3 ms·
I don't get that logic. So what if they have liabilities? They also had experiance, proprietary knowledge, tested supply chains, tooling etc. etc. I think the
by sputr 6y ago
I don't get that logic. So what if they have liabilities?
They also had experiance, proprietary knowledge, tested supply chains, tooling etc. etc.
I think the problem is that everyone is buying into the Musk==SpaceX story, which I think is wrong. He is a marketing gimmick that secures funding and cheap labor (through hype) and maybe some clients.
If you ask me, from what I've seen the actual person responsible for SpaceX is it's president/COO: Gwynne Shotwell.
- whatshisface 6y ago"Idiot boss/genius lieutenant" pairs don't work in real life. The idiot boss will always get fooled by politickers and before long the genius lieutenant will be replaced by an upwardly charismatic lieutenant. There's no way to conquer the principal agent problem without enough domain knowledge to understand what the agent is doing, even if the domain knowledge is never used to do anything but understand what the agent is doing.
- freeopinion 6y agoJust because the straight man is a genius doesn't mean the partner is an idiot. Can you say who was more brilliant between Abbott and Costello? They each had different roles. Which Smothers Brother was the brains of the outfit? Why not both?
- whatshisface 6y agoWell, those are both examples from fiction. "Idiot principal/genius agent" is a very funny fictional trope that has seen use in satiric works from Catch-22 to Yes Minister, and there's no debate that it's not effective. I'm just saying that setups like that tend to be very unstable, usually ending in tears with a manipulative agent under the idiot principal. (In fact, that happened in Catch-22 and Yes Minister - so the instability is even represented in fiction.)