Talk:The Boring Company

Comments

Is that website address correct? The website it leds to is full of placeholder text and mentions no relation to SpaceX 2605:6000:9FC0:90:6C02:60A9:C2D9:774F (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Fire Extinguishers

On the website, they also sold fire extinguishers with the flamethrower, so I added it to the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advanced AI (talk • contribs) 18:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Not actually real

This is, in my understanding, not a real company and is kind of a pun. There is no proof that this is actually a company, and clearly names such as Tunnels R Us is a joke. This should be reviewed for deletion. – Dasyntex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasyntex (talk • contribs) 12:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the evidence that Musk is serious about building tunnels greatly outweighs the doubts (in fact, they have already built a beginning hole, and until Musk specifically says that they are not, in reality building a tunnel boring company, (he has in fact repeatedly said the opposite if only in tweets) it makes sense to keep the article. In short, while the alternative names are probably a joke, nothing is for sure with Elon Musk. Eddie891 (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks real enough to me: https://electrek.co/2017/04/27/elon-musk-tunnel-boring-machine-spacex-first-image/ Despite the funny name, there seem to be at least some real intentions. SmilingBoy (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It's real. In an interview with TED's Head Curator, Chris Anderson, on youtube Musk confirms activity with the Boring Company. However, he does mention that it's not really a focus of his, and is "more of a hobby." Bknutsen (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Bknutsen

References

A hobby of someone who is worth $21.4 billion USD can be a loy larger that the life's work of someone who has an average income. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Photos

Photos of TBC/s TBM have been circulated, so a compatibly licnesed picture should be added to this article for its Tunnel Boring Machine -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Stubs

Tech company seems like a good catch-all. Hasn't yet expressed (unless I'm wrong) interest in either mineral extraction or ground-up development of proprietary tunnel boring machinery.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Legal Entity info: California FBN of Delaware corp. "TBC - The Boring Company"

I'm not sure whether or how to incorporate this into the article, but here's some information about The Boring Company as a legal entity:

On January 11, 2017, "TBC - THE BORING COMPANY" was incorporated as a Delaware corporation, file #6279803.

On March 24, 2017, "TBC - THE BORING COMPANY" registered with the California Secretary of State to transact business in California (file #C4008073), and listed its "Principal Office in California" as being on Park Road in Burlingame (San Mateo County), and its president as Jared Birchall (who is also president of Neuralink).

On April 10, 2017, "TBC - THE BORING COMPANY" filed a Fictitious Business Name statement with San Mateo County (file #M-273088), saying it was doing business under the name "THE BORING COMPANY", and had been doing so since January 15, 2017.

Birdfern (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Tweets as sources

I added an entry on Musk's most recent announcements, made via Twitter, and I'm assuming that citing the tweets is acceptable, as they're primary sources. I'm reasonably new to adding content instead of just fixing grammatical errors, and I didn't see any tweets cited elsewhere throughout the page, so I thought I should ask. --DawsonCXVII (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

DawsonCXVII, tweets from random users are not used much here on WP. Tweets from verified accounts by CEOs of public corporations are quite acceptable, although they are of course considered primary sources, so some limitations apply. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Massive amount of detail on Dugout Loop project in LA area

This environmental assessment document has a large amount of technical and route details on the proposed project. Prepared for the City of Los Angeles. NOTICE OF PREPARATION INCLUDING AN INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR THE Dugout Loop High Speed Transportation Project, August 2018. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on hatnote

Please participate in discussion at Talk:Boeing#RfC on hatnote. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

"Verbal"

   Tho i'm indisposed right now from giving the needed edit the attn it will deserve, the article has so far failed to deal with the ramifications of his sloppy and perhaps deceptive use of that word. Based on our talk page, it seems there's been a subsequent correction or at least clarification via at least company insiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:C202:287E:B58D:483C:903F:5A3E (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• Elon Musk’s Boring Company breaks ground for garage-elevator construction, 10 Oct 2018; on the start of construction in Hawthorne, California, for the garage-elevator project at the far end of its first ~1+ mile long test bore. N2e (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Los Angeles and Hawthorne

The article covers the same project under the Los Angeles proposals and the Hawthorne segment and confuses the current news. While the Hawthorne segment may eventually be extended, the portion that is under construction and nearing completion per Musk is within the city of Hawthorne. Cheers Fettlemap (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Significance of boring machine names (and spelling of Prufrock)

Need a better source than reddit, but once one appears we can hopefully incorporate this Elon-esque analogy into the article:

• Waiting for Godot is a play by Samuel Beckett, "in which two characters [...] wait for the arrival of someone named Godot who never arrives, and while waiting they engage in a variety of discussions"
• A Line-storm song is a poem by Robert Frost that seems to be vaguely about trying and not caring if you fail
• The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock is a poem by T. S. Eliot, initially "considered outlandish, but [...] now seen as heralding a paradigmatic cultural shift"

I also note that "Prufrock" was announced verbally in a conference by Elon; presumably many reporters weren't aware of the T.S. Eliot link and merely wrote down what they heard, hence the "proof-rock" alternative spelling in various sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Sydney and CERN

I removed the following passage:

In January 2019, Musk responded to a query from an Australian MP regarding a tunnel through the Blue Mountains to the west of Sydney, suggesting costs of $15 million per kilometer or $750 million for the 50-kilometre (31 mi) tunnel, plus $50 million per station. A few days later, he stated that he had been asked by the director of CERN about construction of the tunnels for its 100-kilometre (62 mi) diameter Future Circular Collider and that The Boring Company could save CERN several billion euros.

References

The two sources simply report what Musk said without further analysis, implying that Musk is in serious talks with these agencies and lending credibility to the cost estimates. I would argue that speculation about future projects does not necessarily belong in the article, but if we're going to include it, we should provide a balanced view. I suggest using sources such as ABS News, which includes the opinions of experts in the field who are skeptical of the cost estimates, and The Independent which clarifies that the CERN director had an "informal brief discussion" with Musk. –dlthewave ☎ 18:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Process thought: editor Rosbif73 should be notified, since Rosbif73 added those statements back on 21 January 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N2e (talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• OPPOSE the proposal to remove this text. Musk is the CEO of the company, The Boring Company. If a reliable source reports information the CEO has stated about the company and its business prospect, then that is fair game to be mentioned in the article, as long as it is both cited by a reliable source, and not WP:UNDUE. Those simple statements of fact were, in my view, fine as they were, with merely a brief sentence dedicated to both, and both with decent citations. To ascertain it as "speculation" by a WP editor, contrary to what the company CEO said, is original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N2e (talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Founding date: late-2016 or early-2017, that is the question

Sources used in the article differ on whether TBC was founded in 2016 or 2017. Some work relative to tunnel boring, including some equipment acquisition clearly started in 2016, and Musk and SpaceX were at the center of it. But sources on when The Boring Company, as a legal entity, was officially incorporated vary.

The article lede had said, for quite some time now, founded in "2017", based on sources such as here (LA Times) and here (Wall Street Journal]. Both are serious secondary reliable sources, and both articles, published in 2017, refer to the company being founded in 2017 "...the firm Musk created this year" (LA Times) or "...was earlier this year spun into its own firm..." (WSJ).

Recently, this was changed in the prose of the article lede to "2016" without a new source being provided by the editor making the change. I have changed it back to 2017, per WP:BRD, in order to have this open discussion here on the Talk page.

In one other place in the article, the infobox, it is said TBC was founded in December 2016, with this source here (Crunchbase). Since Infoboxes are supposed to summarize sourced info in the article, it's pretty clear that this alone is not sufficient to establish the year of founding.

Thus, bringing this inconsistency here to the Talk page to see if we might not research it more, and find more sources, to clarify the answer to the question. What do others think? N2e (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference, I was just changing the lead to reflect the dates used elsewhere in the article. "Dec. 17, 2016" is the date of Musk's first tweet about the idea, which doesn't necessarily coincide with the founding of the company, and it's supported by [1] which I'm not familiar with. I would be comfortable using "2017" based on the LA Times and WSJ. –dlthewave ☎ 11:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Early 2017 seems fine to me. Cruchbase is not a good source.--Frmorrison (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, then it seems "early 2017" is the Talk page consensus, based on multiple sources, and better reliable sources. Let's see if anyone else has input to this question for a few days, then we can make the founding date consistent in the article in the places it occurs. N2e (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done the article prose is now consistent, per this consensus, and the sources. Mentioned by Musk in late 2016; founded as a company in early 2017. All explained in the History section. N2e (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Redundancy and hyperloop problem

There is a lot of redundancy in this article between the "History" section and the individual city sections. My vote would be for the "History" section to be reduced to the general history of the company and leave discussion of individual permit processes and so on for the city sections. Furthermore, that redundancy is adding to the confusion (evident in some of the cited sources as well) about whether some of these projects are "hyperloop" projects or just regular electric vehicle/high-speed electric rail tunnels. I just added a source to the Baltimore section, an article in today's New York Times, that says that Musk's companies are not currently pursuing hyperloops at all. That seems consistent with other recent reliable sources (as opposed to tweets, too many of which are cited in this article). So streamlining this article would also clarify the scope of the company's business. blameless 03:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I have now done as I proposed above. It could still use some cleanup, and but it makes sense to me to avoid redundancy between the "history" and "projects and proposals" sections. blameless 21:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A 15x improvement in tunneling speed over the existing state of the art?

Prufrock aims for "a 15x improvement in tunneling speed over the existing state of the art." That would be a remarkable breakthrough, if they can pull it off. Please improve the article by adding details about how the design of the machine is being improved. 2601:281:CC80:5AE0:50A7:5D3B:325F:945C (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for Miami expansion

There's reports such as [2] [3] that Miami's mayor is considering a The Boring Company for tunnel projects in Miami. Thoughts on adding Miami under the "Tunnel projects and proposals" section of the article? Should we wait until there's more confirmation and reporting available? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thunderfoot released a 26-minute youtube video concluding that this is a scam -- is this as legit as it once was?

Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbt2toXijd4 What do we do from here? 2600:1006:B012:A207:159F:CBD3:F9B8:EAFB (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it should be referenced. I think it's about time this article started owning up to the widespread online criticism about TBC. QRep2020 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thunderf00t videos are about as reliable as Daily Mail articles (and produced in equally bad faith), and should not be treated as reliable sources. They should at best be considered entertainment.

Sources for articles should - where possible - be restricted to those that are factual, unbiased and have content not primarily consisting of unsourced snark. Rafty4 (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thunderf00t is NOT a reliable nor honest source for anything Musk related.

Thunderf00t pushes a preconceived narrative to cater to his viewership regardless of reality.

Brief example of what I mean:

Despite Musk clearly stating the top range of the Tesla Semi to be 500 mile during its reveal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RRmepp7i5g&t=390s) thunderf00t released a video "busting" the Semi for needing a 15t (16t on screen) battery to match a diesel in range, something that Tesla/Musk didn't claim wanting to do.

Here's the important clips: https://i.imgur.com/3CYKO9c.mp4

9:42 "unless of course you're a long-range Tesla truck in which case you can haul 15 tons of extra batteries and about 5 tons of cargo"

10:54 "that's because the Tesla Semi with its extended range battery can only carry about 5 tons fully loaded"

Note that the only "long-range"/"extended range" Tesla Semi IS the 500 mile one. Thunderf00t deliberately didn't scale his calculations to 500 mile.

This type of misleading and disingenuous behavior is present throughout his Musk-related videos (but not just) making him a very unsuitable source. Yrouel86 (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

TBC has been the subject of extensive criticism, but the criticism section right now is tiny and bad. Why are we mentioning some random YouTuber making a video? Why are there no comparisons to wildly more efficient public transport (trains, busses, etc), which is one of the most widely discussed criticisms? Why no discussion of fire safety which has also been a major issue. 2A02:8109:A33F:F27C:48EE:2FCB:2E9E:26E9 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Because one has to start somewhere. Also, someone on this very Talk page suggested adding the Thunderf00t videos, which have gotten hundreds of thousands of views. Feel free to contribute to the nascent section. QRep2020 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but if this section gets any larger, Musk will buy wikipedia. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:49FB:85C7:A282:D3A5 (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You got a LOL out of me, congrats. QRep2020 (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Negative Biases

Rule 9 of Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia: write neutrally and with due weight.

This entry reaks with negative bias, in strong violation of above core Wikipedia editing principle.

Bias examples of the article as of this writing:

• First sentence of 2nd paragraph of the intro: "After six years TBC has completed one out of six publicly announced projects." TBC is a startup in the early exploring stage and iterating through failures is in its core, particularly in ventures of Elon Musk. The whole 2nd paragraph is written in a manner to make TBC look like a total disaster. Regardless of that (TBC so far is a disaster/failure, etc.) is true or not, this long paragraph, counting more than 70% of the intro, is low quality and trial.
• In describing the service of the perating Las Vegas Convention Center Loop, media biases are extensively cited, such as this paragraph: The service was described as "embarrassing" and "lame", due to comparisons with earlier promises of "electric autonomous vehicles with alignment wheels".
• In Section "Inactive/cancelled projects," the listed "Australia" project never existed as all related to TBC was a lone Twitter reply from Musk to an inquiry, and yet that never proposed project was used to depict TBC/Musk in a very negative way.
• Section of "Criticism": among Crunchbase Unicorn Board's [4] top 10 US-based private companies, which include SpaceX, Stripe, Instacart, JUUL, Databricks, Epic Games, Cruise, Waymo, Fanatics, Chime, only one company (Epic Games) has a top level "Criticisms" section, mainly due to Chinese company Tencent investment. A "Criticism" section is not common among articles for startups/private companies. So called "extensive criticism" is largely non-technical and often politically motivated. This section only serves as a strong bias and is unnecessary.

And many more. Tuskla (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Rule 0 for editing Wikipedia: if you want changes to be made to an article, go and make them. Don't leave a comment and expect others to do it for you. Cortador (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Restructure

I'm going to completely restructure this article. It has the following problems.

• There's way too much information, some of it contested, in the lede.
  
• There needs to be a separate section on the Vegas Loop. It's just one of the projects of TBM, but it is a significant enough topic to have a subsection. Perhaps all the major projects should have a subsection.
  
• Right now there seems to be no distinction between the facts of what exists, and the "forward-looking" statements from the company. e.g. currently the lede reads "It reduced a 45-minute cross-campus journey time to approximately two minutes". No, it didn't. Maybe it will one day but right now it has reduced a ten minute walk to a two minute drive. "Las Vegas Loop is a 29 mile tunnel network": no it isn't. Again, maybe it will be one day, depending on how things go. Ordinary Person (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ordinary Person I do agree that the article needs restructuring. I've removed or altered a few of the dubious claims (i.e. company claims presented as fact), but I think we need an assessment of the sources used in this article. Many sections, especially the ones about the Las Vegas stuff, use sources like Las Vegas Review, Teslarati (which seems to be a Tesla/Musk fan news site), or Fox 5 Las Vegas. I'm not saying that these are all bad sources per se, but if all this stuff about this loop and that loop is only reported in local sources outside Wikipedia's perennial sources, I question whether all of this warrants inclusion at all, or whether we should just state that TBC has a number of completed and ongoing projects in Las Vegas and leave it at that. Cortador (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Is Teslarati a reliable source?

The article primarily relies on local or fringe sources, with only a few citations stemming from long-established sources like The Verge or Bloomberg. Teslarati is used a couple of times (like to their site here), which is an outlet focussed on Musk and his companies, as well as electric vehicles. Nothing they write is particularly critical, though most of their pieces are more announcement-esque anyway. Any thoughts on them as a source? I'd welcome input from other users. Cortador (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Editors agree that Teslerati is akin to a fan site, generally unreliable, and at most suitable to report on simple facts (see here). Cortador (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Missed this topic previously. I agree on all accounts. QRep2020 (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit Reverting on positive additions - Negative Bias

Why were the edits adding Safety, Capacity, and Security removed? I added information on these features (which happened to be positive findings), confirmed by The Boring Company to be true (as per the website). These features were removed almost immediately. I note some of the editors have a negative bias towards more than one of the Elon Musk entities, according to their Wikipedia history.

This is not fair - the general public should have access to all the information, to make an informed decision. JKNZ99 (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

User:JKNZ99, Please read and understand Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you add a reliable source with an inline citation I believe you can add that information. Thanks, Samf4u (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@JKNZ99: The edits you made had no source and were promotional. "This is not fair - the general public should have access to all the information, to make an informed decision." Are you trying to convince the public of something? 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 01:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a first stop for many internet users, and it is important that the correct information is presented. JKNZ99 (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If it's unsourced, then any reader has no way of verifying whether or not it is correct. Inserting unsourced information is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia:

"Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing."

🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 04:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I am new to editing at Wikipedia. Thanks for the tips.

I have now added the same information with a different reliable source. I assume that you will accept this. JKNZ99 (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Please add Safety as a Topic

Dear Admin, Please add a heading titled "Safety" and the following, as found on the City of Las Vegas webpage

_____________________________

Safety (https://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/News/Blog/Detail/boringcompany)

The Boring Company has the following safety features:

Emergency Exits: The tunnels are equipped with emergency exits at regular intervals to allow passengers to evacuate safely in case of emergencies.

Fire Suppression Systems: The tunnels are equipped with real-time gas and smoke detection. Fire suppression systems are designed to NFPA standards, and will quickly detect and extinguish fires.

Video Surveillance: The tunnels are monitored via video surveillance to ensure the safety and security of passengers and infrastructure.

Vehicle Safety Features: The vehicles themselves are designed with safety features, including collision avoidance systems and emergency braking, and have seat belts, airbags, and crumple zones. The vehicles are NHTSA 5-star rated.

Operational Protocols: The loop operates under strict operational protocols and regulations. They have regularly scheduled practice drills with Police and the Fire Department.

Direct Communication:The vehicles are in direct communication with the Control Centre.

Security: The Loop achieved the top Gold Standard Award from the Department of Homeland Security TSA for security plans.

Build Safety (https://fortune.com/2024/03/12/ceo-las-vegas-agency-boring-company-safety-tunnels/)

In June 2023, an investigation by Nevada's OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) found that The Boring Company had several worker safety incidents during construction, and resulted in eight citations. Steve Hill (CEO of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority) said that the LVCVA's safety team "will be involved in future construction". This "has been welcomed by The Boring Company". JKNZ99 (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything about emergency exits at regular intervals or fire suppression in either of the two sources provided. QRep2020 (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, the city of Las Vegas i.e. someone who hired TBC, isn't a reliable source and/or suitable to establish notability for this piece of information anyway. Cortador (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)