3 ms·

Yet more evidence that Musk is trying to kill the platform.

rsynnott 3y ago
Or just that he's incompetent. I'm not sure why people are so keen to find an alternative explanation, when Hanlon's razor, well-sharpened after a particularly high-nonsense decade, is right there. This seems to be basically just a Musk thing. As far as I know, there are no attempts to claim that Leo Apotheker had a master plan, say; it was just generally acknowledged that he was very bad at running HP (or, well, _unusually_ bad at running HP; being merely very bad at running HP is pretty much table stakes if you want to be CEO of HP).
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  It’s a similar psychological phenomenon to the “big lie” principle. It’s easy to believe a mediocre CEO is mediocre. But it’s really hard to believe a person who is richest on the planet, is so mind bogglingly incompetent and terrible in obvious self-evident ways, so you keep thinking there is a “plan”. Him cultivating the image of being a “quirky genius” also plays a role. And it’s always been entirely intentional.
  - Zigurd 3y ago
    It is almost as if it is better to be lucky than good
    - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
      This is actually a very deep conversation. Being good requires a methodology of what it means to be good, which puts you on rails you'll never leave. This means you won't recognize a discovery or an innovation even if it hits you in the face. This is why there's a principle that you can ask an expert if something is possible to do currently, but never ask them whether something is impossible to do in principle. History is full of examples of experts, established minds that rejected discovery. We'll never fly. Electric power is useless and so on. Being random, being childish, can bring you luck, because you're trying things that have been abandoned by the "good" as "bad". Electric cars have been tried a few times in the past, and the industry has largely concluded they're "bad". But Musk approached this from inspirational perspective. It was a cool story for the investors and something that could fire up the imagination of the public, so he went for it. And turns out there was more to explore there. But this doesn't mean he had any clue what he's doing. Just trying to do cool things. And he's starting to generate far more misses than hits now. Reversion to the mean. But he was lucky.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  Hanlon's razor cuts on my side, I think. Every decision Musk has made has been destructive; and the (unimaginably wealthy) people who funded Musk's acquisition have a lot to lose from another OWS or Arab Spring type event.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    For most of the co-investors, it's, er, not exactly their first rodeo in investing in stupid stuff, tho.
  - Zigurd 3y ago
    That's a complicated theory with a lot of moving parts. Have you asked the LBO lenders along for the ride how much they... a) Fear having a schmuck drive the value of the debt they can't sell to zero b) Fear an uprising of the proletariat ?

Or just that he's incompetent. I'm not sure why people are so keen to find an alternative explanation, when Hanlon's razor, well-sharpened after a particularly high-nonsense decade, is right there. This seems to be basically just a Musk thing. As far as I know, there are no attempts to claim that Leo Apotheker had a master plan, say; it was just generally acknowledged that he was very bad at running HP (or, well, _unusually_ bad at running HP; being merely very bad at running HP is pretty much table stakes if you want to be CEO of HP).

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
It’s a similar psychological phenomenon to the “big lie” principle. It’s easy to believe a mediocre CEO is mediocre. But it’s really hard to believe a person who is richest on the planet, is so mind bogglingly incompetent and terrible in obvious self-evident ways, so you keep thinking there is a “plan”. Him cultivating the image of being a “quirky genius” also plays a role. And it’s always been entirely intentional.
- Zigurd 3y ago
  It is almost as if it is better to be lucky than good
  - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
    This is actually a very deep conversation. Being good requires a methodology of what it means to be good, which puts you on rails you'll never leave. This means you won't recognize a discovery or an innovation even if it hits you in the face. This is why there's a principle that you can ask an expert if something is possible to do currently, but never ask them whether something is impossible to do in principle. History is full of examples of experts, established minds that rejected discovery. We'll never fly. Electric power is useless and so on. Being random, being childish, can bring you luck, because you're trying things that have been abandoned by the "good" as "bad". Electric cars have been tried a few times in the past, and the industry has largely concluded they're "bad". But Musk approached this from inspirational perspective. It was a cool story for the investors and something that could fire up the imagination of the public, so he went for it. And turns out there was more to explore there. But this doesn't mean he had any clue what he's doing. Just trying to do cool things. And he's starting to generate far more misses than hits now. Reversion to the mean. But he was lucky.
mandmandam 3y ago
Hanlon's razor cuts on my side, I think. Every decision Musk has made has been destructive; and the (unimaginably wealthy) people who funded Musk's acquisition have a lot to lose from another OWS or Arab Spring type event.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  For most of the co-investors, it's, er, not exactly their first rodeo in investing in stupid stuff, tho.
- Zigurd 3y ago
  That's a complicated theory with a lot of moving parts. Have you asked the LBO lenders along for the ride how much they... a) Fear having a schmuck drive the value of the debt they can't sell to zero b) Fear an uprising of the proletariat ?