2 ms·

My main point was actually that Musk is not really worth mentioning here at all, because the vast majority of businesses do not operate like Musk's. The adjecti

My main point was actually that Musk is not really worth mentioning here at all, because the vast majority of businesses do not operate like Musk's. The adjectives I used to describe Musk are not relevant here. > Secondly, most problems one likes to solve are surprisingly easy to solve within the existing realm of knowledge "Easy to solve" means something different for a scientist, engineer and businessman. Something which can be theoretically or technically solved may not be practically solved (the supersonic commercial jet example I mentioned earlier). I agree with you that most of the time, it's pretty clear whether or not something will require new science or can be built with existing knowledge, and most business are in the business of doing the latter. I would add that new science is capable of turning impractical solutions into practical ones, and a multi-billion dollar business can spend easily spend unpredictable amounts of money trying to do so -- which makes it a very risky investment.

hef19898 8y ago
Businesses can also fail at implementing existing solutions and burn huge amounts of mones trying to do so. And yes, Musk is relevant in a discussion about SpaceX and to degree Tesla. Have both endevours been "visionary" to a certain degree? Sure. At SpaceX I'd agrue that it was not Musk himself who designed, say, the Falcon 9 all by himself. Sure his education and background helped a lot. At Tesla, the approach was disruptive as well. Especially tackling the lacking charging infrastructure as well. That gave him a huge head start, mass-production cost a lot of that head start already. SpaceX profited a lot from vertical integration, Tesla did not. Seeing Musk as some kind of genius in everything he does is doing two things, none of them good: 1) Reinforcing Musks pre-existing sense of superiority (again, based to a not inconsiderable amount in truth) to levels that are hurting and 2) making people an approach that worked once (vertical integration at SpaceX for example) will work elsewhere as well. This is in effect suppressing diferent opinion and the free exchange of ideas. Reality usually punishes you for that at one point or another. And it would really be a pitty if either one, Musk, Tesla or SpaceX would be in the future.
- anonytrary 8y ago
  You're setting up a straw man; the original discussion I started was never about Elon Musk in particular; I used him as an example to make a completely different point. Seeing as there's some baggage around Musk that is preventing you from seeing my point, please pretend I mentioned someone other than Musk to make my point (Edison, Ford, Larry Page, Steve Jobs, etc.). Musk was not actually relevant to my discussion at all, unless you're hijacking it to start a new discussion about Musk.

hef19898 8y ago

Businesses can also fail at implementing existing solutions and burn huge amounts of mones trying to do so. And yes, Musk is relevant in a discussion about SpaceX and to degree Tesla. Have both endevours been "visionary" to a certain degree? Sure. At SpaceX I'd agrue that it was not Musk himself who designed, say, the Falcon 9 all by himself. Sure his education and background helped a lot. At Tesla, the approach was disruptive as well. Especially tackling the lacking charging infrastructure as well. That gave him a huge head start, mass-production cost a lot of that head start already. SpaceX profited a lot from vertical integration, Tesla did not. Seeing Musk as some kind of genius in everything he does is doing two things, none of them good: 1) Reinforcing Musks pre-existing sense of superiority (again, based to a not inconsiderable amount in truth) to levels that are hurting and 2) making people an approach that worked once (vertical integration at SpaceX for example) will work elsewhere as well. This is in effect suppressing diferent opinion and the free exchange of ideas. Reality usually punishes you for that at one point or another. And it would really be a pitty if either one, Musk, Tesla or SpaceX would be in the future.

anonytrary 8y ago
You're setting up a straw man; the original discussion I started was never about Elon Musk in particular; I used him as an example to make a completely different point. Seeing as there's some baggage around Musk that is preventing you from seeing my point, please pretend I mentioned someone other than Musk to make my point (Edison, Ford, Larry Page, Steve Jobs, etc.). Musk was not actually relevant to my discussion at all, unless you're hijacking it to start a new discussion about Musk.