4 ms·

There are like 8b people in the world. With that many people trying so many things, someone is bound to be successful. Elon was in the right place at the right

by dools 3y ago

There are like 8b people in the world. With that many people trying so many things, someone is bound to be successful. Elon was in the right place at the right time with his first big exit, which compounds to create additional opportunity, but you're right: that's no guarantee of continued success. However, someone at some point is going to be in the right place at the right time successively 3 or maybe even 4 times. That person will become exceedingly rich and everyone will think, as you have, that it must be due to their skill. However, eventually their luck runs out and they're exposed as being just as frail as the rest of us. Elon is no smarter than Jeff.

cubefox 3y ago
> There are like 8b people in the world. With that many people trying so many things, someone is bound to be successful. Yes -- once, like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. But for creating a highly successful company twice, luck can't be a similarly major explanation, since it isn't "bound to happen" that someone who was highly successful once will be highly successful again. Because the number of people with one highly successful company is very small, unlike the number of people with zero highly successful companies. (If you throw a die ten times and get a six ten times, that is massive luck, which means that you almost certainly won't manage to do it again.) So when people have one successful company, that may well be partly due to sheer luck, but if so, on their second attempt they almost certainly won't be so lucky. That's exactly what Jeff Bezos shows with Blue Origin. He started earlier than Musk did with SpaceX, had more money, and still is far less successful.
- dools 3y ago
  > Yes -- once, like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. But for creating a highly successful company twice, luck can't be a similarly major explanation, since it isn't "bound to happen" It totally is bound to happen to someone. They get the right people involved and find the right contracts and make the right decision, it’s mostly timing.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- ke88y 3y ago
  > Yes -- once, like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos The Amazon.com e-commerce store, Kindle (category-defining), the Amazon fulfillment network (rivaling UPS/FedEx), and of course AWS. That's at least 4 distinct very successful companies. But the way in which one success enabled the next is more obvious, so you don't want to separate them. The comparison to Gates is just pathetic -- instead of Twitter and private space programs, his second act has been focused on things like food security, HIV/AIDS, and polio.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    These things are all part of Amazon, not separate companies. Moreover: > The Amazon.com e-commerce store This was mostly a copy of eBay which used the existing Amazon market dominance. > Kindle (category-defining) Kindle came after the excellent Sony e-book readers. The reason why Kindle was so much more successful was the existing market dominance of Amazon combined with the fact that they used a proprietary Kindle-specific file format to squash the competition. > The comparison to Gates is just pathetic -- instead of Twitter and private space programs, his second act has been focused on things like food security, HIV/AIDS, and polio. SpaceX was not a "second act", except if you count PayPal as his first successful company. SpaceX was founded before Tesla. They do offer a global satellite network which brings Internet to remote areas around the world. That's quite different from a mere "private space program". As for the Gates foundation: This is not a profit driven company, so it is difficult to estimate how successful it is relative to the funds it has. I was talking about Musk's abilities as a founder and manager, not about altruism. (He definitely did things which people might classify as altruistic, such as paying for Ukraine's Starlink access for several months.)
    - ke88y 3y ago
      > not separate companies They literally are separate companies. There's no debate to be had here. Your assertion is just not true. > I was talking about Musk's abilities as a founder and manager, not about altruism. Gates doesn't fire and forget. He plays an active role in his foundation.

by dools 3y ago

cubefox 3y ago

> There are like 8b people in the world. With that many people trying so many things, someone is bound to be successful. Yes -- once, like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. But for creating a highly successful company twice, luck can't be a similarly major explanation, since it isn't "bound to happen" that someone who was highly successful once will be highly successful again. Because the number of people with one highly successful company is very small, unlike the number of people with zero highly successful companies. (If you throw a die ten times and get a six ten times, that is massive luck, which means that you almost certainly won't manage to do it again.) So when people have one successful company, that may well be partly due to sheer luck, but if so, on their second attempt they almost certainly won't be so lucky. That's exactly what Jeff Bezos shows with Blue Origin. He started earlier than Musk did with SpaceX, had more money, and still is far less successful.

dools 3y ago
> Yes -- once, like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. But for creating a highly successful company twice, luck can't be a similarly major explanation, since it isn't "bound to happen" It totally is bound to happen to someone. They get the right people involved and find the right contracts and make the right decision, it’s mostly timing.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ke88y 3y ago
> Yes -- once, like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos The Amazon.com e-commerce store, Kindle (category-defining), the Amazon fulfillment network (rivaling UPS/FedEx), and of course AWS. That's at least 4 distinct very successful companies. But the way in which one success enabled the next is more obvious, so you don't want to separate them. The comparison to Gates is just pathetic -- instead of Twitter and private space programs, his second act has been focused on things like food security, HIV/AIDS, and polio.
- cubefox 3y ago
  These things are all part of Amazon, not separate companies. Moreover: > The Amazon.com e-commerce store This was mostly a copy of eBay which used the existing Amazon market dominance. > Kindle (category-defining) Kindle came after the excellent Sony e-book readers. The reason why Kindle was so much more successful was the existing market dominance of Amazon combined with the fact that they used a proprietary Kindle-specific file format to squash the competition. > The comparison to Gates is just pathetic -- instead of Twitter and private space programs, his second act has been focused on things like food security, HIV/AIDS, and polio. SpaceX was not a "second act", except if you count PayPal as his first successful company. SpaceX was founded before Tesla. They do offer a global satellite network which brings Internet to remote areas around the world. That's quite different from a mere "private space program". As for the Gates foundation: This is not a profit driven company, so it is difficult to estimate how successful it is relative to the funds it has. I was talking about Musk's abilities as a founder and manager, not about altruism. (He definitely did things which people might classify as altruistic, such as paying for Ukraine's Starlink access for several months.)
  - ke88y 3y ago
    > not separate companies They literally are separate companies. There's no debate to be had here. Your assertion is just not true. > I was talking about Musk's abilities as a founder and manager, not about altruism. Gates doesn't fire and forget. He plays an active role in his foundation.