3 ms·
Your link (to another HN argument you were in?) does not support your argument here. Your link brings us to a 3-day old comment which argues SolarCity failed (
by lynndotpy 4y ago
Your link (to another HN argument you were in?) does not support your argument here.
Your link brings us to a 3-day old comment which argues SolarCity failed (which, yeah, nobody disagrees there) and that Musk "failed upwards" and is not a "tech deity". This is not claiming Musk is overall a "fraud and failure."
- WalterBright 4y agoLOL. "failure" and "failed upward" are plenty close enough.
- matthewmacleod 4y agoWell, no - they’re almost entirely opposed. To “fail upward” inherently requires one to have succeeded - if only on terms the writer thinks are lacking merit! It’s totally legitimate for you to think that Musk is the target of unfair criticism, particularly around the influence he’s had on his businesses’ obvious successes. But you don’t have to build a straw man to make this argument. Virtually nobody would describe Musk as a failure - but they will argue frequently that he’s an arrogant narcissist, or that his success is unjustified. There’s plenty of criticism like that out there—justified and not—and it’s weird to make stuff up to get all “lol u mad bro” about.