4 ms·

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 c

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.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  I was talking about Musk in Tesla. And given Tesla trajectory since 2008, its clearly not a failure even if the most recent year wasn't as good as some before. I have no idea what 'abuse of marketing is', seems like a you thing. Non of Musk companies have been credibly accused of anti-trust. Not sure where you are getting that. If your theory of 'marketing above everything' was even remotely true the world would look very differently. There isn't a single credible economic, business or management book that claims that everything can be overcome by marketing. The list of companies you provide is just selection bias. I never claimed he doesn't have short comings, I seems you are moving the goal posts. I can talk all day long about his short comings, many are not actually often talked about by people who are incredibly critical of Musk and just repeat a bunch of twitter talking points that have been repeated for the last 10 years. There is a difference between being rationally critical and outright denying agency or basic competence. Most of the time people can't even make their mind up if he is incredibly evolved and responsible for all bad decisions (but not good ones) or if he isn't involved at all and just drops money on people. Pointing how how he or his companies are not perfect is simple, and not interesting. Actually using comparative measures between him and his companies with actual relevant comparison companies make a lot more sense. But if they did that a lot of the criticism would sound very different. The fact is, because Musk is unpopular, people use different standard on him and his company then they do for many others. Musk is seen as a person, while the comparable companies like GM or Lockheed Martin aren't, they are just faceless cooperate blobs no matter that many of their owners are billionaires as well. Its much harder for people to summon the same kind of passion about those kinds of companies. When objectively they are far, far, far, far worse in basically ever way imaginable. Musk companies are evil and we must hate him and take ever opportunity to point that out, because his evil companies use deceptive marketing. Lockheed Martin was a significant part of lying the US into the Iraq war and they are wasting billions of tax payer $ but somehow people can't summon 1/1000 the amount of effort on that. And about your 'get involved', I seriously don't understand what that even means in this context. Go work at a space company? Found a space startup? Get a job at SpaceX? How does 'getting involved' get you any actual information on these topics? I guess I could get a job at Airbus, SpaceX is out, but not sure I want to work there. Or do you mean in the context of 'space isn't relevant' (again just factually wrong) and I should go out and protest climate change or something? I really don't get it. But whatever it was, frankly, that just sounds incredibly, fucking arrogant. Like you are divine being floating over the rest of us lowly plebs who get their information from 'the internet' unlike you, who gets all the information from 'the real world'. The fact is this, on Youtube there are interviews (congressional hearings and so on) that are first hand sources on these topic. If you choose to ignore first hand sources and witness testimony because you are out there in the 'real-world' doing gods work, saving babies from burning buildings, or whatever it is you do when you are 'involved'. And you don't want to sit at home and read books, written by people who spend 100s of hours involved in a topic, that's fine. But don't tell other people their facts are wrong or that you know better because you are 'involved'.

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.

panick21_ 2y ago
I was talking about Musk in Tesla. And given Tesla trajectory since 2008, its clearly not a failure even if the most recent year wasn't as good as some before. I have no idea what 'abuse of marketing is', seems like a you thing. Non of Musk companies have been credibly accused of anti-trust. Not sure where you are getting that. If your theory of 'marketing above everything' was even remotely true the world would look very differently. There isn't a single credible economic, business or management book that claims that everything can be overcome by marketing. The list of companies you provide is just selection bias. I never claimed he doesn't have short comings, I seems you are moving the goal posts. I can talk all day long about his short comings, many are not actually often talked about by people who are incredibly critical of Musk and just repeat a bunch of twitter talking points that have been repeated for the last 10 years. There is a difference between being rationally critical and outright denying agency or basic competence. Most of the time people can't even make their mind up if he is incredibly evolved and responsible for all bad decisions (but not good ones) or if he isn't involved at all and just drops money on people. Pointing how how he or his companies are not perfect is simple, and not interesting. Actually using comparative measures between him and his companies with actual relevant comparison companies make a lot more sense. But if they did that a lot of the criticism would sound very different. The fact is, because Musk is unpopular, people use different standard on him and his company then they do for many others. Musk is seen as a person, while the comparable companies like GM or Lockheed Martin aren't, they are just faceless cooperate blobs no matter that many of their owners are billionaires as well. Its much harder for people to summon the same kind of passion about those kinds of companies. When objectively they are far, far, far, far worse in basically ever way imaginable. Musk companies are evil and we must hate him and take ever opportunity to point that out, because his evil companies use deceptive marketing. Lockheed Martin was a significant part of lying the US into the Iraq war and they are wasting billions of tax payer $ but somehow people can't summon 1/1000 the amount of effort on that. And about your 'get involved', I seriously don't understand what that even means in this context. Go work at a space company? Found a space startup? Get a job at SpaceX? How does 'getting involved' get you any actual information on these topics? I guess I could get a job at Airbus, SpaceX is out, but not sure I want to work there. Or do you mean in the context of 'space isn't relevant' (again just factually wrong) and I should go out and protest climate change or something? I really don't get it. But whatever it was, frankly, that just sounds incredibly, fucking arrogant. Like you are divine being floating over the rest of us lowly plebs who get their information from 'the internet' unlike you, who gets all the information from 'the real world'. The fact is this, on Youtube there are interviews (congressional hearings and so on) that are first hand sources on these topic. If you choose to ignore first hand sources and witness testimony because you are out there in the 'real-world' doing gods work, saving babies from burning buildings, or whatever it is you do when you are 'involved'. And you don't want to sit at home and read books, written by people who spend 100s of hours involved in a topic, that's fine. But don't tell other people their facts are wrong or that you know better because you are 'involved'.