5 ms·

is father was a somewhat wealthy engineer. That about it. His farther wasn't some billionaire. Being born in South Africa to a somewhat wealthy family isn't exa

is father was a somewhat wealthy engineer. That about it. His farther wasn't some billionaire. Being born in South Africa to a somewhat wealthy family isn't exactly the golden lottery ticket. Evidence by the fact that most people born somewhat wealthy in South Afirca simply try to buy a house in England and get a job at some banking company or work for some mining company. If you to go back to Musk birth year and had to pick 'most likely to be most powerful non government person in the world' how many people would you go threw before Musk? What actually helped him more then wealth is that his mother was Canadian and that allowed him to study in Canada and that eventually allowed him a way to get to Silicon Valley. That doesn't just happen, most people from South Africa don't end up in Silicon Valley creating startups. He struggled more in collage then many others because he wasn't at good terms with his father. His father eventually invested a few 10000s $ in his first startup, many people with small business get more from their parents to get started. And the idea that his companies 'thrive' in spite of him is just wrong. Tesla was going to shit before he stepped in. Literally everybody that worked closely within would disagree with you, and that includes many people that have long left his employment. Companies with terrible CEO don't just trip into being worth 100 billion $ or more. If he was CEO for a year or so and the company was already successful, maybe. But SpaceX started with a few people in shed and he took over Tesla when it was basically a pile of garbage. To claim a successful business person was lucky is possible, if it happened once. But being CEO of two multi-billion $ businesses at the same for 20+ and both being considered incredibly successful and influential, that's all luck. You got the be kidding. And these are not some random internet companies, space and car companies routinely were considered some of the hardest industries to break into. There is a whole grep of people wealthier then Musk who tried to break into Space, they all failed. There are tons of failed car companies. Even when Tesla was created, they had problems getting funding and many other companies got more, nobody remembers companies like 'Good Place' anymore. Again, I understand that somebody doesn't like Musk, but your position is utterly ridiculous. It takes a truly dissociated mind to come believe that nonsense.

idiotsecant 2y ago
Musk succeeded in Tesla in the same way he didn't at twitter - blindly picking a path and chasing it relentlessly like a carnival barker. To this day Tesla has over promised, under delivered, and has managed to turn a market leading position into a more and more wandering and disconnected third class product. Anyone involved at spaceX will tell you that musk is not involved, that's why spaceX is working. He got a bunch of smart people together, dropped a pile of money on them, and let them work.Merlin made spacex, not musk.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- inemesitaffia 2y ago
  You read memes about Musk. People's complaints about SpaceX is that he's too involved. Not that he's not involved
- panick21_ 2y ago
  In the real world, unlike your delusional fantasy world, it matters what you deliver, not what you promise. Its pretty hilarious to blame a CEO for growing a company from basically bankrupt with no revenue to one of the top car companies in the world, and then saying see you can't dominate the global car industry when there are literally multiple of the largest cooperation's in the world with strong support nation state governments doing everything they can to change that. You are just comparing him to something absurdly perfect and then saying 'see he is an idiot'. I have read multiple books on SpaceX and watched interviews with lots of people inside and outside of SpaceX, and you are literally just factually wrong. This whole 'pile of money' theory nicely ignores that many much richer people then him (he wasn't a billionaire when SpaceX started) tried to do the same. Bezos invested about 100 more (literally, Musk 90 million $, Bezos over 10 billion $) then Musk in his company and we can see the results. And by LITERALLY any measure, Bezos was far, far, far more hands of then Musk. Musk didn't have as much money as many others who tried their hands at this. It couldn't be clearer that you just have an axe to grind.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    > Its pretty hilarious to blame a CEO I'm just going to stop you right there. The CEO assumes direct administrative command over their business and the choices they can make that could result in substantial risk. It's not any more outrageous to blame Elon Musk for the colossal failure of Twitter and the politicization of SpaceX than it is to credit him with the success of his decisions. You cannot say "it's pretty hilarious" because this isn't a laughing matter. The parent's comment is not facetious at all - they're making a logical analysis and you're the one warping it into rhetoric. Since apparently their comment didn't get through to you the first time, I'll paraphrase: Musk does have a winning strategy. It's the same one Nike and McDonalds and Pixar and Disney and Apple roll out to veritable acclaim; abuse marketing until the fucking lever falls off. Opponents accuse you of antitrust violation? Workers accuse you of workplace abuse? Customers accuse you of fraudulent marketing? Market more! Customers are nobodies, they don't have the power and the voice a wealthy person does. This is the bald-faced reason why Musk wanted Twitter, he thought the marketing potential of a social platform "everyone" uses would be the ultimate platinum chip in the social poker game. Except he's quickly finding out that you can devalue an asset with proximity to brand risk. So there. Nobody will deny his success, but you also have to be realistic about his shortcomings. This website has an unhealthy fascination with unconditional worship of documented assholes like Sam Altman and Steve Jobs. Let me clear things up for you (and hopefully others) on an epistemic basis: we aren't attacking these people to discredit their success. We're criticizing them to help form the basis for future change. People shouldn't be assholes like Jobs when they can lose credibility from their peers. They shouldn't be hat-in-hand begging for money on unproven science like Altman or Holmes. You can aspire to the heroic aspects of someone without idolizing their entire being - you can improve on imperfect leaders like Elon Musk and encourage them to not make boneheaded stupid fucking mistakes for future reference. That is how humanity gets better, not dick-sucking Elon Musk. > I have read multiple books on SpaceX and watched interviews with lots of people inside and outside of SpaceX, and you are literally just factually wrong. Log off X, unfollow the futurist-hopium channels you've got on YouTube. Don't be an armchair critic, get involved.
MerManMaid 2y ago
Just some quick fact checks: >is father was a somewhat wealthy engineer. At the time Errol & Maye were divorcing they had 2 homes, 5 cars, a yacht, and a plane. Most people don't own homes at the moment, let alone a private plane. >What actually helped him more then wealth is that his mother was Canadian and that allowed him to study in Canada and that eventually allowed him a way to get to Silicon Valley. Having generational wealth is by far the largest contributing factor. Otherwise he wouldn't of been able to move across the globe to get a better education, focus on college and network, ect. Also not sure what Canada and Silicon Valley have to do in common? It is not like every Canadian ends up working in the Valley. That said, it does seem like most wealthy people over the past 40 years has in various capacities ;) I'm not going to argue he isn't a successful CEO, (The results speak for themself) But I don't need to refute his business acumen to think he is an awful CEO who actively abuses, manipulates, and lies to his employees whenever it suites him. You can be a very successful yet bad CEO, these aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

idiotsecant 2y ago

Musk succeeded in Tesla in the same way he didn't at twitter - blindly picking a path and chasing it relentlessly like a carnival barker. To this day Tesla has over promised, under delivered, and has managed to turn a market leading position into a more and more wandering and disconnected third class product. Anyone involved at spaceX will tell you that musk is not involved, that's why spaceX is working. He got a bunch of smart people together, dropped a pile of money on them, and let them work.Merlin made spacex, not musk.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
inemesitaffia 2y ago
You read memes about Musk. People's complaints about SpaceX is that he's too involved. Not that he's not involved
panick21_ 2y ago
In the real world, unlike your delusional fantasy world, it matters what you deliver, not what you promise. Its pretty hilarious to blame a CEO for growing a company from basically bankrupt with no revenue to one of the top car companies in the world, and then saying see you can't dominate the global car industry when there are literally multiple of the largest cooperation's in the world with strong support nation state governments doing everything they can to change that. You are just comparing him to something absurdly perfect and then saying 'see he is an idiot'. I have read multiple books on SpaceX and watched interviews with lots of people inside and outside of SpaceX, and you are literally just factually wrong. This whole 'pile of money' theory nicely ignores that many much richer people then him (he wasn't a billionaire when SpaceX started) tried to do the same. Bezos invested about 100 more (literally, Musk 90 million $, Bezos over 10 billion $) then Musk in his company and we can see the results. And by LITERALLY any measure, Bezos was far, far, far more hands of then Musk. Musk didn't have as much money as many others who tried their hands at this. It couldn't be clearer that you just have an axe to grind.
- talldayo 2y ago
  > Its pretty hilarious to blame a CEO I'm just going to stop you right there. The CEO assumes direct administrative command over their business and the choices they can make that could result in substantial risk. It's not any more outrageous to blame Elon Musk for the colossal failure of Twitter and the politicization of SpaceX than it is to credit him with the success of his decisions. You cannot say "it's pretty hilarious" because this isn't a laughing matter. The parent's comment is not facetious at all - they're making a logical analysis and you're the one warping it into rhetoric. Since apparently their comment didn't get through to you the first time, I'll paraphrase: Musk does have a winning strategy. It's the same one Nike and McDonalds and Pixar and Disney and Apple roll out to veritable acclaim; abuse marketing until the fucking lever falls off. Opponents accuse you of antitrust violation? Workers accuse you of workplace abuse? Customers accuse you of fraudulent marketing? Market more! Customers are nobodies, they don't have the power and the voice a wealthy person does. This is the bald-faced reason why Musk wanted Twitter, he thought the marketing potential of a social platform "everyone" uses would be the ultimate platinum chip in the social poker game. Except he's quickly finding out that you can devalue an asset with proximity to brand risk. So there. Nobody will deny his success, but you also have to be realistic about his shortcomings. This website has an unhealthy fascination with unconditional worship of documented assholes like Sam Altman and Steve Jobs. Let me clear things up for you (and hopefully others) on an epistemic basis: we aren't attacking these people to discredit their success. We're criticizing them to help form the basis for future change. People shouldn't be assholes like Jobs when they can lose credibility from their peers. They shouldn't be hat-in-hand begging for money on unproven science like Altman or Holmes. You can aspire to the heroic aspects of someone without idolizing their entire being - you can improve on imperfect leaders like Elon Musk and encourage them to not make boneheaded stupid fucking mistakes for future reference. That is how humanity gets better, not dick-sucking Elon Musk. > I have read multiple books on SpaceX and watched interviews with lots of people inside and outside of SpaceX, and you are literally just factually wrong. Log off X, unfollow the futurist-hopium channels you've got on YouTube. Don't be an armchair critic, get involved.

MerManMaid 2y ago

Just some quick fact checks: >is father was a somewhat wealthy engineer. At the time Errol & Maye were divorcing they had 2 homes, 5 cars, a yacht, and a plane. Most people don't own homes at the moment, let alone a private plane. >What actually helped him more then wealth is that his mother was Canadian and that allowed him to study in Canada and that eventually allowed him a way to get to Silicon Valley. Having generational wealth is by far the largest contributing factor. Otherwise he wouldn't of been able to move across the globe to get a better education, focus on college and network, ect. Also not sure what Canada and Silicon Valley have to do in common? It is not like every Canadian ends up working in the Valley. That said, it does seem like most wealthy people over the past 40 years has in various capacities ;) I'm not going to argue he isn't a successful CEO, (The results speak for themself) But I don't need to refute his business acumen to think he is an awful CEO who actively abuses, manipulates, and lies to his employees whenever it suites him. You can be a very successful yet bad CEO, these aren't mutually exclusive concepts.