Yes, easily:
1. Don't press release (or tweet); treat what you are doing with confidentiality.
2. Actually help in a way that's helpful.
Here's a good example http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/01/15/george-michael-secretly...
2) How do you know if Musk's help wasn't helpful? Do you work at the rescue site?
Very few of the people criticising Musk had the ability to do anything to help the kids. He is in a rare situation to have the flexibility and resources to make significant financial and/or logistical contributions to literally any cause he notices. In this case, he did it in the most self-aggrandizing way possible, while appearing to make no actual contribution.
True, but I recognize that I don't have any relevant skills or any way to help from the other side of hte pacific.
The main difference is I'm not tweeting about how I'm totally going to solve this, and then getting credit doing pretty much just that.
Instead, he wrongly assumed he knew better.
The toxic nature on the internet is so disgusting and unnecessary.
Where is this coming from? Do you always assume you know everything that other people are doing/not doing or thinking/not thinking?
Expecting and feeling entitled for help to arrive on your terms and conditions.
In fact you seem to have taken this a little tad too far. The observers wish to declare on what terms(moral, ethical or others) the victim and helper need to comply with to work with each other. With the observers themselves contributing nothing to improve the situation at hand.
Yet you write as if you could.
The things he might have done are just examples; there's loads of different scenarios that might be true and we don't know really much about it. I'm not speculating, that's what all the shit talkers in this thread are doing. I'm reserving judgment instead of latching onto a forced narrative created by the media outlets with just a few tiny pieces of information that has leaked out of the rescue effort.
But he was...? https://twitter.com/MabzMagz/status/1014251869760249856
What's your problem?
Cylinders are hardy and portable, and can be carried with one hand through narrow openings. They can be attached to lines, and stored along a prepared route for other divers to use during a single descent.
That begs the question on whether it was more for publicity or it was actually intended to be used.
Would it be realistic to see that submarine in Thailand or on some video camera in an LA pool?
What? How did you come to this conclusion? They deliberately designed it to be 31cm so that it would fit through the narrowest parts they knew of (38cm? 35cm?), and it was obvious to you that it wouldn't fit?
A solid metal cylinder that can't bend had no chance at all to begin with. If a human cant go through without bending their body how can a cylinder containing a flat standing human get through? An engineer designing for this situation knows to optimise for the camera instead of the cave.
Do you see that diagram says "gap approx 40 cm"? Do you see that I already told you they deliberately designed their submarine to be 31 cm in diameter? Do you see that there's a chance that the oxygen tanks and their human chest combined are indeed more than 31 cm, and hence having to take them off might not say anything about whether a 31 cm tube will fit?
On the other hand you would need to squeeze a person in that submarine over the whole diving range. That would probably not help feeling them more comfortable.
Last not least in article you will find the quote "'The equipment he gave us is not practical for our mission,' Narongsak said Tuesday morning", that might prove my point.
Finally I don't get why you are arguing that the submarine is such a great idea when it's clearly not.
> That would probably not help feeling them more comfortable.
> that might prove my point.
All this doubt in your assessment and all of a sudden you deduce their plan is "bollocks"?
> I don't get why you are arguing that the submarine is such a great idea
Where did I argue a submarine is a great idea? Why must something either be "bollocks" or "a great idea"?
"I am the one who invited @SpaceX because my friend works there."
How do you know?
If you aren't sure exactly who asked him for help, it's good to say that explicitly at the beginning, because saying it with no qualification actually does imply that the asker is someone involved in the situation and not just some rando.
> Elon Musk was asked to help, he agreed to come there and now people talk about "hubris" as if he had tried to force his help on them?
It does sound like it was an invitation or request for help by a relevant person - rather than just a random twitter user.
That's technically correct, a random stranger on the Internet asked for help.
Has anyone actually involved in the rescue effort asked for help in that effort, though.
Right, so in coming up with that interpretation you completely ignored the rest of the discussion and what the point of this question was. The point was not who the person asking was, or what their credentials were. The point was to figure out whether it was some external or internal force that prompted Elon to help. The status of the person who requested his help does not change whether he was the one who came up with the idea of helping or whether it was someone else who did.
That tweet might have motivated me to join the party, and I might even contribute to and be very welcome at that party, but to claim that I was invited to the party because some external force prompted me to go there is not common sense.
Or, you know, you could use try to be more sophisticated in your reasoning and realize it's completely possible and sane to have different criteria when evaluating whether Musk's decision to join a party in response to a stranger's suggestion was an act of hubris compared to when the event in question was an international rescue effort.
I would rather not claim more than I know, given that I don't know if he was asked officially.
Can't famous people even help kids stuck in a cave without someone criticizing them for it?