9 ms·
It used to be common to point out that 1/3rd of all of the self-made multimillionaires in the USA eventually go bankrupt. I don't know what the current statisti
by lkrubner 4y ago
It used to be common to point out that 1/3rd of all of the self-made multimillionaires in the USA eventually go bankrupt. I don't know what the current statistic is, but 20 years ago I studied the issue in some detail, and the pattern was:
1. entrepreneur sees an opportunity that no one else sees
2. entrepreneur takes some big risks to take advantage of the opportunity
3. entrepreneur becomes wealthy because they took risks to take advantage of the opportunity
4. other entrepreneurs (or businesses) become interested now that the new opportunity has been proven
5. after 10 or 20 years of hard work, the original entrepreneur wants to shift their attention elsewhere, maybe relax, at the very moment that outside money is pouring into this opportunity
6. original entrepreneur goes bankrupt, as their attention was shifting away from their business just as competition was intensifying.
On a much larger scale, it seems Elon Musk is at risk of exactly this pattern. His attention shifted away from Tesla just as Tesla is facing increasing competition.
- nullish_signal 4y agoPerhaps Tesla will suffer, very possible, but where are the Mercedes Satellite Constellations and re-usable Rockets? Mercedes Brain-Computer Interfaces? Musk's businesses seems so financially diversified that one bombing overnight could just take some cash from the others. He's already leveraged Tesla stock to buy a massive Social Media platform, right? But the profitability of Twitter is certainly another point to be decided.
- bfeynman 4y agofyi neuralink fundamentally doesn't work.
- nullish_signal 4y agoElaborate? The demo of a Pig on a Treadmill, with accurate predictions of Joint Locations, was very impressive to me.
- bfeynman 4y agoThe longevity and viability of their work being anything more than terminal experiments is the main thing, those obviously do not make it to normal human usage. Implantable electrodes have been around for a while and are not new technology.
- pySSK 4y agoThat has existed in academia for 10-20 years. The only thing different is the marketing + the move fast break things ethos both of which are typically frowned upon in academia.
- nullish_signal 4y agoAgain, I would appreciate some Links, Product Names, and Elaboration. I'm a Video Gamer, not a Bio-Electrician Researcher aware of the past 3 Decades of Cutting Edge Technologies.
- bfeynman 4y agoDo research yourself don't listen to randos on internet. Just look up on google scholar results for "implantable electrodes scarring" you can get hundreds of papers on it.
- nullish_signal 4y agoMonkeys typing with Neuralink also seemed like a Cut and Dry demonstration of the potential usefulness of the device. I'm baffled as to how you can say "fyi it's fundamentally broken" without giving more detail.
- bfeynman 4y agophysiologically, the devices have a limited lifespan due to fact that the tissue will start scarring over and render the electrodes worthless, it's an invasive procedure that can only be done once or twice. Neuronal actions are chemical interactions, not digital computer signals as well. I agree the work they've done is kind of exciting, but they didn't solve one of the crucial issues that's been blocking the field and technology from flourishing, implantable electrodes have been around for a long time.
- nullish_signal 4y agoThank you for explaining yourself. Searching 'neuralink "scar"' ('' removed) got me information about the ethical issues of Neuralink@UC Davis, and a 2020 article about potential polymers to use in the wires. I will continue to wait and see how the tech develops - I certainly was never planning on being one of the first early adopters anyways, but I still see a lot of potential for Paraplegics, and then obviously Consumer usage eventually.
- bfeynman 4y agoI'm not expert but was involved in adjacent field, so I do not have a singular explanation and one pager. Neuroscience/biology research is complex, but a good indicator is that there are hundreds of papers on trying to modulate responses to implants. They have not gotten very far on a resilient solution to it, and like I said, it's been decades since they've discovered this problem and the fact that neural link doesn't even bring it up leads me to believe they are just BS ing everyone in the same way elon ignored major questions about FSD for tesla, they are nowhere near solving the actual crux of the issue.
- mmsimanga 4y agoI am paraphrasing a quote I have heard before, "Pioneers get the bullets and settlers get the land." Might not be actual bullets but pioneers today have to deal with legislators, put up charging stations, develop most components from scratch and so on. These are the modern day bullets. If they don't get bought by a larger company the larger company launches a competing product with the benefit of the experiences of the pioneer.
- glitchc 4y agoCan't argue that Tesla's smaller than Mercedes when Tesla's market cap is so much larger. In 2021, at it's peak Tesla's market cap crossed $1.2 Trillion. Daimler at it's peak this year only reached $81 Billion (although climbing). Why couldn't Tesla just buy out Daimler? Even now Tesla sitting at a valuation of $372 Billion. It could happen tomorrow. Tell me Elon's the savvy businessman you claim him to be. If Gates were running the company, he would have acquired half the auto industry by now.
- jmole 4y agoBuying a major car company is buying a whole heap of liabilities and depreciating assets. The major value drivers (contributors to market cap) are brand, patent portfolio, and future revenues from existing capex. Tesla doesn't want to support the supply chain of new and used parts for a legacy car company, they can barely keep up with their own (and they only make 4 models!).
- glitchc 4y agoWell, you know, you also get an established luxury brand, a cadre of brand-loyal customers, a significant increase in the manufacturing base and tons of proprietary tech. Are you telling me Mr. Musk would have bothered to create his own brand if he had enough capital to buy an existing brand to start with? The latter is a much safer strategy in bringing a car to market. He took big risks creating his own brand because he lacked the initial capital to buy one outright.
- cudgy 4y agoStep 5 should include grooming capable executives to take the reins of the company so it is not solely dependent on a single person.
- ck2 4y agoMusk never had the features he was claiming, it was all bravado https://gizmodo.com/feds-investigate-elon-musk-tweet-tesla-self-driving-1849966761 https://gizmodo.com/feds-investigate-elon-musk-tweet-tesla-s... The competition thought the claims were real and actually made it happen.
- lkrubner 4y agoWhy did my comment get downvoted? I'm sharing something that I learned back when I was doing serious research about entrepreneurship, and I'm pointing out that it applies to Elon Musk, an observation which should be relevant to the conversation.
- seadan83 4y agoI suspect because you did not relate your comment back to the article, it seems off topic to an article about Mercedes getting level3 self driving approved for nevada highways. It is somewhat predictable that eventually responses would in particular start to focus on the elephant in the room.. fundamentally a parent comment should be about the article