My one question is what popups exist in cursor? It is my daily driver and I cannot recall any popups.

If you mean we'd just be writing specs, I would rather engage with code than deal with the mess that is natural language to encode logic and alignment.

A city on Mars was never going to happen without revenue. Starlink is providing revenue but probably not enough for Mars. SpaceX needs more and AI is the only plausible way.

Starlink was a fantastic way to increase the launch cadence of Falcon 9. “High production rate solves many ills” is part of SpaceX’s ethos.

They’re trying to do the same with orbital compute for Starship.

I’m not sure having their own frontier models is strictly necessary for that, but it’s at least related.

They have in-house models, and the data to train even more powerful ones. The cursor team is a proper AI lab.

They’re spending Monopoly money.

It also seems like SpaceX is poised to Hoover up all of Elons companies so it’s might not be “just a space company” for long.

So yes, SpaceX is pivoting, but it's to no one's surprise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPIGu0anfAE

The video explains that it is spelled out in the prospectus that SpaceX is counting 70%-80% of their total addressable market to be AI related and only about 7%-8% to be space-related.

It’s all disclosed in the S-1, you read it right?

In America all you have to do is tell potential investors what you’re doing, its up to the people to use their discretion afterwards

- "Space company" has a major LLM+datacenter business called X.ai.

- LLM for coding is a big business, as you can see from trillion dollar valuations of Anthropic.

- Cursor is popular and gives you a headstart on the business.

- Instagram was bought for the price of many many hospitals. Uber is more valuable than companies owning the cars. Different business models, entirely different valuation models. Not sure what that comparison entails. You know it. I know it.

Whether it is a good purchase or not, we may not know, but we know your characterization is just outright dismissal without much rationale behind it.

To be clear, I don't know which part is signal and which part is noise any better than anyone else.

Why? (Genuinely curious, I would have assumed the opposite)

AFAIK their market is pseudo-technical people who haven’t found the terminal yet.

I had absolutely no interest in their VS Code fork. The Agent Window was okay but buggy (eg wouldn’t load branches on Ubuntu via WSL2).

Overall used it a couple of times but still use Codex CLI as my main driver. Might try CC in the future esp. if they unban Fable.

I switched to Zed, and I'm never going back to Electron/non-native IDEs.

Also their computer use in the cloud agents (when it works) is a game changer. No need to keep your laptop open / get a Mac mini if it runs in the cloud.

Basic tasks in cursor. It's decent and damn fast.

All my team members also use it.

I typically use Claude for interacting with MCPs and skills to operate on live systems.

In short, the answer to your literal question is "no" because nothing remains forever in this world. The practical answer is "yes" because the TSLA stock has been irrational for years already and it shows no sign of stopping.

The real question is, when does that run out of steam? When do we wake up to the charade that has built up around us? That's a much bigger thing than just Elon and his businesses. Like someone else said, when the next crisis/downturn/depression hits the house of cards will fall. Unfortunately it will hit all of us not just people in the meme stocks

Here, “technicals” means technical analysis signals rather than the company’s business fundamentals. In other words, Burry is saying the stock could rise because of chart-based trading, momentum, and market behavior—not because investors think SpaceX is truly worth that much based on revenue, profits, or other fundamentals.

How long can the hype be maintained? TSLA is still maintaining its hype, judging by its P/E ratio.

The "value" of something can be a bit of a meta-game:

> A Keynesian beauty contest is a metaphorical beauty contest in which judges are rewarded for selecting the most popular choices among all judges, rather than those they may personally find the most attractive. This idea is often applied in financial markets, whereby investors could profit more by buying whichever stocks they think other investors will buy, rather than the stocks that have fundamentally the best value, because when other people buy a stock, they bid up the price, allowing an earlier investor to cash out with a profit, regardless of whether the price increases are supported by its fundamentals and theoretical arguments.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest

Plenty of folks may think these companies are garbage but are 'playing along' because it's not necessarily what they themselves think that is important, but what others think.

This idea was put forward by Keynes in his General Thoery publish in 1936, so human nature has hardly changed since then.

It's a different kind of hype than Nvidia has, which is showing very high and fast growing revenues (which may not continue, but they're real now). Jensen I think is not as critical to the AI hype as Elon is to his companies.

All these major tech companies eventually get leadership changes. Apple, Google, Amazon, have all done well because they're real companies and go beyond their original leadership. Tesla and SpaceX I think would surely go down the moment Musk is no longer in leadership.

Obviously not. It’s all about timing your bail so you don’t get left holding the bag.

This is not true.

BTC is way more sane than SpaceX as can be seen by it's history so far.

Someone on HN: "BTC is valueable solely through the power of memes".

On the other hand, the fact that BTC has absolutely no intrinsic value can be an advantage over a real company, as it makes it more insulated from reality. Supply chain shock? No problem. Competition? Same. New technologies, political change? Neither.

The main reason humanity hasn't meaningfully started expanding into space is because it used to cost $54,000 to get a liter of water into space. SpaceX brought that down to about $5000, and then further down to near $1400. That's a massive reduction in price, but you're still left with the problem that it costs $1400 to get a liter of water to space, which is why we still can't have nice things, yet.

Starship has the promise of bringing that down a couple of more orders of magnitude where the goal is to get it within the $10-$20 range. If they succeed, then you've just opened the doors to an entire new frontier of expansion and growth for humanity which is practically infinite. And right now there's no real reason to think that they won't succeed. And more importantly than this is that nobody seems to be able to compete on their level, or even remotely close. Their closest competitor is probably China who remains technologically well behind. And so SpaceX today is akin to being able to get a piece of some sort of super-ship making monopoly, just prior to the Age of Sail. The downside risk is basically zero since they're still making rapid progress - the only question is how rapid. And upside potential is basically infinite.

[1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/11/spacex-cuts-retail-ipo-alloc...

Like everything else in finance...

Saying this is not to defend all sorts of crypto-bros. The economy, especially one overly focused on publicly traded companies like the Western, and especially the US economy, is a meme economy.

Coffee, flats, healthcare, military spending, etc., of comparable quality in the abstract East, cost multiples less than in the EU/USA because they and their currencies are weak on memes.

Of course it can collapse before that, but if it gets to that point it is guaranteed to collapse.

I mentioned this in other thread(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48514481), we are at runaway intelligence already.

Mostly because we are looping AI to fix problems, and then the same data is used to improve AI. There is no upper limit to this.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this process needs a hardware scale that might even look laughably huge at this point. Its fairly obvious space is going to play a big role in the coming times.

I could be wrong, and I humbly accept it when Im proven wrong. But it does feel like a lot of people in top places know we are going to need all the energy and resources space has to offer to run this runaway intelligence.

I know I'll sound hyperbolic but I'm deeply skeptical of the way anything Musk-owned is going to treat private data. I think he wouldn't hesitate to dig into it if it were to his benefit, even if there was an agreement against it. For that reason alone it makes Cursor look worse to me.

I can't speak for anyone else but I wont be renewing my sub. Funding anything Musk related isn't exactly high up on my list of desires, and theres ample alternatives out there.

(mostly /s but I know I'd give it another look if it was that good)

Aviator [2] is also good, and they have a hosted UI with merge queue support as well.

[1] https://github.com/abhinav/git-spice

[2] https://github.com/aviator-co/av

That's not crazy because if past predicts the future, that revenue will grow quickly. At $8 billion/year it's just 7.5 years, which is a reasonable investment.

users

- xAI needs the coding related data to compete with Claude Code and Codex

- Recent progress with Composer 2.5 seems promising given the size

- The may get a comeback on the smaller than Enterprise battle field now that the other two got so expensive

- The way that Elon set up this entire process was quite genius. They locked in this option before, and now after the gains through the IPO, it feels almost like a discount, lol

My hot take is that it will probably be like the OS landscape:

  - Some established enterprise option (Windows)
  - Quality secondary option for professionals (OS X)
  - Super users / nerds / tinkerers (Unix flavors)

I'm not saying HN should be super supportive of everything, but the level of hate and complete loss of reality for a lot of people is quite sad to see, for a community of supposedly intelligent people.

The highest github stars one is called `zed` another one i've heard about is `Cline`

theirs also a few that yc backed ones:

`Void`

`Continue`

`PearAI`

For what its worth the non yc ones have way more github stars but im sure the yc ones are good too. I think `Continue` is the biggest yc one.

https://zot.im

The idea is to make it fully autonomous so it is not really something that is meant to be constantly prompted and it is unlikely to fit most workflows but the idea is to make something that fits the future - not the present.

Between the codex app, cli, and vscode extension there are options for most ways of working

I use Claude more for greenfield feature building where I dont need to surgically dig in and view existing code specifics.

This is not really a diss on SpaceX either because a lot of IPOs go through an immediate pop and then 1-2 years of doldrums as lockouts expire and promises aren't quite delivered.

Nobody knows what 60 billion in SpaceX stock today will be worth when Cursor insiders finally get to sell (at least a year from now, after other SpaceX insiders have started selling).

Composer 2.5 was a huge leap with minimal compute from xAI.

They can compete with OpenAI and anthropic with xAI scale compute. They have a top notch model team and incredible training data and huge enterprise costumer contracts.

Vs Claude Code: I like the option to change the models, as I often prefer ChatGPT or Composer to Opus. I have a slight preference towards TUI, but not so strong to drop the models.

Vs JetBrains. I really love JetBrains but the tab complete just works so well for me.

composer 2.5 is also a very decent model, it go 90% of my AI tasks using it now.

Their valuation should be very closely tied to how how many tokens it takes to get from Void to Cursor.

If those values diverge by much, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

To paraphrase, the biggest trick the devil pulled is convincing founders they need a moat.

What matters is that this has enough "future story value" to keep the few investors invested... allowing for the planned index funds to buy into the overvalued stock & allowing for the largest heist in the history of money.

It's become pure hype and drama on the global stock market stage.

And AI companies are not short of capital.

This announcement is a definitive agreement of the acquisition at that $60B valuation.

They're not a space company any more. They're just part of the AI bubble.

https://x.com/SpaceX/status/2066873915717136548

Nobody can put a dent into Coca Cola because of their market. Better products exist but there is really no way to compete against $5 billion in marketing allowing them to maintain $50 billion.

Cursor is ~1MM users a day. $60k/per user is high but considering this is a stock buy, Space X "made" $300BN in the first day that is ~20% or one day of positive movement.

For Musk (with his baggage) to create or steer that user base would require a significant investment and time. Why not just slap some coupons from an initial bump to acquire the user base, user experience, and IP?

Most of this is just customers + staff/tech rather than models being acquired. Cursors actually got so much better in the last year. Their composer 2 model (a tweaked version of Kimi K2.5) is decent for day to day mundane tasks and the app can auto switch to more capable models when needed.

users

So, you know. Couple of things.

Specially given that coding turns out to not be all that complicated, in the grand scheme of AI things: I don't think it's going take much more advances at the frontier before code writing will be as good as it need to be. At that point Composer (their model) catches up, what, 6 month later and they good.

Of all the ai companies out there, anthropic and cursor are the two id invest in.

In a world where even Microsoft is needing to use AWS for capacity beyond Azure, xAI's utilization of their data centers has been so low that they are renting them out to competitors instead.

Nobody wants Grok. If you aren't using GPT-5 or Claude, you are probably using an open Chinese model like Qwen hosted by some provider.

I would expect Cursor to be forced to use the Grok Code models in short order. We'll see how people feel about "Mecha Hitler" writing their code.

Likely, Cursor becomes Grok Desktop or whatever, and eventually uses xAI's coding model if they can make a competitive one.

It's almost like giving a toddler $100 in the toy department and seeing what happens next.

So SpaceX is buying 15 years of future cashflows, assuming no change in revenue. Which is bad assumption given past growth was gigantic.

They are also buying 300-400 employees with proven record of training good coding models.

Their expertise will be used to improve Grok Build coding agent.

Also, they're using stock, not cash, so effectively they doubled the amount of money raised.

https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/16/spacex-to-acquire-cursor-f...

Most probably it will be mix of stock/cash

There’s an unprecedented amount of money at stake. And the admin has never been so openly and blatantly for sale.

It has access to all top models, great IDE integration and their AI based autocomplete is still unbeaten.

I have no desire to use a TUI, feels like a downgrade to me.

Good: - Composer 2.5 is pretty decent for the quality / price ratio. - Easy to assign an issue to it in Linear (I know Linear just added this natively for linear agent, but it seems rubbish compared to Cursor) - Bugbot actually finds some useful issues (things Claude and Codex will miss) - Using @cursor in github usually works well, and better than @copilot. - Working with Python Monorepos with UV in their IDE. VSCode and Cursor work well here (Antigravity managed to screw it up somehow).

The Bad: - Usage/billing dashboards - These are are opaque and you can't attribute what actions map to what spend. - cursor won't follow PRs well like Claude Codes does. - Setting up environments is less good than Claude Code - Their IDE fork is woefully out of date, it'd be nice if it had more of the codeium fixes.

The Ugly: - Settings - Try to turn off bugbot, there's multiple places you have to do it. Good luck figuring them all out. - Support - they are polite, but gas light you and tell you it's your fault their product's settings are awful.

CC is mostly my default for large tasks / features (ex. Plan > execute plan ) Biggest gripe with Claude Code is that it is painfully slow relative to the other two.

Cursor for small stuff like bug fixes since it has a lot of models to choose from. I love the review/ diff / checkpoint features. It's planning feature is on par with CC. I'd probably use Cursor as primary driver if it had better cost efficiency. Next version or two of Composer may fill that gap in cost/quality/speed.

Codex isn't allowed at my work, but I use it for personal projects. It has the best balance of quality / cost / speed even if it's planner is poor and quite frankly the codex harness needs to catch up with the other two.

CC for quality / cost. Cursor for quality / speed. Codex for balance of the 3.

largely lags behind opus4.7/gpt5.4, but is respectable, and generally outperforms the glm/qwen equivalents anecdotally despite benchmarks.

fails to follow instructions more often, and is less code critical, but performs okay if you can decompose the task to smaller problem spaces. i.e. only do manual review, only do typechecking, only do specific component. etc

https://artificialanalysis.ai/agents/coding-agents?coding-ag...

I think my relationship with cursor was the shortest of all.

I like the ability to switch between any models, Composer 2.5 is really solid, I like having my agents coworking in the IDE with me, the plan mode is great, Cloud Agents are great, especially with slack, linear, web, etc integrations. I routinely tag an error report in slack and Cursor fires up a Composer 2.5 cloud agent that has readonly db access, access to error reporting, etc, and it can triage the issue, issue a PR, and tag me in slack.

The only thing I’ve felt like I’m missing out on is the subsidies of the CC/Codex subscriptions, but it seems like that is rapidly eroding anyway.

An AI editor company might never make 60B itself, but it might help another AI company grow faster (relative to its competitors, who might also want to buy the AI editor company).

What else can an AI giant do with all that money?

Build in-house: they do, and there's only so fast they can hire/build.

Save? Yes, still do, but if they save it all, and let competitors buy Cursor, they lose.

Invest in other fields? Sure, but if they lose the AI race, that's all they'll be left with.

Tesla's IPO is a bet that if Musk has the right opportunity, he will do well. So he's given a big bucket of money, and needs a team that can deliver. So he buys Cursor.

The winners are Cursor. The losers are whoever is funding the AI companies that get outcompeted.

(Full disclosure: I don't know anything about Cursor, nor much about Tesla or its IPO.)

You must be new here.

Do you really think so? Like everyone who risks their and their clients' money here is just being irrational? Is this really a coherent view? Could it not be that someone knows something you don't, or does not have the biases you have?

> The consideration for the acquisition of Cursor, if any, after the closing of this offering would consist of shares of our Class A common stock based on an implied equity value of Cursor of $60.0 billion

"Collaboration with Cursor" page 12 of the SpaceX S-1 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1181412/000162828026...

$60B cash? Too much.

$60B SPCX stock? Why so low.

So according to SpaceX, the market for AI is 2.5 larger than all the food sold on this planet.

They're also saying that the AI market is worth roughly 10% of all global real estate.

> This is unhinged.

The only way for Musk to become a quadrillionaire is hyperinflation. And a week later, we'll be quadrillionaires too!

By 2030? No way

By 2050? Maybe?

Obviously during an IPO you’re trying to make the bull case (unhinged or not). What does it look like in the best case scenario.

The math don’t math here, there literally aren’t enough people to afford this and businesses will go under the more people are displaced for gainful employment.

So this is saying AI products will increase global GDP by about 20%.

The Federal Reserve says AI is contributing about 1% GDP growth per year to the US [0].

So maybe you can get to $13 trillion over a decade just from that. If you assume some acceleration, 20% isn't out of the question.

It is an extremely rosy projection, but if AI can replicate large fractions of the workforce, leaving those humans with the ability to work on other things, it doesn't seem unhinged when you think of it through this lens, just very optimistic - not Elon Musk level optimistic, just "everything goes according to plan and a bunch of things in the causal chain are all slightly on the higher end."

[0] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2026/jan/tracking-...

clearly it's more like $540.2 quintillion at this point

Just like the investors :D

I can’t see it in the article when reading on my phone?

Well if you start adding AI powered to "everything" then it is possible.

Soon you'll have AI face cream and AI donuts.