> And. Risky for sure. Elon Musk obviously doesn’t shy from risky. He sets goals that solve existential problems. In this case, our reliance on fossil fuels. W

> And. Risky for sure. Elon Musk obviously doesn’t shy from risky. He sets goals that solve existential problems. In this case, our reliance on fossil fuels. What is the relevance of these platitudes? Are they intended to be a catchall explanation/excuse for every time Musk makes an objectively terrible business decision? That we have to consider Musk cares so much about ending fossil fuels and factor that into the criticism? Musk (at least based on his Twitter persona) doesn't seem to be the type to buy into the mindset of "the most important thing is that you cared", so I don't think it's ultimately respectful to him to moderate criticism based on his announced ideals. I'll accept the premise that Elon Musk is special, that he, as you say, "sets goals that solve existential problems." What facts/assertions in the posted article reflect or are a consequence of his higher thinking? What existential-problem-solving goal does Musk have that gives us confidence him paying $5B for SolarCity and assuming $3B of debt is a shrewd, deliberate move, and not the inexplicable clusterfuck we would happily label it were it done by some other company? The posted story focuses almost exclusively on SolarCity's solar panel production, and makes no mention of it being a "power generation and distribution company". Did the reporter deliberately omit mentioning it, because they want to focus on SolarCity's failures? I googled around for SolarCity and power generation and/or distribution, and I only skimmed the first pages of results, but I didn't see a headline post-2017 that didn't describe something negative, e.g. `Tesla to close a dozen solar facilities in 9 states`. Is it possible that SolarCity no longer meaningfully competes in power generation/distribution?