3 ms·

> Why not simply take him at his word? I don't know why he'd lie on this particular topic. But Musk absolutely has a history of lying on commercial matters.

> Why not simply take him at his word? I don't know why he'd lie on this particular topic. But Musk absolutely has a history of lying on commercial matters. I don't believe his statements deserve the presumption of honesty. (Comment edited for tone.)

KoolKat23 2y ago
Does it matter, no. Does his stated reason make sense, yes. These things are not mutually exclusive. It would need to be financially sustainable to actually deliver on whatever long term goal. Edited: for guidelines
- bumby 2y ago
  >Does it matter, no. I think the OP may be a bit strong in their language, but I think your quote borders on cult-of-personality. Can you name a business where delivering on promises does not matter? To take it back to the featured article, there's a lot to be said for Boeing not delivering on their contract (really just a legally binding promise) and how it caused all kinds of schedule and cost pressure. >"What did he do to hurt you?" Also, snarky replies go against HN guidelines. Please review them.
  - KoolKat23 2y ago
    SpaceX have a contract with NASA where delivering on their promises matters. Despite what some in the general public would have you believe, the evidence to date is clearly they're currently the most capable at delivering, one only has to look to Falcon9 or Dragons record to date. What I don't get is when the public feels entitled to some forensically audited answer. Especially when the business in question is privately held. He's entitled to his view, I mean someone else asked for it, we're entitled to disagree, we know he is often over-optimistic on timelines but there's no need for people to get butthurt over it like many seem to do. Imagine every time some other influential person made a comment, people fervently came out specifically to comment "They're a liar because of x reason". He runs the company, we don't, he's our best insight into the business, we can adjust expectations accordingly. Sorry I removed the snarky comment.
    - bumby 2y ago
      I think it depends on what is being audited. My issue with the Mars claim is that it really doesn’t pass the smell test for me. Practically any use case for Mars ignores a better mitigation on Earth. So it comes across to me as one of those exciting, but impractical options. And “exciting hype” is what I would characterize Musks MO in SpaceX, Tesla etc. So based on his previous overly hyped promises, my priors are now more suspect. But when it comes to taxpayer money, the public absolutely has a right to audit. You can see how this played out with both Boeing and SpaceX. They were given huge leeway early, and they were audited more when they showed evidence that maybe some of that extreme trust was misplaced.
- CoastalCoder 2y ago
  TL;DR: Let me clarify my comment above. I'm a skeptic my nature. I generally trust claims on a sliding scale, not binary. What I was trying to convey is that given Musk's history, I generally have a lower default trust level for his statements than I do for the average person. On this particular matter, I don't know enough to have trust him above or below my defaults for him. But for Musk, that still falls below what I'd call "taking at face value".
  - KoolKat23 2y ago
    Fair enough, a healthy dose of scepticism can't hurt ;)
bumby 2y ago
>I don't know why he'd lie on this particular topic. IMO, it makes for a good story and narrative that plays extremely well for PR purposes. There's just so many holes in the idea of executing that plan that I don't feel like it holds much water. But it reads much better than "There are large government contracts available to subsidize the early development of a business with an obvious and growing need that will lead to outsized profits if we're first."

KoolKat23 2y ago

Does it matter, no. Does his stated reason make sense, yes. These things are not mutually exclusive. It would need to be financially sustainable to actually deliver on whatever long term goal. Edited: for guidelines

bumby 2y ago
>Does it matter, no. I think the OP may be a bit strong in their language, but I think your quote borders on cult-of-personality. Can you name a business where delivering on promises does not matter? To take it back to the featured article, there's a lot to be said for Boeing not delivering on their contract (really just a legally binding promise) and how it caused all kinds of schedule and cost pressure. >"What did he do to hurt you?" Also, snarky replies go against HN guidelines. Please review them.
- KoolKat23 2y ago
  SpaceX have a contract with NASA where delivering on their promises matters. Despite what some in the general public would have you believe, the evidence to date is clearly they're currently the most capable at delivering, one only has to look to Falcon9 or Dragons record to date. What I don't get is when the public feels entitled to some forensically audited answer. Especially when the business in question is privately held. He's entitled to his view, I mean someone else asked for it, we're entitled to disagree, we know he is often over-optimistic on timelines but there's no need for people to get butthurt over it like many seem to do. Imagine every time some other influential person made a comment, people fervently came out specifically to comment "They're a liar because of x reason". He runs the company, we don't, he's our best insight into the business, we can adjust expectations accordingly. Sorry I removed the snarky comment.
  - bumby 2y ago
    I think it depends on what is being audited. My issue with the Mars claim is that it really doesn’t pass the smell test for me. Practically any use case for Mars ignores a better mitigation on Earth. So it comes across to me as one of those exciting, but impractical options. And “exciting hype” is what I would characterize Musks MO in SpaceX, Tesla etc. So based on his previous overly hyped promises, my priors are now more suspect. But when it comes to taxpayer money, the public absolutely has a right to audit. You can see how this played out with both Boeing and SpaceX. They were given huge leeway early, and they were audited more when they showed evidence that maybe some of that extreme trust was misplaced.
CoastalCoder 2y ago
TL;DR: Let me clarify my comment above. I'm a skeptic my nature. I generally trust claims on a sliding scale, not binary. What I was trying to convey is that given Musk's history, I generally have a lower default trust level for his statements than I do for the average person. On this particular matter, I don't know enough to have trust him above or below my defaults for him. But for Musk, that still falls below what I'd call "taking at face value".
- KoolKat23 2y ago
  Fair enough, a healthy dose of scepticism can't hurt ;)

bumby 2y ago

>I don't know why he'd lie on this particular topic. IMO, it makes for a good story and narrative that plays extremely well for PR purposes. There's just so many holes in the idea of executing that plan that I don't feel like it holds much water. But it reads much better than "There are large government contracts available to subsidize the early development of a business with an obvious and growing need that will lead to outsized profits if we're first."