9 ms·

There's a hidden false dichotomy there: That Tesla and Space X couldn't exist / succeed without Musk working his employees and himself into a burnout. I'm not s

There's a hidden false dichotomy there: That Tesla and Space X couldn't exist / succeed without Musk working his employees and himself into a burnout. I'm not sure that that is true. The same Musk with the same employees could've perfectly well done these companies at a sane pace - maybe even without losing speed in the grand scheme of things given that less stuff would've gone wrong.

close04 8y ago
> Do we actually want Tesla and SpaceX to fail? Is their success hanging on Musk calling someone a pedo? Because much of that hate came from unwarranted stuff like this.
- skrebbel 8y ago
  I think you're replying to the wrong post.
  - close04 8y ago
    You are completely right, it's for the post just above but clicked the wrong reply button.
- mft_ 8y ago
  Just not true. I've been following the subjects for years, and there's been a long-term swing against him, with articles critical (particularly) Tesla and also Musk personally. Him doing stupid things (arguably getting involved in the Thai cave situation at all, let alone calling the guy rude names) has added more fuel to the fire recently, but it was definitely a fire that was already burning strongly.
  - close04 8y ago
    Look, high visibility people will always get lots of "unconditional" love or hate regardless of reality. But if you take away that "known" quantity what you're left with are the people that decide how to feel based on the facts, and the facts change. A reasonable person might have liked Musk until this flurry of misplaced opinions, that were better kept for himself. After this they may have liked him less or not at all. But have you seen many articles on the subject of how even when you approach criticizing Musk in a perfectly reasonable way supported by evidence you're all but guaranteed to get a vitriolic reaction from rabid fans, downvotes, insults, threats, get your comments deleted, etc.? In real life (not a bubble where you only get the news that support your views) there's actually a lot less criticism for Musk than any other CEO in his position gets. Especially since both himself and Tesla have been involved in plenty of polarizing situations bordering a scandal. He's still a media darling not because he doesn't deserve criticism but because criticizing him is a PR nightmare and most publications would rather avoid it. Or at the very least they do it "softly" and let it die out quickly. Example: If any other company (think Uber) charged you 6000E for a promise that wasn't fulfilled even years later and that even killed some people they would be nailed to the cross. Tesla is praised for the very same. Until a few months ago every Tesla website had the Autopilot description as "Fully self driving, safer than a human driver". Now, in civilized countries at least, they are forced to use more generic language like "most", "potential for", "in our opinion". How many articles tackled this? And how many tackled his Thai cave PR stunt?
tomhoward 8y ago
The same Musk with the same employees I think I agree with everything except that. What I'm saying is we can't have everything that's positive about Telsa, but completely discard Musk. What we _should_ hope for is for the current version of Musk to become a better version of Musk - say, one that can build a viable EV company and help bring about a global transition away from combustion-powered transport, but without the vile personal attacks, impulsive stock-price-affecting comments, absurd PR stunts, overworked workforce etc. I'm well aware that the world doesn't currently have clear answers as to how people can make such profound changes to their personality, but I think it is where more discussion and research needs to be in order for the world to find and develop the leaders who can steer us through the big challenges.
- skrebbel 8y ago
  I think you're right. But I know many people who went through burnouts and came out better - kept everything that made them great but lost a little of the obsessive edge. Musk at 95% intensity would still be a fabulous captain of industry. Maybe he'll actually change for the better because of all this.
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    I agree with that: it's been my own experience of enduring severe burnout and coming out the other side in much better shape. That's what underpins my point of view on this: if we were better at supporting talented-but-flawed people through personal transformation instead treating them with hatred and ridicule every time they misstep, we could have more great leaders and more great companies.
    - scns 8y ago
      A crisis is a chance to grow. Loosers like to celebrate failures of people doing better than them.
      - kristianc 8y ago
        > Loosers like to celebrate failures of people doing better than them. This zero-sum mindset that you're a 'loser' to even suggest ways a company might be a great company, without you know, the founder being an asshole is dangerous and actually shuts down constructive criticism.
tomp 8y ago
> That Tesla and Space X couldn't exist / succeed without Musk working his employees and himself into a burnout Well does another SpaceX/Tesla exist? I don't think so. So it's very possible that that is true. Maybe the trait to start impossible companies and to work impossible hours is actually the same trait.
- stdbrouw 8y ago
  NASA is betting on both SpaceX and Boeing for its next manned missions, and Tesla has made electric cars fashionable, but there is no reason to expect that a couple of years from now its cars will be any better than the offering from major car companies. Clearly SpaceX and Tesla are special companies, but it's easy to overstate exactly how special.
  - tomp 8y ago
    They're so special that they both completely revolutionized their respective industries. What makes them even more special, is that neither made any big technological breakthrough. All the technology has been available for years (decades?), just not productionized. Which tells you that the "major companies" in both industries were literally sitting on their asses, enjoying their oligopolistic/monopolistic profits and doing the minimal R&D necessary to maintain them. Shame on them.
    - gehsty 8y ago
      I don't think you can describe modern car manufacturing as sitting on its ass.... and I don't think you can describe Tesla as revolutionizing the manufacturing process... I think Tesla has revolutionized the automotive industry by making a desirable electric car, the technology they have within the car is nothing exclusive to Tesla. Other companies can build electric cars, but Tesla made the first truly desirable electric car. SpaceX has 100% revolutionized space flight and I hope this continues.
      - tomp 8y ago
        > by making a desirable electric car, the technology they have within the car is nothing exclusive to Tesla. Other companies can build electric cars, but Tesla made the first truly desirable electric car. This is exactly my point. Tesla didn't happen because of Musk's intelligence, or talent, or ingenuity, or genius. It happened because of Musk's drive. Before Tesla/Musk, electric cars weren't even part of the public consciousness (even though they were completely technically feasible, as you agree). It was a revolutionary idea.
HeadsUpHigh 8y ago
No they couldn't. Look up the history of SpaceX they barely made it work this amount of work.
travbrack 8y ago
They're struggling to meet production goals even with the staff burning the candle at both ends, and using a highly automated assembly line. What could they do to be more efficient? I'm sure Musk would love to hear if you have an idea.
- alkonaut 8y ago
  They could set more realistic growth/production goals. I’m not sure if it’s financially viable to do so, but the “normal” way of growing production from zero to several thousand cars a week is the pace that VW and Toyota did it - over say 50 years. This idea of taking companies from zero to massive within less than several decades of organic growth I think is doomed unless you accept a lot of burnout (which you shouldn’t).
  - pastor_elm 8y ago
    Where's the proof that would work? The auto industry has kept virtually all new competitors out of the market for the past 100 years.
    - alkonaut 8y ago
      The proof that slow organic-growing business has less burnout in staff than startup-mode business? I’m not sure that’s proven. It’s pure conjecture on my part
    - bproven 8y ago
      yep - I think that is the problem. He has to push hard b/c if he did not the established companies would have crushed him by now. Slow growth wouldn't work. Its extremely difficult to gain traction in this industry today. He is also pushing the industry to change radically (and very quickly), challenging/threatening certain aspects that were considered staples (dealership model, the massive service revenue from frequent maint of ICE vehicles, parts etc ) -- this is a threat to the current status quo.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >using a highly automated assembly line Last I heard the established automakers were basically laughing at the quality and amount of automation on their production lines. Has this changed?
Waterluvian 8y ago
This is what I'm wondering too. What is the factor that forces them to revolutionize cars at this pace? Why can't it just take a decade longer? I'm going to bet it has to do with economics, not physics. And that it is mathematically possible to have done it slower, if the market wasn't so damn fickle about making lots of money really fast.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

close04 8y ago

> Do we actually want Tesla and SpaceX to fail? Is their success hanging on Musk calling someone a pedo? Because much of that hate came from unwarranted stuff like this.

skrebbel 8y ago
I think you're replying to the wrong post.
- close04 8y ago
  You are completely right, it's for the post just above but clicked the wrong reply button.
mft_ 8y ago
Just not true. I've been following the subjects for years, and there's been a long-term swing against him, with articles critical (particularly) Tesla and also Musk personally. Him doing stupid things (arguably getting involved in the Thai cave situation at all, let alone calling the guy rude names) has added more fuel to the fire recently, but it was definitely a fire that was already burning strongly.
- close04 8y ago
  Look, high visibility people will always get lots of "unconditional" love or hate regardless of reality. But if you take away that "known" quantity what you're left with are the people that decide how to feel based on the facts, and the facts change. A reasonable person might have liked Musk until this flurry of misplaced opinions, that were better kept for himself. After this they may have liked him less or not at all. But have you seen many articles on the subject of how even when you approach criticizing Musk in a perfectly reasonable way supported by evidence you're all but guaranteed to get a vitriolic reaction from rabid fans, downvotes, insults, threats, get your comments deleted, etc.? In real life (not a bubble where you only get the news that support your views) there's actually a lot less criticism for Musk than any other CEO in his position gets. Especially since both himself and Tesla have been involved in plenty of polarizing situations bordering a scandal. He's still a media darling not because he doesn't deserve criticism but because criticizing him is a PR nightmare and most publications would rather avoid it. Or at the very least they do it "softly" and let it die out quickly. Example: If any other company (think Uber) charged you 6000E for a promise that wasn't fulfilled even years later and that even killed some people they would be nailed to the cross. Tesla is praised for the very same. Until a few months ago every Tesla website had the Autopilot description as "Fully self driving, safer than a human driver". Now, in civilized countries at least, they are forced to use more generic language like "most", "potential for", "in our opinion". How many articles tackled this? And how many tackled his Thai cave PR stunt?

tomhoward 8y ago

The same Musk with the same employees I think I agree with everything except that. What I'm saying is we can't have everything that's positive about Telsa, but completely discard Musk. What we _should_ hope for is for the current version of Musk to become a better version of Musk - say, one that can build a viable EV company and help bring about a global transition away from combustion-powered transport, but without the vile personal attacks, impulsive stock-price-affecting comments, absurd PR stunts, overworked workforce etc. I'm well aware that the world doesn't currently have clear answers as to how people can make such profound changes to their personality, but I think it is where more discussion and research needs to be in order for the world to find and develop the leaders who can steer us through the big challenges.

skrebbel 8y ago
I think you're right. But I know many people who went through burnouts and came out better - kept everything that made them great but lost a little of the obsessive edge. Musk at 95% intensity would still be a fabulous captain of industry. Maybe he'll actually change for the better because of all this.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  I agree with that: it's been my own experience of enduring severe burnout and coming out the other side in much better shape. That's what underpins my point of view on this: if we were better at supporting talented-but-flawed people through personal transformation instead treating them with hatred and ridicule every time they misstep, we could have more great leaders and more great companies.
  - scns 8y ago
    A crisis is a chance to grow. Loosers like to celebrate failures of people doing better than them.
    - kristianc 8y ago
      > Loosers like to celebrate failures of people doing better than them. This zero-sum mindset that you're a 'loser' to even suggest ways a company might be a great company, without you know, the founder being an asshole is dangerous and actually shuts down constructive criticism.

tomp 8y ago

> That Tesla and Space X couldn't exist / succeed without Musk working his employees and himself into a burnout Well does another SpaceX/Tesla exist? I don't think so. So it's very possible that that is true. Maybe the trait to start impossible companies and to work impossible hours is actually the same trait.

stdbrouw 8y ago
NASA is betting on both SpaceX and Boeing for its next manned missions, and Tesla has made electric cars fashionable, but there is no reason to expect that a couple of years from now its cars will be any better than the offering from major car companies. Clearly SpaceX and Tesla are special companies, but it's easy to overstate exactly how special.
- tomp 8y ago
  They're so special that they both completely revolutionized their respective industries. What makes them even more special, is that neither made any big technological breakthrough. All the technology has been available for years (decades?), just not productionized. Which tells you that the "major companies" in both industries were literally sitting on their asses, enjoying their oligopolistic/monopolistic profits and doing the minimal R&D necessary to maintain them. Shame on them.
  - gehsty 8y ago
    I don't think you can describe modern car manufacturing as sitting on its ass.... and I don't think you can describe Tesla as revolutionizing the manufacturing process... I think Tesla has revolutionized the automotive industry by making a desirable electric car, the technology they have within the car is nothing exclusive to Tesla. Other companies can build electric cars, but Tesla made the first truly desirable electric car. SpaceX has 100% revolutionized space flight and I hope this continues.
    - tomp 8y ago
      > by making a desirable electric car, the technology they have within the car is nothing exclusive to Tesla. Other companies can build electric cars, but Tesla made the first truly desirable electric car. This is exactly my point. Tesla didn't happen because of Musk's intelligence, or talent, or ingenuity, or genius. It happened because of Musk's drive. Before Tesla/Musk, electric cars weren't even part of the public consciousness (even though they were completely technically feasible, as you agree). It was a revolutionary idea.

HeadsUpHigh 8y ago

No they couldn't. Look up the history of SpaceX they barely made it work this amount of work.

travbrack 8y ago

They're struggling to meet production goals even with the staff burning the candle at both ends, and using a highly automated assembly line. What could they do to be more efficient? I'm sure Musk would love to hear if you have an idea.

alkonaut 8y ago
They could set more realistic growth/production goals. I’m not sure if it’s financially viable to do so, but the “normal” way of growing production from zero to several thousand cars a week is the pace that VW and Toyota did it - over say 50 years. This idea of taking companies from zero to massive within less than several decades of organic growth I think is doomed unless you accept a lot of burnout (which you shouldn’t).
- pastor_elm 8y ago
  Where's the proof that would work? The auto industry has kept virtually all new competitors out of the market for the past 100 years.
  - alkonaut 8y ago
    The proof that slow organic-growing business has less burnout in staff than startup-mode business? I’m not sure that’s proven. It’s pure conjecture on my part
  - bproven 8y ago
    yep - I think that is the problem. He has to push hard b/c if he did not the established companies would have crushed him by now. Slow growth wouldn't work. Its extremely difficult to gain traction in this industry today. He is also pushing the industry to change radically (and very quickly), challenging/threatening certain aspects that were considered staples (dealership model, the massive service revenue from frequent maint of ICE vehicles, parts etc ) -- this is a threat to the current status quo.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>using a highly automated assembly line Last I heard the established automakers were basically laughing at the quality and amount of automation on their production lines. Has this changed?

Waterluvian 8y ago

This is what I'm wondering too. What is the factor that forces them to revolutionize cars at this pace? Why can't it just take a decade longer? I'm going to bet it has to do with economics, not physics. And that it is mathematically possible to have done it slower, if the market wasn't so damn fickle about making lots of money really fast.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]