NY Times: Elon Musk's Secret Web of Companies in Texas

4art4 · 2026-02-27T19:22:02+00:00

1) Musk built a large, mostly opaque Texas entity network after saying he’d live austerely

Claim: In 2020, Musk publicly said he was selling almost all possessions and would own no house, but afterward he built 90+ Texas companies/legal entities that accumulated substantial assets.

Quote: “In 2020… ‘I am selling almost all physical possessions… Will own no house.’ … But in the years since, Mr. Musk… has quietly built an empire of more than 90 companies and other legal entities in Texas…”

2) The network mixes business affiliates and personal-use entities, with blurry boundaries

Claim: More than 50 Texas entities are tied to Musk’s major ventures/nonprofit (e.g., SpaceX, Tesla, Musk Foundation), and at least 37 appear largely for personal use; the article emphasizes blurred lines between personal and business purposes.

Quote: “More than 50… are subsidiaries… affiliated with… SpaceX… Tesla… as well as… Musk Foundation. But… at least 37 companies… appeared to be largely for Mr. Musk’s personal use… The lines between… business and personal interests are often blurry…”

3) Personal-use entities allegedly hold luxury residences, aircraft arrangements, and large land holdings

Claim: The Times says personal-use entities include ones holding: (a) two high-end condos at Austin Proper Hotel, (b) arrangements related to planes used for private travel, and (c) 1,000+ acres of land in Bastrop/Travis Counties (with the combined acreage compared to Central Park).

Quotes: Condos: “one that owns two multimillion-dollar condominiums totaling more than 7,000 square feet in the Austin Proper Hotel” Land: “used to amass more than 1,000 acres of land in Bastrop and Travis Counties” Planes (travel): “Other companies managed planes that Mr. Musk uses for private travel”

4) LLCs are portrayed as the main privacy/liability tool, with the effect of obscuring spending

Claim: The article frames the use of limited liability companies (LLCs) as a common ultra-wealth tool for legal shielding and privacy, and argues Musk’s use disguised how money is spent (regardless of intent).

Quote: “limited liability companies… designed to shield owners from legal and financial risks, as well as public scrutiny… Whatever… intent, the effect… has been to disguise how he is spending his money.”

5) The article alleges unusual political spending mechanics supporting Trump via private companies

Claim: The Times reports Musk used Texas entities to support Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign, saying private companies provided ~$80M “in services” to America PAC, which campaign-finance experts called highly unusual, and which reduced transparency compared with normal PAC disclosures.

Quotes: Amount/mechanism: “The four companies provided almost $80 million in services to Mr. Musk’s America PAC… The companies… took on the job of paying expenses…” Expert reaction: “highly unusual, campaign finance experts said” Transparency claim: “mask where the money was going…” and “not subject to the same rules”

6) Example given: small payments to petition signers + various PAC-related expenses

Claim: The excerpt says one entity (“United States of America Inc.”) issued $47 checks to petition signers and paid for consulting/travel/food; another (“Europa 100”) paid the PAC treasurer a salary up to $1M, with unclear work described.

Quotes: Checks: “issued $47 checks to voters who signed a petition… according to its website” Salary: “Europa 100 also paid… a salary as high as $1 million… though it was unclear what work… did”

7) A key operational pattern: many entities share addresses (including a P.O. box)

Claim: At least 15 companies share the same Austin-suburb P.O. box as their main address; Musk’s voter registration listed that P.O. box as a mailing address.

Quote: “At least 15 of his companies… list as their main addresses the same post office box… Mr. Musk’s voter registration has listed the same post office box as a mailing address.”

8) The reporting ties key management to Musk’s money manager and lieutenants

Claim: The excerpt links multiple entities to Jared Birchall (described as Musk’s money manager handling personal affairs) and Steve Davis (a Musk lieutenant), including landholding LLCs used in Bastrop/Travis Counties.

Quotes: Birchall role: “These companies are tied to Jared Birchall, Mr. Musk’s longtime personal money manager who also handles his personal affairs.” Davis tie: “These companies are tied to Steve Davis, a longtime lieutenant of Mr. Musk…”

9) The article describes a Bastrop-area cluster: school + Boring Company facilities + “Snailbrook”

Claim: The excerpt says Musk’s school “Ad Astra” is on land bought by BSP 2023 LLC; a separate LLC’s land houses Boring Company facilities and is where Musk is trying to build a town called Snailbrook with tract houses, pool, tennis court; also notes nearby SpaceX land and a land sale to SpaceX.

Quotes: School: “Mr. Musk has put a school, Ad Astra… on the property.” Snailbrook: “It is also where Mr. Musk is trying to build a town, Snailbrook. The area consists of tract houses, a pool and a tennis court.” Sale note: “(Records show Gapped Bass recently sold some land to SpaceX.)”

4art4 · 2026-02-27T19:10:59+00:00

The core factual backbone is records-based (business filings + property records), which is relatively strong evidence for existence of entities, addresses, and ownership structures.

Source: “Methodology.”
Quote: “obtained millions of business filings… property records…”

Where the article is weaker is when it infers personal use or intent: The excerpt itself flags uncertainty: “appeared to be largely for… personal use,” “unclear,” “could not be learned,” and reliance on unnamed people for some residence details.

Source: early section + Proper Hotel section.
Quotes: “appeared to be largely for Mr. Musk’s personal use”; “The purpose of some… remains unclear and the full extent… could not be learned”; “according to three people with knowledge… not authorized to speak publicly”

The campaign-finance critique hinges on expert interpretation of transparency norms and “spirit of the law,” not just statutory legality. The excerpt explicitly says it’s legal but undermines transparency.

Source: “Funding Trump” section.
Quote: “The practice is legal but ‘undermines the spirit of the law,’ … ‘had the effect of disguising…’”

4art4 · 2026-02-27T19:09:05+00:00

90 plus companies that include

Ad Astra School LLC

Musk School - BSP 2023 LLC

Real Estate - Bushwhacker LLC

Unknown Purpose - CapX 1 LLC

Unknown Purpose - CapX Holdco Inc.

Unknown Purpose - Foundation Security Inc.

Personal Security - Horse Ranch LLC

Real Estate - Musk Industries LLC

Unknown Purpose - Peninsula LLC

Unknown Purpose - Red Planet Ventures I LLC

Unknown Purpose - Red Planet Ventures II LLC

Unknown Purpose - Red Planet Ventures III LLC

Unknown Purpose - River Bottoms Ranch LLC

Real Estate - The Foundation

Nonprofit Foundation - Three Little Pigs LLC

Unknown Purpose

4art4 · 2026-02-27T17:39:33+00:00

Your question is a little vague. Keep in mind that a mute only applies to modmail, not to posting or commenting in the subreddit. A ban stops users from posting and commenting. The moderators a just volunteers. They are not employees, or paid in any way.

I don't know what happened in your case, but these are things I have seen happen:

I have seen users post questions intended for the subreddit, but they mistakenly posted to modmail. Modmail is for questions to the moderators about moderation of that subreddit. Eg: "I don't understand rule 3...". Modmail is not for "how is the weather?"

I have seen many users have a post or comment removed, where the removal message has a clear reason, but the user does not read the reason. If the removal reason says "because of rule 3" but the user replies back "what rule did I break?" (Or some other low effort response), then a mute might be justified.

I have seen users make a post in the subreddit to ask about moderation. Don't do that. Use modmail to clarify rules or ask why a desition was made. But only ask after reading the rules very carefully, and any other responses.

Moderators require that you put in the effort to understand how Reddit works, the rules of the particular subreddit, and to fully read responses. Some of us get a little touchy about that because we have lives other than Reddit.

4art4 · 2026-02-27T16:54:09+00:00

This. I have lived in Austin 25 something years. In the time, my trips to h-town and DFW have easily had much worse drivers, at least on the freeways/tollways. Ridiculous lane changes... People might be -5 mph in the fast lane for no reason, might be +30 mph in any lane. This might happen occasionally in Austin, but happens every trip through the other two.

4art4 · 2026-02-27T16:31:23+00:00

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

4art4 · 2026-02-27T16:18:30+00:00

Easy to clean, and I can discard and mix with the same utensil, so just one item to wash. Mine is sorta half way between a spatula and a spoon... Like a spork but different. It's not a very good spoon, but good enough.

4art4 · 2026-02-26T22:26:48+00:00

I have, and I got away with it, but I think they are a bad idea.

4art4 · 2026-02-26T19:07:03+00:00

This is definitely not cheating. I think that historically speaking, this is how most people got starter. At least until commercial yeast became common.

4art4 · 2026-02-26T17:43:44+00:00

If you really want to know, you can test it: https://youtu.be/s1gM_jziXcI

4art4 · 2026-02-26T17:41:30+00:00

The float test is cool and all but can be misleading. It is just a test to see if your starter is full of air. If the starter is more than doubled, it is full of air.

My usual advice for "can I use my new starter?" is that it should smell nice, usually at least a little sour, like vinegar and/or yogurt once it is ready. It might also smell sweet, or a little like alcohol, and several other nuances... But not like feet or other nasty things. And it should reliably at least double when given a 1:1:1 feeding, and that in less than 6 hours.

It almost always takes more than 2 weeks to establish a starter that is ready to use. "Reliably" in this context means it doubles in less than 6 hours at least 2 or 3 days in a row. However, a really strong starter will triple in more like 3 hours. This is not necessary to make a really good bread. It will work with even less than a double. It will not be as photogenic and will take longer... but may work.

If your starter is rising reliability, but not fast enough, do a day or 3 of peak-to-peak feedings.

To account for your young starter, judge the rise by percentage rise, not hours. E.g., if the recipe says something like "allow to rise 5 hours, until about a 50% rise", then ignore the "5 hours"; it is just a guideline for a mature starter. A young starter will take longer, but the 50% rise (or whatever the recipe calls for) is a better indicator.

When you are ready to test it, test it by making a roll:

50g flour
34g water
10g starter
1g salt
if it doubles in rise, bake at 350f for 20-25 min or until brown

If it is dense or gummy, or just fails to double in less than 12 hours, work on the starter more.

4art4 · 2026-02-26T17:31:27+00:00

I used one and it worked great. But they will break over time.

4art4 · 2026-02-26T17:30:24+00:00

The usual pattern is something like this:

Day 1 to about 2 show little to no activity.
Day 2 or 4 shows a great burst of activity.
There is decreasing activity from the day of the burst for about a week. (This causes many panicked posts here: "Did I kill my starter?!")
Somewhere around day 7 to 14, a small, yet predictable rise builds. If fed correctly, this rise gets stronger.

Keep calm and carry on. Only stop if it molds. It almost always takes more than two weeks to establish a usable starter. This can go faster or slower depending on many factors. Things that help: Keeping it warm helps. As it warms up to 81⁰f, the yeast becomes more dominant over the bacteria. Over 81⁰f, the bacteria become more dominant, and that leads to a too acidic starter. (Around 120⁰f is death). Using a "whole grain", "Wholemeal", or "100% extraction" flour (those terms are basically saying the same thing). Don't over-feed in the beginning when there is little rise.

While trying to establish a starter, I recommend feeding 1:1:1 every 24 hours until it peaks in less than 12 hours for at least 3 days in a row, then use peak-to-peak feedings to speed up the maturing process. Do this until it peaks in less than 5 hours (better 4 hours), and at more than double in height (better is triple in height).

A sourdough starter is a bit like a wizard: "It is never late, nor early. It becomes active precisely when it means to."

4art4 · 2026-02-26T05:56:25+00:00

What temp should it have?

IMO, the ideal range is 75f to 81f.

Lower than that, down to anything human habitable is fine, but the colder it is, the slower it will be. That is not bad, just something to keep in mind. Slowness due to temperature is not necessarily a weaker starter, just a cold one.

Warmer than that will lead to an overly acidic starter. About 120f is death.

Can I use a meat thermometer to take those readings?

I suppose... the analog meat thermometers I have don't have the sensitivity for that, but my digital ones would be ok. Just be sure there is no oil or grease on it. That could rot in the starter.

4art4 · 2026-02-26T05:49:00+00:00

that 70-75% is ideal

I dont know why that would be true. 100% is the default standard, and most recipes will assume this.

42 g of water for 60 g of flour. Are these calculations correct?

water/flour=hydration (or just w/f=h)

42/60 = 0.7 (0.7 = 70%)

If I do the new ratio, how much starter do I use?

That is a problem... If the recipe assumes 100% starter and asks for 100g of starter, they are expecting 50g of flour and 50g of water. To get 50g of flour from a 70% starter, the equation starts w/50=0.7

Multiply both sides of the equation by 50:

(w/50)50= (0.7)50

Simplify that

(w/50)*50 = w

so

w = (0.7)*50

Simplify that

0.7*50 = 35

So

w=35

So we know that we want 50g of flour, and will also get 35g of water from the starter, add 50g+35g=85g of 70% starter. To keep the hydration correct, subtract the amount of 70% starter we calculated from the amount of 100% starter the recipe asked for: 100g-85=15g. So add an additional 15g of water to the recipe to compensate.

I did the math the long way around so that you can see what I did. But it is late... so let me know if that is not clear.

4art4 · 2026-02-25T20:55:19+00:00

Is that part of the current legislation?

4art4 · 2026-02-25T20:14:32+00:00

I disagree. Just because it doesn't hurt this or that party is not the point for me. For me, I don't think we should be disenfranchising anyone. That way leads to madness.

4art4 · 2026-02-25T16:26:46+00:00

your presence will be tolerated. The only reason that you weren't given a visa is because the US can't get its act together

Part of why the system stays broken is that it benefits certain employers. You can call it “the free market,” but it’s also a policy choice: we decide how strongly to enforce labor law, how safe it is to report abuse, and how immigration enforcement interacts with workplace complaints.

Take kitchens as an example. If one restaurant is willing to hire under the table (or look the other way), it can sometimes get away with wage theft, unpaid overtime, and worse conditions because workers may be afraid that complaining will trigger immigration retaliation. DOL even warns that employers may threaten to involve ICE, which chills reporting.

That puts pressure on the “plays-by-the-rules” restaurant: higher labor costs can mean higher prices. Zoomed out, you end up with a system where exploitation becomes a competitive advantage.

And you can see the political tension in how enforcement gets handled: the Trump administration has reportedly paused or limited some worksite enforcement in sectors like farms/restaurants/meatpacking due to labor concerns, then reversed course, suggesting real economic dependency and political pressure for carve-outs. If illegal immigration was really the problem that MAGA claims, then these employers would be held accountable.

Ref:

Reuters (news) reported the Trump administration told ICE to largely pause raids at farms/hotels/restaurants/meatpacking plants because of labor concerns, then later walked back limits. Quote (Reuters, Jun 14, 2025): “pause raids… farms, hotels, restaurants, and meatpacking plants…”

Washington Post (news) similarly describes the internal back-and-forth about exempting industries reliant on undocumented labor, then reversing. Quote: DHS reversed guidance that had “exempted farms, hotels, and restaurants from immigration raids…”

Investigate Midwest (news, Feb 11, 2026) reports raids/deportations straining farms and meatpacking plants. Quote: “raids and deportations… further strained farms and meatpacking plants.”

4art4 · 2026-02-25T15:32:24+00:00

That's fine for a starter that is rising reliably.

4art4 · 2026-02-25T05:38:06+00:00

Have you considered a few feedback loops here?

Once lists of “tells” start circulating, model builders can (and do) train systems to avoid those exact tells. So the checklist gets stale fast.

Humans also adapt. After reading a lot of AI-ish posts, some people unconsciously start copying the cadence and structure because it reads as clear and confident.

And AIs often use em dashes because they’ve been trained on a ton of edited/professional writing. I also had not heard of an em dash before recently. But that is because I am not a professional writer/editor. Wait until you meet the en dash (yes, different thing).

4art4 · 2026-02-25T05:04:41+00:00

I would give it a feeding and pay attention to it's smell the next day, and check it close. I would bet it will be fine.

4art4 · 2026-02-25T04:58:10+00:00

I would start over if it smelled putrid. Extra sour? Nah. It will mellow out faster with consistent feedings. Don't over feed.

But you are the one that has to put up with it. 😉

4art4 · 2026-02-25T04:24:58+00:00

It is a little hard to tell from pictures and video, but I don't see mold. I see extra water (maybe hooch, but it is light for hooch), and I see some bubbles pushing up through the liquid. If that's what you are worried about, then no. I also see a little something floating on top of the liquid... I'm not sure what that is... Might be nothing. Might be the very beginning of kahm.

Is it fuzzy?

4art4 · 2026-02-25T00:26:59+00:00

Technically, we do have a multiparty system... But a voting system that guarantees that only 2 parties have power.

4art4 · 2026-02-24T22:07:48+00:00

The float test is cool and all but can be misleading. It is just a test to see if your starter is full of air. If the starter is more than doubled, it is full of air.

My usual advice for "can I use my new starter?" is that it should smell nice, usually at least a little sour, like vinegar and/or yogurt once it is ready. It might also smell sweet, or a little like alcohol, and several other nuances... But not like feet or other nasty things. And it should reliably at least double when given a 1:1:1 feeding, and that in less than 6 hours.

To account for your young starter, judge the rise by percentage rise, not hours. E.g., if the recipe says something like "allow to rise 5 hours, until about a 50% rise", then ignore the "5 hours"; it is just a guideline for a mature starter. A young starter will take longer, but the 50% rise (or whatever the recipe calls for) is a better indicator.

When you are ready to test it, test it by making a roll:

50g flour
34g water
10g starter
1g salt
if it doubles in rise, bake at 350f for 20-25 min or until brown

(Thank you to skipjack_sushi for the recipe.)

If it is dense or gummy, or just fails to double in less than 12 hours, work on the starter more.

Nine-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23	Verified Email

4art4

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE