I'd argue he's dangerous period:

"Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible ... The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron."[1]"https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

That story doesn't reflect too well on Musk either.

Based on the rest of the article, I get the feeling Thiel is trolling because he can, and I wouldn't take his stories at face value: that said, making up stories involving other people isn't usually advisable. It may very well be exaggerated, though?

Edit: I didn't know the story had been mentioned previously, I take back my skepticism regarding that.

> I get the feeling Thiel is trolling because he can

That's a kind of a strange road to go down, isn't it? I think usually the whole argue-in-good-faith thing, together with the principle of charity, require you to assume people mean what they say.

If you really mean that maybe more corruption/conflicts of interests are needed, you're going to need to spend more time arguing for that than a couple of paragraphs in a nytimes profile.

A different view on his corruption statement.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/01/bor...

' If you would like a “left wing example,” had the fiscal stimulus been twice as large, corruption in government probably would have been higher too (pointing out “the stimulus wasn’t very corrupt” is missing the point and in fact is a sign that you are a rampant mood affiliator, determined to restore the mood you feel is just, rather than tracing the analytic point at hand). In other words, Peter’s point is entirely defensible and probably correct. He’s not saying that “corruption is good.”'

It's a true story, and both Thiel and Musk have been saying it the same way for over 15 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOI8GWoMF4M

I wasn't aware there was a history, I take back any skepticism on that.

When it's politics, it's not "trolling" -- it's sampling the constituency's appetite for the candidate, and getting early testing poll / focus group data feedback for free.

Interesting, but there are some things you can't take back, although recent events may suggest otherwise.

No, it happened[0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOI8GWoMF4M

What do people mean when they say someone is solipsistic? I know what solipsism is, but it never fits the context. Is it just a way of saying narcissistic without getting sidetracked by medical definitions? ('cuz using terms from philosophy isn't the best way to avoid getting called out on definitions.)

A self-centeredness that is unconcerned with other perspectives. Such as considering the views of others incorrect, and discarding.

In comparison with ego-based narcissism that places the perspective of self higher than others.

Hmm, I guess I will file it away with words like "literal" that people use in contradiciton with the original meaning.

It indeed is probably used a synonym of narcissistic and/or selfish.

Solipsism carries a different connotation with it. Narcissism is usually associated with ego and self love while implying someone is "solipsistic" doesn't necessarily imply an overblown ego, assuming they really mean "an adherent of the philosophy," which is probably very seldom the case.

> You have to be a reckless fool to be that smart and get into any car without wearing a seatbelt, let alone a McLaren being driven by a daredevil like Musk.

Exactly. I've been calling BS on this whole story and getting downvoted.

How does one sit inside a fast race car, wear no seat belts, car gets wrecked in crash and he comes out -- in his own words -- "without a scratch".

There are no photos or any evidence anywhere in the media that such a crash occurred, or that Theil was involved in it