7 ms·

His companies did literally re-boot the electric car industry, American rockets industry, American battery production, satellite internet business. These aren'

His companies did literally re-boot the electric car industry, American rockets industry, American battery production, satellite internet business. These aren't the confident boasts of a charlatan, we have very concrete proof this happened.

tombert 3y ago
You might be able to argue the point for SpaceX and Starlink, but honestly I'm not sold on the rest. He bought his way into Tesla, for example. Moreover, I don't even know that I buy the idea that the CEO is really the reason for any company's success; are we going to claim that Bill Gates is responsible for the success of desktop computing? I mean, you can if you want but I would not personally say that. I think it's a combination of good marketing, right-place-right-time, and happening to hire the right people for the job. Even before SpaceX got off the ground, since I was a kid, people have been complaining at how little NASA was accomplishing, so I think someone breaking into the commercial space flight was inevitable. Elon probably does deserve a bit of credit for funding it when he did but I'm not convinced that he was uniquely qualified to to it, and I absolutely reject the notion that "because he was successful with some businesses, he's going to save the world". He also lies. A lot. Like, more often than he tells the truth. He just makes shit up. He has claimed we will have self-driving cars "next year" for the last 6 years. He has repeatedly claimed that it's something we can do "today". He claimed that the Boring Company can "pay for itself with brick production". All of this to me kind of implies his success is more stochastic than any kind of eccentric genius.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  Or it's a different kind of genius. A lot of these claims helped juice the stock value at critical times. The "battery swap" demo happened to get a specific tax incentive from Uncle Sam[1]. These are specific actions meant to get other people's money - follow-through be damned. [1] https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2015/0312/Tesla-battery-swapping-useful-service-or-tax-credit-ploy https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2015/0312/Tesla-b...
  - tombert 3y ago
    I don't know that that really requires "genius" though. Having a lawyer tell you "hey there's this clause in the recent tax code that might make us a lot of money if we make an interesting demo", and then him saying "ok, lets make that demo" doesn't seem like it takes a 10,000 IQ. Lying is pretty easy, and I can think of lots of habitual liars that I also think are very stupid. Without naming anyone specific, think of any politician that you dislike.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > He bought his way into Tesla, for example. He did, but that doesn't come close to the whole story: • July 1, 2003, Incorporated by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning … • August 2007, Eberhard was asked to step down by the board; Michael Marks was brought in as interim CEO • December 2007, Ze'ev Drori became CEO and President • May 2008, "The Truth About Cars" website launched a "Tesla Death Watch", as Tesla needed another round of financing to survive • October 2008, Musk succeeded Drori as CEO and fired 25% of Tesla employees Leading to: • By January 2009, Tesla had raised US$187 million ($70 million from Musk) and delivered 147 cars. Not 147 thousand, just 147. After 5.5 years. > I don't even know that I buy the idea that the CEO is really the reason for any company's success; are we going to claim that Bill Gates is responsible for the success of desktop computing? I mean, you can if you want but I would not personally say that. I think it's a combination of good marketing, right-place-right-time, and happening to hire the right people for the job. I think it's all those things, plus luck and skill. Likewise for all the other CEOs out there. It is the opposite side of the same coin as complaining that Musk didn't really found Tesla — yup, he wasn't in the room with Eberhard and Tarpenning, but it was Musk's choices and actions as leader which turned the company from "Tesla Death Watch" to a viable business rather than choosing to close it down and sell off the assets to compensate the shareholders, which would not have been unreasonable given how many people at the time (and even today) are going "Batteries? Pah! Give us hydrogen!" for whatever reason. > Even before SpaceX got off the ground, since I was a kid, people have been complaining at how little NASA was accomplishing, so I think someone breaking into the commercial space flight was inevitable. Elon probably does deserve a bit of credit for funding it when he did but I'm not convinced that he was uniquely qualified to to it, I'm excited to see what Relativity Space and Rocket Lab do in this space. Conversely, Blue Origin (founded 18 months before SpaceX) hasn't done anything impressive. Musk's qualification sure isn't unique, but that doesn't mean it's universal either. > and I absolutely reject the notion that "because he was successful with some businesses, he's going to save the world". Agreed; some of his recent hubris does seem related specifically to this. > He also lies. A lot. Like, more often than he tells the truth. He just makes shit up. He has claimed we will have self-driving cars "next year" for the last 6 years. He has repeatedly claimed that it's something we can do "today". He claimed that the Boring Company can "pay for itself with brick production". > All of this to me kind of implies his success is more stochastic than any kind of eccentric genius. There's a phrase about putting people on pedestals, and the view from those on the ground looking up. I view him as being a relatively unfiltered stochastic genius. D&D aligment, chaotic neutral. He may only be half as smart as he thinks he is, but he's not actually an idiot, just wildly (and in some cases horrifyingly) over-optimistic. And his successes are all directly tied to the same personality traits as his failures: he has an idea, he won't let go of it, so he keeps bashing at it until progress happens. And he's an effective salesman so he can bring investors along for that ride.

tombert 3y ago

You might be able to argue the point for SpaceX and Starlink, but honestly I'm not sold on the rest. He bought his way into Tesla, for example. Moreover, I don't even know that I buy the idea that the CEO is really the reason for any company's success; are we going to claim that Bill Gates is responsible for the success of desktop computing? I mean, you can if you want but I would not personally say that. I think it's a combination of good marketing, right-place-right-time, and happening to hire the right people for the job. Even before SpaceX got off the ground, since I was a kid, people have been complaining at how little NASA was accomplishing, so I think someone breaking into the commercial space flight was inevitable. Elon probably does deserve a bit of credit for funding it when he did but I'm not convinced that he was uniquely qualified to to it, and I absolutely reject the notion that "because he was successful with some businesses, he's going to save the world". He also lies. A lot. Like, more often than he tells the truth. He just makes shit up. He has claimed we will have self-driving cars "next year" for the last 6 years. He has repeatedly claimed that it's something we can do "today". He claimed that the Boring Company can "pay for itself with brick production". All of this to me kind of implies his success is more stochastic than any kind of eccentric genius.

AlexandrB 3y ago
Or it's a different kind of genius. A lot of these claims helped juice the stock value at critical times. The "battery swap" demo happened to get a specific tax incentive from Uncle Sam[1]. These are specific actions meant to get other people's money - follow-through be damned. [1] https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2015/0312/Tesla-battery-swapping-useful-service-or-tax-credit-ploy https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2015/0312/Tesla-b...
- tombert 3y ago
  I don't know that that really requires "genius" though. Having a lawyer tell you "hey there's this clause in the recent tax code that might make us a lot of money if we make an interesting demo", and then him saying "ok, lets make that demo" doesn't seem like it takes a 10,000 IQ. Lying is pretty easy, and I can think of lots of habitual liars that I also think are very stupid. Without naming anyone specific, think of any politician that you dislike.
ben_w 3y ago
> He bought his way into Tesla, for example. He did, but that doesn't come close to the whole story: • July 1, 2003, Incorporated by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning … • August 2007, Eberhard was asked to step down by the board; Michael Marks was brought in as interim CEO • December 2007, Ze'ev Drori became CEO and President • May 2008, "The Truth About Cars" website launched a "Tesla Death Watch", as Tesla needed another round of financing to survive • October 2008, Musk succeeded Drori as CEO and fired 25% of Tesla employees Leading to: • By January 2009, Tesla had raised US$187 million ($70 million from Musk) and delivered 147 cars. Not 147 thousand, just 147. After 5.5 years. > I don't even know that I buy the idea that the CEO is really the reason for any company's success; are we going to claim that Bill Gates is responsible for the success of desktop computing? I mean, you can if you want but I would not personally say that. I think it's a combination of good marketing, right-place-right-time, and happening to hire the right people for the job. I think it's all those things, plus luck and skill. Likewise for all the other CEOs out there. It is the opposite side of the same coin as complaining that Musk didn't really found Tesla — yup, he wasn't in the room with Eberhard and Tarpenning, but it was Musk's choices and actions as leader which turned the company from "Tesla Death Watch" to a viable business rather than choosing to close it down and sell off the assets to compensate the shareholders, which would not have been unreasonable given how many people at the time (and even today) are going "Batteries? Pah! Give us hydrogen!" for whatever reason. > Even before SpaceX got off the ground, since I was a kid, people have been complaining at how little NASA was accomplishing, so I think someone breaking into the commercial space flight was inevitable. Elon probably does deserve a bit of credit for funding it when he did but I'm not convinced that he was uniquely qualified to to it, I'm excited to see what Relativity Space and Rocket Lab do in this space. Conversely, Blue Origin (founded 18 months before SpaceX) hasn't done anything impressive. Musk's qualification sure isn't unique, but that doesn't mean it's universal either. > and I absolutely reject the notion that "because he was successful with some businesses, he's going to save the world". Agreed; some of his recent hubris does seem related specifically to this. > He also lies. A lot. Like, more often than he tells the truth. He just makes shit up. He has claimed we will have self-driving cars "next year" for the last 6 years. He has repeatedly claimed that it's something we can do "today". He claimed that the Boring Company can "pay for itself with brick production". > All of this to me kind of implies his success is more stochastic than any kind of eccentric genius. There's a phrase about putting people on pedestals, and the view from those on the ground looking up. I view him as being a relatively unfiltered stochastic genius. D&D aligment, chaotic neutral. He may only be half as smart as he thinks he is, but he's not actually an idiot, just wildly (and in some cases horrifyingly) over-optimistic. And his successes are all directly tied to the same personality traits as his failures: he has an idea, he won't let go of it, so he keeps bashing at it until progress happens. And he's an effective salesman so he can bring investors along for that ride.