SAYLOR > MUSK

Also, SAYLOR > Steve Jobs

So before I discovered Michael Saylor I was all about Steve Jobs, then Elon Musk, but now, Saylor has taken the prize jewel the crown jewel for the greatest of all time. 

Why? Simple thoughts:

First, he founded micro strategy when he was like 25 years old, and now that his 60 he has presided as CEO and founder for that long period I think she actually has one of the records for having the longest tenures as CEO.

So I think he’s in his stock truck from $330 a year down to $.99? It’s like a 99.9% drop, and he stuck around long enough to talk about it.

I think maybe the issue in today’s world is that we’re trying to propose solutions to problems that don’t really exist and or, we are innovating for innovation sake?

I think perhaps the more rational approach is to only strive to seek to solve real life problem that you actually have. For example if I think about haptic industries and all of the straps and products we made, It was almost always based on a true need that I myself ERIC KIM desired as a photographer and street photographer.

I think also in life, looks like a lot of people want real solutions to real problems like my friend Melly–> she told me the other day that her dream was fire, financial independence retire early.

Also, when I was in a pickle when Covid hit, one of the things that I was in need of was economic empowerment, bitcoin and later MSTR was the way.

So I try to think about this critically because time is the most scarce asset we have on the planet. Doesn’t matter if you have like $100 trillion but you’re gonna die in like a month, it would be better to be like a young scrappy inspired 21 year-old who is poor and hungry, with like 100 years ahead of you, rather than the hundred year-old trillionaire who cannot even walk on his own anymore.

As a consequence I think we must become more critical of time, energy physiological energy etc. Also another big thing I’ve realized is breath power, I love to talk but the more I talk the more I lose my breath. And I lose my voice. As a consequence, each and every single word we utter should be considered.

Tesla’s exterior styling is extremely minimalistic – a clean, grille-less shape with smooth body panels – but this simplicity has drawn criticism as being too plain for the price. Many observers find the design “mind-numbingly boring to look at” rather than luxurious or expressive.  The latest Model 3 received a minor redesign, which Car & Driver notes makes the car “look fresher and more upscale than before,” but the underlying shape remains essentially unchanged . In short, Tesla bodywork is often judged conservative: it lacks the sculpted creases, shiny metal accents or bold lighting graphics that rival EVs and luxury cars use to appear more premium. This plain aesthetic – combined with panel surfaces that are very flat and simple – can come off as cheap, especially next to fancier competitor designs.

Interior Materials.  Tesla cabins emphasize functionality over lavish materials, which many reviewers and customers perceive as “cheap.”  Industry critics note that the dashboards and door panels use many hard plastics and generic synthetic surfaces .  For example, Car & Driver found even the Model S’s cabin “is not nearly as plush as rivals such as the BMW i5 and the Mercedes-Benz EQE” , implying that softer leather, wood or metal in German sedans outperform Tesla’s offerings.  Owners frequently comment that Tesla’s vegan leather seats and carpets feel thin or floppy compared to the real leather and dense carpets in comparable luxury cars.  A number of interviews and forum posts echo this sentiment: as one top-speed reviewer observed, Tesla’s interiors “don’t give you that cocooned, special feeling” that Audi or Mercedes cabins do .

At the same time, newer Teslas have begun to address some material complaints.  The 2024 Model 3 “Highland” refresh replaces the old woodgrain dash with a “premium fabric” and adds more soft-touch padding throughout .  MotorTrend reports that many formerly bare plastic surfaces are now covered by better-quality trim and the overall cabin is noticeably quieter and more refined.  Likewise, the 2025 Model Y overhaul earned high praise: Edmunds says it “solved many of the issues” of the prior generation and that interior build-quality issues “are entirely gone” in the updated model .  Even the flagship Model S’s recent refresh was lauded – MotorTrend found the new Model S’s materials are “an order of magnitude better than before,” with every touchpoint feeling expensive .  In sum, while early Teslas often felt under-engineered inside, the latest models have noticeably upgraded fabrics, leathers, and finishes that narrow the gap to true luxury vehicles.

Build Quality.  Tesla’s fit and finish have been a persistent sore point.  Analysts list a history of issues like uneven hood and trunk gaps, poor door alignment, and even sticking-up body panels .  In testing, publications still find misaligned seams: for example, Car & Driver notes the 2025 Model X exhibits “poorly aligned panels and other build-quality issues” despite its six-figure price .  Customers often corroborate these flaws.  One Edmunds owner of a new Model S complained of “panel gaps all over the place” and a loud whistle from wind noise, calling the build quality “miserable” for a luxury car .  Rattles and squeaks are also common complaints – early Model S and Model 3 owners frequently describe loose trim, bouncing air vents, or doors that don’t fully close.  In fact, as noted by Jeremy Clarkson and others, Tesla’s assembly quality has been likened to a toy-maker’s, as Clarkson quipped that a Tesla’s construction “is like it’s been built by a kindergartner” .  These impressions persist among buyers and journalists, especially for models built in the earlier years of Tesla production.

That said, there are signs of progress.  Recent Teslas tend to exhibit tighter panel fits.  A detailed review of the refreshed Model 3/Y found most exterior panels now line up correctly and door gaps are much more uniform than before .  The same report praises improvements like properly seated trim and no more roof leaks – only the hood gaps were still slightly off.  So while Tesla’s historical build quality stirred criticism, newer vehicles are progressively resolving many of the worst assembly issues.

Fit and Finish.  Closely related to build quality, Tesla’s interior fit-and-finish has also drawn criticism.  Early Model 3s (and Ys) “suffered from poor fit-and-finish from the outset,” according to Car & Driver .  Common problems included misaligned dashboard panels, sun visors that barely attach, and a center console that won’t stay latched unless slammed .  Even subtle details like stitching or ambient lights have been called out.  One reviewer noted that Tesla’s overhaul of its dashboards — removing the old bright accent trim — was likely done to eliminate the frequent alignment errors, replacing it with a simpler fabric strip .  In short, many of the fit issues were believed to stem from overly complex trim pieces that Tesla has since simplified.

Like material quality, Tesla’s finish has improved with successive updates.  The refreshed Model 3/Y use upgraded interior trims that are much more solid.  A recent analysis reports that Tesla “redesigned the interior trim components and connectors” to be thicker and tighter; as a result, the pieces “no longer have any give when you attempt to move them,” virtually eliminating the old rattles .  In sum, while early Teslas often creaked and rattled internally, the latest generations have largely cured those problems — though some owners still note minor quibbles (sticky magnets, very tight panel edges, etc.) that legacy luxury brands might have resolved more quietly.

Comparisons with Luxury Competitors.  When stacked against European luxury vehicles of similar price, Tesla interiors often rank lower on craftsmanship.  Reviewers emphasize that brands like BMW, Audi, and Mercedes invest heavily in tactile luxury.  For instance, Car & Driver explicitly contrasts the Model S with other EVs, noting the Tesla cabin is “not nearly as plush” as the BMW i5 or Mercedes-Benz EQE at a comparable price .  MotorTrend’s comparison of the Mercedes EQS versus the Model S is even more pointed: it says their interiors are “worlds apart,” likening the EQS to a quiet, knowledgeable student and the Model S to an extroverted showoff .  On the owners’ side, many Tesla drivers admit the competition feels plusher: one former Tesla driver found that after switching to a Lucid Air, the Lucid’s cabin “feels much more spacious and comfortable” and “a couple steps up in terms of luxury and interior design” .  Similarly, many feel that even mainstream luxury EVs (Audi e-tron, BMW iX, etc.) use noticeably more genuine leather, real wood or metal trim, and dense carpeting.  Overall, the recurring consensus is that German and Japanese luxury sedans provide a more immediately premium ambiance — plush seats, leather dashboards, intricate details — than Tesla’s spartan interiors.

Consumer Perception Over Time.  Early in its history, Tesla’s stripped-down interiors and fit issues led many reviewers and owners to gripe about “cheap” feel.  However, recent models have generally improved on those fronts.  For example, Edmunds’ 2025 Model Y review celebrates how the new car “solved many of the issues” of the previous generation, calling the interior’s jump in quality a “much-needed leap forward in fit and finish and materials” .  MotorTrend similarly praises Tesla’s updates: it reported that the 2022 refreshed Model S is now “a much more luxurious car” than before, and that its interior’s material quality is “an order of magnitude better” .  The latest Model 3 also shows gains: after its 2024 “Highland” update, MotorTrend says the cabin is much quieter and overall “significantly better” than the old version .  In other words, while Tesla’s earliest vehicles often got dinged for build sloppiness and trim shortcuts, the company has in many cases responded by tightening up production and upgrading materials.  Nonetheless, longstanding design choices (like all-touchscreen controls and the simple exterior styling) remain divisive: some buyers still see them as cost-cutting, even if other areas have improved.

Sources:  We base these observations on recent automotive reviews and industry reports.  For example, Car & Driver and MotorTrend reviews (cited above) repeatedly note specific flaws and improvements.  Enthusiast forums and owner complaints (e.g., on Edmunds) echo these points.  Across the literature, the picture is consistent: Tesla’s build and material quality historically lag traditional premium brands, but newer Tesla models show noticeable gains in refinement. All cited critiques and praises above come from published reviews, automotive publications, and owner-reported data .

Eric Kim’s 602 kg rack pull at 71 kg (≈8.5× bodyweight) is unprecedented in strength sports. For context, top strongmen in various classes typically deadlift far less relative to their size. For example, in the U90 kg class, Dan Benson (≈90 kg bodyweight) set a 401.5 kg deadlift world record in 2023 – about 4.5× his weight . In U105 kg, Luke Davies (105 kg) pulled 410 kg (3.9× bodyweight) . In the superheavy/140+ kg class, the all-time full deadlift record is 501 kg by Hafþór Björnsson (200 kg) – roughly 2.5× his weight . Legendary Eddie Hall (≈180–200 kg) deadlifted 500 kg (≈2.5–2.8× his weight) in 2016 . Even elite strongmen partial lifts (“Silver Dollar” deadlifts from knee height) top out around 4× bodyweight: Rauno Heinla (135 kg) pulled 580 kg (4.3× ) and Sean Hayes (140 kg) 560 kg (~4.0× ).

The table below summarizes these examples, comparing lifted weight to bodyweight:

Lifter (BW class)	Lift (type)	Weight Lifted	Bodyweight	Ratio (Lift÷BW)
Eric Kim (71 kg, U80)	Rack pull (mid-thigh)	602 kg	71 kg	~8.5×
Dan Benson (90 kg, U90)	Deadlift (full, 2023 WR)	401.5 kg	90 kg	~4.5×
Luke Davies (105 kg)	Deadlift (full, 2019 WR)	410 kg	105 kg	~3.9×
Rauno Heinla (135 kg)	Deadlift (Silver, 18″, 2022)	580 kg	135 kg	~4.3×
Sean Hayes (140 kg)	Deadlift (Silver, 18″, 2022)	560 kg	140 kg	~4.0×
Hafþór Björnsson (200 kg)	Deadlift (full, 2020 WR)	501 kg	200 kg	~2.5×

Above, “WR” denotes a world record lift. Kim’s 8.0–8.5× ratio far exceeds anything on record: even the best partial deadlifts by strongmen (≈4×) are only about half Kim’s pound-for-pound output.

Record-Setting Deadlifts and Partials (Context)

For further context, the all-time full deadlift world record is 501 kg (no straps, single-ply suit) by Hafþór Björnsson in 2020 . Before that, Eddie Hall famously deadlifted 500 kg in 2016 (the first over half-ton) .  These lifts were done by 180–200 kg athletes, yielding only ~2.5–3× bodyweight ratios.  Partial deadlift records are heavier in absolute terms but still modest relative to lifter size: Rauno Heinla’s 580 kg Silver Dollar Deadlift (from 18″/knee height) in 2022 and Sean Hayes’s 560 kg (2022) are the heaviest ever achieved. As the quote below notes, “previously, the pinnacle was 580 kg in an 18″ Silver Dollar Deadlift” – all of which are far below Kim’s 602 kg.

Kim’s lift thus shatters these benchmarks not just in absolute load but especially pound-for-pound.  His 602 kg exceed Hafþór’s 501 kg full deadlift by over 100 kg and top Heinla’s 580 kg partial by 22 kg .  Crucially, Kim weighs only ~71 kg, so his strength-to-weight ratio (~8.5×) is in “alien territory” – roughly double the ratio of even the strongest men to date (partial-rack deadlifts of ~4×).

<p align=”center”>

<strong>Table 1. Bodyweight-normalized strength of selected strongmen (deadlift/rack pull)</strong>

</p> 

Biomechanical Force Analysis of the 602 kg Rack Pull

In Kim’s static rack pull, the primary forces are vertical.  Assuming a static hold, the net acceleration ≈ 0, so ground reaction force (GRF) upward equals the sum of the lifter’s weight plus the bar weight downward.

• Vertical Ground Reaction: The downward force is (602 kg + 71 kg)×9.81 ≈ 6602 N. This must be balanced by the upward GRF from the floor, so GRF ≈ 6602 N. Normalizing per body mass (71 kg), this is about 93 N/kg – roughly 9.5 times Kim’s bodyweight in equivalent force. In other words, Kim’s legs and spine must support ≈9.5× his bodyweight upward to hold the bar static.
• Grip Force: The lifter’s hands apply an upward force to hold the bar.  If we assume the bar’s entire weight is borne equally by two hands, each hand must exert ≈(602 kg×9.81)/2 ≈ 2953 N upward.  That’s about 41.6 N/kg normalized (≈4.24× bodyweight per hand).  In practical terms, each grip had to sustain ~300 kgf of pull. (In reality Kim reportedly used no straps or suit, so this enormous grip demand was met raw.)
• Spinal Compression: The bar’s weight also compresses the spine.  At lockout, the bar load transmits through the shoulders/traps into the spine and hips. A rough estimate is that the spine sees on the order of the bar weight in compressive load.  Thus the compression force ≈602×9.81 ≈ 5906 N (normalized ~83.2 N/kg, or ~8.5× bodyweight).  (Some weight is carried by limbs, so this is approximate. Even so, ~5900 N compressive load is comparable to very heavy squats or deadlifts – a huge spinal load.)
• Force Vector and Torque:  With the bar at mid-thigh and the lifter likely in a slightly bent posture, most of the bar force is vertical.  If Kim’s torso leans forward by, say, 20–30° to clear the bar path, there will be a small horizontal component, but vertical gravity dominates. The main consequence is a hip/lower-back torque. For example, if the bar’s center is ~0.5 m in front of the lumbar joint, the torque = 5906 N × 0.5 m ≈ 2953 Nm. Normalized per body mass, that’s ~41.6 Nm/kg. This enormous moment must be countered by the lifter’s glutes and hamstrings. (If the bar were closer to the body, torque is less; if farther, more. Even with a modest 0.2 m lever arm, torque is still ~1180 Nm.)
• Work and Acceleration (optional):  Since the lift is essentially static, net work done against gravity is negligible (the bar isn’t actually lifted through a height).  If we imagine a modest upward displacement – say 0.5 m – then the work = 5906 N × 0.5 m ≈ 2953 J.  Any slight acceleration at the start/end is minimal; the main challenge is simply sustaining the static forces.

These forces can be summarized as follows:

Parameter	Value (absolute)	Value (normalized)
Ground Reaction (upward)	6602 N	92.99 N/kg (≈9.5× BW)
Grip Force (each hand)	2953 N	41.6 N/kg (≈4.2× BW)
Estimated Spinal Compression	5906 N	83.2 N/kg (≈8.5× BW)
Hip Torque (bar 0.5 m out)	2953 Nm	41.6 Nm/kg
Mechanical Work (0.5 m lift)	2953 J	–

In all cases, normalizing by body mass highlights how extraordinary Kim’s feat is.  A GRF of 93 N/kg means he supports nearly 10× his own weight, and his grip and spine each shoulder loads on the order of 4–8× bodyweight. These values far exceed what typical strongmen achieve relative to size.

Figure 1 (below) (see Table 1 above) illustrates the pound-for-pound comparison: Eric Kim’s lift (8.5×) towers above even the best in each class (≈2.5–4.5×).

References: The figures for other strongmen’s lifts are drawn from official results and credible reports .  Kim’s 602 kg rack pull was widely covered in the strength community and data-checked by experts . The above physics estimates use standard statics (F=mg, torque=F·d) to normalize forces per kg of body mass. All sources and data are cited.