4 ms·

The responses Elon has previously written to criticisms have been very concise and convincing. This article isn't too far off the mark, but I do feel his frustr

The responses Elon has previously written to criticisms have been very concise and convincing. This article isn't too far off the mark, but I do feel his frustration for the petty politics he deals with shows through the article. Is it even necessary for him to respond to petty accusations such as the inflated claims that he's masterminding Nevada's politics? Wouldn't it benefit him more to let the nay-sayers nay say?

eridius 12y ago
I agree. In the past the responses have always been to things that actually seem worth responding to (though there's plenty of disagreement about specific responses). In this case, I haven't seen any of these negative articles, so anecdotally, it seems perhaps not widely-reported enough to be worth a public blog post. Furthermore, while I think describing why the deal is a good idea is reasonable, that whole lead-off with "haha they're gamblers, you think Tesla could pull a fast one on them?" is kind of strange. It's basically an appeal to authority, where the "authority" is people who oversee the gambling industry, and the claim is that because casinos are really good at not being tricked, then their overseers (i.e. the Nevada legislature) must be even better. Except it doesn't work like that, the casinos are not gambling with the state, or trying to pull a fast one on the state at all. And the Nevada legislature doesn't directly oversee the casinos anyway; they simply tax them. It's the Nevada Gaming Commission that does the actual regulation of the casinos. Basically, that second paragraph is just a combination of multiple rhetorical fallacies intended to imply that it's preposterous to claim that Tesla could ever get the Nevada legislature to agree to a bad deal. And for any readers who recognize this, it only serves to weaken the rest of the blog post. If that entire paragraph (and the single word "Moreover" from the start of the next paragraph) were to be deleted from the post, the post would make just as much sense and would have a stronger, more focused point. And it would also make Elon look better by virtue of being willing to just state the facts and let them speak for themselves.
- EGreg 12y ago
  I think Elon Musk chooses a narrative for each post that supports the overarching image of Tesla and also couches the points he is going to make for public consumption. One major component of that is presenting an image to organize everything else around. "The House Always Wins" is a powerful one. Rhetoric involves more than just logos but also pathos and ethos.
shasheene 12y ago
The blog post is in response to this story that paints Tesla is a very negative light: http://fortune.com/inside-elon-musks-billion-dollar-gigafactory/ http://fortune.com/inside-elon-musks-billion-dollar-gigafact... (Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8610781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8610781)

eridius 12y ago

I agree. In the past the responses have always been to things that actually seem worth responding to (though there's plenty of disagreement about specific responses). In this case, I haven't seen any of these negative articles, so anecdotally, it seems perhaps not widely-reported enough to be worth a public blog post. Furthermore, while I think describing why the deal is a good idea is reasonable, that whole lead-off with "haha they're gamblers, you think Tesla could pull a fast one on them?" is kind of strange. It's basically an appeal to authority, where the "authority" is people who oversee the gambling industry, and the claim is that because casinos are really good at not being tricked, then their overseers (i.e. the Nevada legislature) must be even better. Except it doesn't work like that, the casinos are not gambling with the state, or trying to pull a fast one on the state at all. And the Nevada legislature doesn't directly oversee the casinos anyway; they simply tax them. It's the Nevada Gaming Commission that does the actual regulation of the casinos. Basically, that second paragraph is just a combination of multiple rhetorical fallacies intended to imply that it's preposterous to claim that Tesla could ever get the Nevada legislature to agree to a bad deal. And for any readers who recognize this, it only serves to weaken the rest of the blog post. If that entire paragraph (and the single word "Moreover" from the start of the next paragraph) were to be deleted from the post, the post would make just as much sense and would have a stronger, more focused point. And it would also make Elon look better by virtue of being willing to just state the facts and let them speak for themselves.

EGreg 12y ago
I think Elon Musk chooses a narrative for each post that supports the overarching image of Tesla and also couches the points he is going to make for public consumption. One major component of that is presenting an image to organize everything else around. "The House Always Wins" is a powerful one. Rhetoric involves more than just logos but also pathos and ethos.

shasheene 12y ago

The blog post is in response to this story that paints Tesla is a very negative light: http://fortune.com/inside-elon-musks-billion-dollar-gigafactory/ http://fortune.com/inside-elon-musks-billion-dollar-gigafact... (Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8610781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8610781)