4 ms·

I was a big Elon Musk fanboy for what he was able to accomplish on both Tesla and SpaceX. I had the impression that he was very genuine and really wanted to "sa

I was a big Elon Musk fanboy for what he was able to accomplish on both Tesla and SpaceX. I had the impression that he was very genuine and really wanted to "save humanity". I ignored the crazy things he said on twitter. I think his accomplishments overshadowed his less favorable behavior. But after his tweets about Ukraine, it really started to dawn on me that his "save humanity" was not really save humanity, but just a really good sales pitch. He fooled me, I confess. Right now, I see him as a very successful businessman. But if he can choose between making money or "doing the right thing", I think it's clear by now that he would go for the money (like jump into bed with Russia or China in a heartbeat, as long as it delivers the extra buck). Buying Twitter seems like a really bad idea, for both society and his pocket. I think we're seeing "Haughtiness comes before the fall" (I didn't use 'pride' because in Dutch this expression seems better)

Ferrotin 4y ago
So the whole “let’s not escalate to nuclear war” thing is what convinced you he didn’t want to save humanity.
- misiti3780 4y ago
  I really dont understand why his Ukraine tweets were controversial. He clearly has done in support of Ukraine with providing Starlink etc. He doesnt have control of arms shipments or policy decisions that the Western powers are making (sanctions, etc). Yet another example of how polarized the US (maybe the West) is, where if you say *any* that questions our unilateral support of Ukraine (even if that has to do with increased chances of nuclear war) you're an asshole. I'm sorry, but this situation has a lot of nuance - quit acting like it doesnt. You can cautiously support Ukraine but also realize that the US has little to gain as each day goes by with Russia getting smoked by Western weapons and training.
  - koonsolo 4y ago
    > He clearly has done in support of Ukraine with providing Starlink etc. Do you know that Ukrainians are buying and paying subscriptions for that. I'm sure the return on investment is very well calculated. Ok, so we give up a part of Ukraine to avoid nuclear war. Works very good for Russia. In a few years Russia takes the rest of Ukraine. Are you going to risk nuclear war then? No? Great! Then Russia invades the Baltic states. Want to risk nuclear war now? Of course not. Then they take the rest of central Europe that was under their control. Is East-Germany worth the risk of nuclear war in your opinion, or not?
    - misiti3780 4y ago
      > Do you know that Ukrainians are buying and paying subscriptions for that. I'm sure the return on investment is very well calculated. I'm sorry, did the Starlink units not help ? > Is East-Germany worth the risk of nuclear war in your opinion, or not? Last time I checked, Germany was a member of NATO.
      - koonsolo 4y ago
        > I'm sorry, did the Starlink units not help ? Of course, any business is a win-win for both parties. But don't act as if it's from of the kindness of the heart. > Last time I checked, Germany was a member of NATO. Funny, because last time I checked, the Baltic states are too. But I guess NATO could give those up to avoid nuclear war. You didn't respond to them being taken over by Russia, did you?
        misiti3780 4y ago
        I guess I meant "Last time I checked, they are all members of NATO"
        koonsolo 4y ago
        A conflict with NATO has a higher chance of turning nuclear than a conflict with Ukraine. So maybe we should exclude the Baltic states and give them to Russia? To avoid a nuclear war?
        misiti3780 4y ago
        I dont understand your point. Who is talkinga bout giving the Baltic states to Russia? Not me.
        koonsolo 4y ago
        You are defending Elon, who said to give Crimea to Russia to "prevent nulcear war". I'm just wondering how much stuff you want to give to Russia to "prevent nuclear war". So give Crimea to Russia, yes. Donbas too? Baltic states you said no. Can they take the rest of Ukraine to prevent nuclear war? For me, the line is pretty easy: Russia respects the borders as internationally defined. And I don't really give a shit how much they threaten with nuclear war. For you and Elon, you seem to want to give Russia some stuff and hope it ends there. Well, it never ends there, so that's why I ask where you will draw the line.
  - david422 4y ago
    > I really dont understand why his Ukraine tweets were controversial Because peace at this point means the aggressor keeps territories. If Canada moved troops into a bunch of US states - NY, NH, Maine, Pennsylvania etc. would you be willing to just cede that territory over so that everybody can have "peace"? Ok, let's have peace, I guess Canada gets New England now.
    - misiti3780 4y ago
      Ya I get it, and that is one option, of many, for resolving this conflict. How do you think this ends if the Western powers keep funding the war and Ukraine takes Crimea? Do you think Putin will just say "OK" ? Comparing Russia to Canada is in bad faith. Canada is a democracy, not run by a dictator.
      - koonsolo 4y ago
        > Do you think Putin will just say "OK" ? I think NATO or the West is playing a very strategic game here. They don't offer Ukraine 100% more firepower than Russia, which would end the war quickly. They offer them a bit more so that Russia is struggling. And notice that when Russia would try to subdue Ukraine with more powerful weapons like a tactical nuke, NATO already made it clear that they would move in. They are basically exhausting Russia to death. Right now, Russia is really scraping to throw everything they got into this war. If this war keeps going, it will totally destruct Russia's economy and society. Unfortunately, Ukraine is paying a very heavy price for this. But from a NATO strategic standpoint, we're now in an ideal scenario.
        misiti3780 4y ago
        i hope you're right.
      - david422 4y ago
        > How do you think this ends if the Western powers keep funding the war and Ukraine takes Crimea? Do you think Putin will just say "OK" ? You mean if Ukraine returns to their sovereign borders and has a crap ton of weapons and can physically repel any Russian attacks? Doesn't matter what Putin says. > Comparing Russia to Canada is in bad faith. What? Ok, how about just pretend Russia takes over the Alaska and the western seaboard. Does that work for you?
- anotherman554 4y ago
  If all he had said is “let’s not escalate to nuclear war” then there would be no controversy.
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    He also gave concrete steps on how to achieve that, and everyone got up in arms because those steps involved throwing Russia a bone so they can spin the peace as a win domestically. Of course that's unpopular right now because Ukraine is winning the war and everyone wants to go with "let's push Russia out and hope they take it with dignity". But Musk has a different risk profile and would prefer de-escalation. And I'm not sure how you would deescalate without some concessions to both sides.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      I'm not sure that "try to conquer the country, fail, and still get to keep 20% of it" is the precedent that we want to set. But that's where "some concessions on both sides" is going to get you. (Concessions less than that - I presume - won't be regarded as "some concessions" by Russia.)
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - anotherman554 4y ago
      "But Musk has a different risk profile" I wouldn't assume anything Musk tweets has anything to do with "risk profiles". He recently tried to commit fraud to get out of the Twitter acquisition, and when his lawyers told him it would go very badly for him he closed the deal. He is compulsively dishonest. The New York times reports that Musk "suggested in a newspaper interview that China could be appeased if it were given partial control of Taiwan." You don't think he's trying to suck up to the Chinese government since he has business interests there? Of course he's very good at inventing "plausibly deniable" motivations for his toxic behavior, but I wouldn't take anything he says at face value. People are claiming he cares about free speech because he claims he does, which is laughable. He is suggesting free speech be taken from the people of Taiwan. And for realsies, not the "If I'm kicked off Twitter I'm oppressed" version of free speech.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  I'd venture to guess it was the "Ukraine should capitulate to their invaders lol" plan and not the empty platitudes Musk regularly tweets.
- koonsolo 4y ago
  No, the "Crimea clearly belongs to Russia" part, among other things. And submitting to Russia does not equal "saving humanity" in my book. Far from it in fact. Also the "cost" of keeping Starlink alive in Ukraine, while it clearly has or will have a return on investment. (Ukrainians are already buying and paying subscriptions for that). Edit: What was also disgusting was to ask what Kasparov did except tweet. And after it became very clear that he was protesting the Putin regime for many years already, Elon had the guts to up the ante and state that he's an "idiot". Sorry, but such things reveal what kind of person you are.
  - jimmyjazz14 4y ago
    I think a lot of people in the United States do not fully understand the Crimea thing and Ukraine's stance on the area (before the conflict). I don't have an opinion on the matter other than to say it is probably worth learning more about Crimea and its history before jumping to conclusions.
    - koonsolo 4y ago
      I agree and I fully understand. I'm from EU working with Ukrainian colleagues, so for me it's closer. I was never too bothered with other wars that were "far away", so I understand for US it's "far away'. But it was really strange to see all these rich US Silicon Valley guys wanting to share their uninformed opinion, and then get trashed by people who do know.
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    Giving Russia Crimea would just return to the de-facto borders of 2021 and formalizing them. Of course that's a concession to Russia, but to deescalate you have to give both sides something to claim as victory.
    - koonsolo 4y ago
      Sure, in 2004 they poisoned Yushchenko. In 2014 they illegally annex Crimea and invade a part of the Donbas. Then by Elon and your suggestion, in 2022 they legally take Crimea, and after killing all the locals let's have some official elections in the landbridge areas. Ukraine stays "neutral", just like they already were (seemed to work out great for them!) Any predictions for 2030?
- throwawaysleep 4y ago
  It was closer to “let’s not escalate to nuclear war by surrendering.”
- jrockway 4y ago
  It's a little more complex than that. You probably don't want to send the geopolitical message that you can have whatever you want if you threaten to use nuclear weapons. If that's the case, then North Korea gets South Korea, China gets Taiwan, etc. You can't just immediately concede to bullies, or all that will be left are bullies. That doesn't save humanity.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jackblemming 4y ago
You typically don't become a billionaire unless you choose "whatever makes the most money" as the default choice.
dathinab 4y ago
> SpaceX. I had the impression that he was very genuine and really wanted to "save humanity". One think I which people would realize more is that you can't "safe humanity" by populating mars or anything like that. Even if earth becomes extremely hostile due to climate change, or lets say a catastrophic event like it killed the Dinos it would still be docents if not even hundred of times easier to live on earth then on mars. Just to double down on it. It is even true if every single tree on earth burned down, the equator regions are frequently over 100C, the oceans are completely dead and no mice can survive on the surface. Even then it would not only be simpler to survive on earth then on mars it also would still be much much more easy to make earth livable again the it would be to do so with Mars... Or in other words geo-forming/(long term, self sustainable, growable populating) Mars is technologically so far away that implementing faster then light traveling might turn out easier. It's _that_ hard. And SpaceX at most contributes to getting there and nothing more. And sure you have to start at some point. But SpaceX never was about saving humanity it always was about making money. And what provides reliably more money then getting state investment for rockets for a mars mission?
- sgu999 4y ago
  Same goes for Tesla. Transporting people in a sustainable way is what public transports do, already, not electric cars with 1,1 passengers. Electric cars do make tons of money, however.
tim333 4y ago
I've been following Ukraine and read his tweets and I'd say he was just a bit under informed which is not surprising given he's busing running like five companies and doesn't have a background in Russian/Ukrainian history. It's easy to think you should get peace by giving away some land until you look into the details. Though ask any of the Eastern Europeans who have lived their lives near Russia and they will generally point out flaws with that scheme. (To name but one subtlety Ukraine signed an agreement with Russia and the US in 1994 to secure its borders in return for giving up its nukes. Do we now say disarmament agreements are worthless and the aggressive countries can just say ha ha suckers and take land if you don't have nukes? - would be a bad precedent.) >like jump into bed with Russia or China in a heartbeat, as long as it delivers the extra buck doesn't really fit with him supplying loads of Starlinks much to Russia's annoyance.

Ferrotin 4y ago

So the whole “let’s not escalate to nuclear war” thing is what convinced you he didn’t want to save humanity.

misiti3780 4y ago
I really dont understand why his Ukraine tweets were controversial. He clearly has done in support of Ukraine with providing Starlink etc. He doesnt have control of arms shipments or policy decisions that the Western powers are making (sanctions, etc). Yet another example of how polarized the US (maybe the West) is, where if you say *any* that questions our unilateral support of Ukraine (even if that has to do with increased chances of nuclear war) you're an asshole. I'm sorry, but this situation has a lot of nuance - quit acting like it doesnt. You can cautiously support Ukraine but also realize that the US has little to gain as each day goes by with Russia getting smoked by Western weapons and training.
- koonsolo 4y ago
  > He clearly has done in support of Ukraine with providing Starlink etc. Do you know that Ukrainians are buying and paying subscriptions for that. I'm sure the return on investment is very well calculated. Ok, so we give up a part of Ukraine to avoid nuclear war. Works very good for Russia. In a few years Russia takes the rest of Ukraine. Are you going to risk nuclear war then? No? Great! Then Russia invades the Baltic states. Want to risk nuclear war now? Of course not. Then they take the rest of central Europe that was under their control. Is East-Germany worth the risk of nuclear war in your opinion, or not?
  - misiti3780 4y ago
    > Do you know that Ukrainians are buying and paying subscriptions for that. I'm sure the return on investment is very well calculated. I'm sorry, did the Starlink units not help ? > Is East-Germany worth the risk of nuclear war in your opinion, or not? Last time I checked, Germany was a member of NATO.
    - koonsolo 4y ago
      > I'm sorry, did the Starlink units not help ? Of course, any business is a win-win for both parties. But don't act as if it's from of the kindness of the heart. > Last time I checked, Germany was a member of NATO. Funny, because last time I checked, the Baltic states are too. But I guess NATO could give those up to avoid nuclear war. You didn't respond to them being taken over by Russia, did you?
      - misiti3780 4y ago
        I guess I meant "Last time I checked, they are all members of NATO"
        koonsolo 4y ago
        A conflict with NATO has a higher chance of turning nuclear than a conflict with Ukraine. So maybe we should exclude the Baltic states and give them to Russia? To avoid a nuclear war?
        misiti3780 4y ago
        I dont understand your point. Who is talkinga bout giving the Baltic states to Russia? Not me.
        koonsolo 4y ago
        You are defending Elon, who said to give Crimea to Russia to "prevent nulcear war". I'm just wondering how much stuff you want to give to Russia to "prevent nuclear war". So give Crimea to Russia, yes. Donbas too? Baltic states you said no. Can they take the rest of Ukraine to prevent nuclear war? For me, the line is pretty easy: Russia respects the borders as internationally defined. And I don't really give a shit how much they threaten with nuclear war. For you and Elon, you seem to want to give Russia some stuff and hope it ends there. Well, it never ends there, so that's why I ask where you will draw the line.
- david422 4y ago
  > I really dont understand why his Ukraine tweets were controversial Because peace at this point means the aggressor keeps territories. If Canada moved troops into a bunch of US states - NY, NH, Maine, Pennsylvania etc. would you be willing to just cede that territory over so that everybody can have "peace"? Ok, let's have peace, I guess Canada gets New England now.
  - misiti3780 4y ago
    Ya I get it, and that is one option, of many, for resolving this conflict. How do you think this ends if the Western powers keep funding the war and Ukraine takes Crimea? Do you think Putin will just say "OK" ? Comparing Russia to Canada is in bad faith. Canada is a democracy, not run by a dictator.
    - koonsolo 4y ago
      > Do you think Putin will just say "OK" ? I think NATO or the West is playing a very strategic game here. They don't offer Ukraine 100% more firepower than Russia, which would end the war quickly. They offer them a bit more so that Russia is struggling. And notice that when Russia would try to subdue Ukraine with more powerful weapons like a tactical nuke, NATO already made it clear that they would move in. They are basically exhausting Russia to death. Right now, Russia is really scraping to throw everything they got into this war. If this war keeps going, it will totally destruct Russia's economy and society. Unfortunately, Ukraine is paying a very heavy price for this. But from a NATO strategic standpoint, we're now in an ideal scenario.
      - misiti3780 4y ago
        i hope you're right.
    - david422 4y ago
      > How do you think this ends if the Western powers keep funding the war and Ukraine takes Crimea? Do you think Putin will just say "OK" ? You mean if Ukraine returns to their sovereign borders and has a crap ton of weapons and can physically repel any Russian attacks? Doesn't matter what Putin says. > Comparing Russia to Canada is in bad faith. What? Ok, how about just pretend Russia takes over the Alaska and the western seaboard. Does that work for you?
anotherman554 4y ago
If all he had said is “let’s not escalate to nuclear war” then there would be no controversy.
- wongarsu 4y ago
  He also gave concrete steps on how to achieve that, and everyone got up in arms because those steps involved throwing Russia a bone so they can spin the peace as a win domestically. Of course that's unpopular right now because Ukraine is winning the war and everyone wants to go with "let's push Russia out and hope they take it with dignity". But Musk has a different risk profile and would prefer de-escalation. And I'm not sure how you would deescalate without some concessions to both sides.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    I'm not sure that "try to conquer the country, fail, and still get to keep 20% of it" is the precedent that we want to set. But that's where "some concessions on both sides" is going to get you. (Concessions less than that - I presume - won't be regarded as "some concessions" by Russia.)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - anotherman554 4y ago
    "But Musk has a different risk profile" I wouldn't assume anything Musk tweets has anything to do with "risk profiles". He recently tried to commit fraud to get out of the Twitter acquisition, and when his lawyers told him it would go very badly for him he closed the deal. He is compulsively dishonest. The New York times reports that Musk "suggested in a newspaper interview that China could be appeased if it were given partial control of Taiwan." You don't think he's trying to suck up to the Chinese government since he has business interests there? Of course he's very good at inventing "plausibly deniable" motivations for his toxic behavior, but I wouldn't take anything he says at face value. People are claiming he cares about free speech because he claims he does, which is laughable. He is suggesting free speech be taken from the people of Taiwan. And for realsies, not the "If I'm kicked off Twitter I'm oppressed" version of free speech.
heavyset_go 4y ago
I'd venture to guess it was the "Ukraine should capitulate to their invaders lol" plan and not the empty platitudes Musk regularly tweets.
koonsolo 4y ago
No, the "Crimea clearly belongs to Russia" part, among other things. And submitting to Russia does not equal "saving humanity" in my book. Far from it in fact. Also the "cost" of keeping Starlink alive in Ukraine, while it clearly has or will have a return on investment. (Ukrainians are already buying and paying subscriptions for that). Edit: What was also disgusting was to ask what Kasparov did except tweet. And after it became very clear that he was protesting the Putin regime for many years already, Elon had the guts to up the ante and state that he's an "idiot". Sorry, but such things reveal what kind of person you are.
- jimmyjazz14 4y ago
  I think a lot of people in the United States do not fully understand the Crimea thing and Ukraine's stance on the area (before the conflict). I don't have an opinion on the matter other than to say it is probably worth learning more about Crimea and its history before jumping to conclusions.
  - koonsolo 4y ago
    I agree and I fully understand. I'm from EU working with Ukrainian colleagues, so for me it's closer. I was never too bothered with other wars that were "far away", so I understand for US it's "far away'. But it was really strange to see all these rich US Silicon Valley guys wanting to share their uninformed opinion, and then get trashed by people who do know.
- wongarsu 4y ago
  Giving Russia Crimea would just return to the de-facto borders of 2021 and formalizing them. Of course that's a concession to Russia, but to deescalate you have to give both sides something to claim as victory.
  - koonsolo 4y ago
    Sure, in 2004 they poisoned Yushchenko. In 2014 they illegally annex Crimea and invade a part of the Donbas. Then by Elon and your suggestion, in 2022 they legally take Crimea, and after killing all the locals let's have some official elections in the landbridge areas. Ukraine stays "neutral", just like they already were (seemed to work out great for them!) Any predictions for 2030?
throwawaysleep 4y ago
It was closer to “let’s not escalate to nuclear war by surrendering.”
jrockway 4y ago
It's a little more complex than that. You probably don't want to send the geopolitical message that you can have whatever you want if you threaten to use nuclear weapons. If that's the case, then North Korea gets South Korea, China gets Taiwan, etc. You can't just immediately concede to bullies, or all that will be left are bullies. That doesn't save humanity.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jackblemming 4y ago

You typically don't become a billionaire unless you choose "whatever makes the most money" as the default choice.

dathinab 4y ago

> SpaceX. I had the impression that he was very genuine and really wanted to "save humanity". One think I which people would realize more is that you can't "safe humanity" by populating mars or anything like that. Even if earth becomes extremely hostile due to climate change, or lets say a catastrophic event like it killed the Dinos it would still be docents if not even hundred of times easier to live on earth then on mars. Just to double down on it. It is even true if every single tree on earth burned down, the equator regions are frequently over 100C, the oceans are completely dead and no mice can survive on the surface. Even then it would not only be simpler to survive on earth then on mars it also would still be much much more easy to make earth livable again the it would be to do so with Mars... Or in other words geo-forming/(long term, self sustainable, growable populating) Mars is technologically so far away that implementing faster then light traveling might turn out easier. It's _that_ hard. And SpaceX at most contributes to getting there and nothing more. And sure you have to start at some point. But SpaceX never was about saving humanity it always was about making money. And what provides reliably more money then getting state investment for rockets for a mars mission?

sgu999 4y ago
Same goes for Tesla. Transporting people in a sustainable way is what public transports do, already, not electric cars with 1,1 passengers. Electric cars do make tons of money, however.

tim333 4y ago

I've been following Ukraine and read his tweets and I'd say he was just a bit under informed which is not surprising given he's busing running like five companies and doesn't have a background in Russian/Ukrainian history. It's easy to think you should get peace by giving away some land until you look into the details. Though ask any of the Eastern Europeans who have lived their lives near Russia and they will generally point out flaws with that scheme. (To name but one subtlety Ukraine signed an agreement with Russia and the US in 1994 to secure its borders in return for giving up its nukes. Do we now say disarmament agreements are worthless and the aggressive countries can just say ha ha suckers and take land if you don't have nukes? - would be a bad precedent.) >like jump into bed with Russia or China in a heartbeat, as long as it delivers the extra buck doesn't really fit with him supplying loads of Starlinks much to Russia's annoyance.