges. The chemicals aren't called radicals for no reason though. They are super unstable and will react with almost anything, or just spontaneously decay. The charges aren't any different than electrostatic charges on Earth. It is just like building up static by rubbing your feet on the carpet, which you may have noticed works better on dry days than humid ones. It will discharge in air, and the smaller the object, the faster it will discharge. If humid air makes it discharge faster, what do you think inundation in water does? You can certainly wash it off.

Who said it needed to be a simple filter? Depending on whether you mean filtering from the air or water, there are methods for filtering like centrifugal filtering, filtering through water when it isn't already in water, (where you can let the particles flocculate and settle, or use chemical methods to make them precipitate out, or possibly float and skim them, etc.). You can use lasers or microwaves to remove them from the air and possibly water, or, charge them up and then attract them to something charged. Remember how a laser printer works? Attract charged particles to electrostatically charged paper, then heat it to fuse them to the paper. There's all sorts of methods that will work. Also, this is just off the top of my head. Since plenty of working environments have dust basically just like this (or at least like this dust will be very shortly after exposure to an atmosphere), the solutions used in those jobs should work just fine.

Regarding "No. That is amateur-level thinking. It will not work for the Moon.": this reminds me a bit of the whole dot.com boom and all of the "... on the Internet" patents when they started allowing what were basically business method patents. Here, it's "... in space." Every known thing is different because "... in space." People discussing something ignore all the real challenges for relatively mundane things that we more or less know how to deal with because "... in space". On Earth, 1G is standard and all plain old civil engineers understand how to work with it. For some reason, every discussion on spinning habitats has some one calling everyone else nutters because they just don't realize the "incredible forces" (i.e. 1G) that the engineers have to contend with. There are real engineering problems in making a spinning habitat, but the forces involved are actually the mundane thing that we already know how to work with but because, "... in space" it's somehow such a huge unknown challenge. You even regularly get people interjecting "how do you even know they have the same elements there. You're just making assumptions" because, you know "... in space". Then you have to go on and on about astrophysics, the periodic table, what elements are, protons, neutrons, electrons, valence electrons, electron shells, s,p,d,f configurations, lanthanides and actiniedes, strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces, astrophysics, nuclear physics, mass spectrometry, red shift, baryonic matter, non-baryonic matter, etc. You also have to wonder why, since they seem to have skipped high school science, they are acting so smug about their stunning revelations.

So, basically, this is dust on the moon. It's "... in space",but it's really just specialty dust. It's just like Earth dust found after certain minerals are crushed, just preserved in a vacuum and directly exposed to the sun. That last part is the "... in space" part. I have explained though, how the poisonous substances (just the "... in space" ones, since obviously regular old crushed rock dust on Earth contains toxins too) fade quickly and can be removed anyway, how the elecrostatic stickiness fades quickly and doesn't hold up to air or water. So, you can dispute those items if you want but, beyond that, what else is there about this "... in space" dust that can't be handled pretty much the way it is on Earth.

Sure, the Apollo astronauts complained about the gunpowder small of the rocks and the irritation it caused. I've smelled that from broken rocks and gotten irritation from rock dust. I know what they are talking about. However, the Apollo astronauts didn't have airlocks in their landers. They just depressurized the whole thing, went outside, went back in, repressurized, then took of their suits. Most of the missions, they didn't even take off the suits, they just kept them on in there and took of helmets and gloves. That meant that they were in there with all the dust from the suit that they could not remove before coming in. It was a primitive, space restricted setup. We're talking about a situation where the suit is an outer covering to which exposure is minimized. With some systems for getting out of the suit (where the back of the suit fits to an airlock and you climb out of the back) the astronaut doesn't even need to be exposed to the outside of the suit at all. Even without that extreme, plenty of jobs with protective gear have robing/disrobing processes that minimize the wearer's exposure to contaminants on the exterior. It's not particularly special because "... in space" but let me know if you do think of any more.

Work has been done on using electron beams to do it. That may be a solution for outside. The context was that the dust would slowing kill the astronauts though, so this means inside, where soap and water will work. Water dissipates electrostatic charges. Even air does, over time, but water speeds it up. Most people have probably noticed that static buildup tends to be much worse in dry air than humid air.

Unnecessarily rude. Also, maybe a little humility might be in order when you are coming up with nonsense obstacles that don't hold up to the slightest scrutiny. Also, what's with the "figures"? How does it figure? Is that a direct personal attack on me? Or otherwise, what is it in regards to other than the material details of my post?

With soap and water? Of course you can. What physical properties do you think this dust has that prevents washing most of it off with soap and water? If we're talking moon dust, the particularly chemically toxic part is generally hydroxyl radicals which are effectively water soluble (not exactly in the traditional sense, but they will definitely come away in water), highly reactive to most kinds of soap, and have very short chemical half lives (meaning that just the time spent for showering it off would destroy most of it even without the showering part). As for it being fine and weathered, any freshly cut stone will produce plenty of dust like that, but equipment and clothing in mines and quarries, etc. is somehow not unmanageable and can be washed off. If you're worried about the electrostatic charges, those would naturally dissipate in an atmosphere anyway through corona discharge. Consider balloons, or styrofoam peanuts. You charge them up and stick them to something and they definitely stick, but go away for a while and come back and they're on the floor. Same applies to the dust, except of course that, the smaller the object is, the faster it is going to lose charge to the environment. The dust should lose charge in the airlock very fast in fact, even without the water and surfactant, but that should accelerate it even more.

That leaves particles that have worked their way into surfaces, etc. Those certainly may not wash off because they are stuck there. Of course, if they are, that also means they won't easily become airborne, which is the whole problem in the first place as far as the health of the astronauts go since your stated concern is that it will "slowly kill people". So, if the whole process is:
Enter outer airlock door. Close outer airlock door. Pressurize. Shower off. Blow dry. Open inner airlock door. Pass through door (and possibly a dust curtain), entering suit storage room. Remove suit (a process in itself, one that can be optimized to avoid any leftover dust getting on the astronaut). Hang up suit in a cubby (potentially sealed and with additional cleaning/air filtering). Leave suit room (which potentially has its own isolated atmosphere that it runs through filtration to remove any dust that does get into the air). At that point, potentially take off inner suit and put that in sealed laundry hamper to be washed. At that point, the amount of dust on the astronaut or in the air should be miniscule, and that air is constantly being filtered and recirculated also. At that point, you have no problem whatsoever with dust slowing killing people or at least the potential risk is lower than to the majority of tradespeople who deal with toxic dust all the time.

It doesn't solve the other problem of the moon dust of course, which is wear on the equipment. But that just means maintenance is required, which is true of any survival critical gear. That means, inspections, protective coatings which are repeatedly re-applied, replaced seals and other parts, and possibly making as much of the exterior of the suit out of something less permeable than fabric. Also, probably, a shorter lifetime for the equipment, or at least parts of it. This isn't even rocket science. Plenty of work done in challenging environments on Earth requires similar solutions.

I am curious why you think that washing the dust off with soap and water before you come inside is such a stupid idea. What challenges are you seeing to that working?

Costs went down, yes, but they're still three orders of magnitude higher than Musk claimed they would be. That's one of the reasons people think of Musk as a snake oil salesman.