SpaceX has been wildly successful despite Elon because of that adult leadership, with actual rocket engineers and doers in management. Additionally SpaceX has military contracts that bring with them actual real enforcement of penalties, like 5 years in prison just for making a single false statement.
We need more people like him in charge.
Especially Elon put all his money on the line a few times. And he is definitely not just an idea guy.
Tesla's main success story seems to have been the US, presumably due to very lackluster competition. The US isn't a huge market for electric cars, tho.
The Model T wasn't the first car, but it was the first widely accessible and usable one for the masses. Tesla's innovation is more comparable to that.
That said, Elon should have never been in charge of a public company. He's good at challenging the status quo and should keep doing that in new markets. He's a terrible person to be in charge of an established company (which tesla very much is now!)
> Tesla's cumulative production of the Roadster reached 1,000 cars in January 2010
So about the same time as the Nissan Leaf, a rather more masses-friendly car...
The Tesla options are all extremely high performance cars. They're luxury oriented but the interiors left a bit to be desired. Either way the overlap between the market Tesla capture and the leaf captured are almost non-existent.
Hard pass.
This is a terrible idea. I hope it doesn't get anywhere beyond being a research project.
However Musk has much stronger persistence and likability. He can keep promise things and collect money for much longer and be forgiven when delivers much less of what he promised.
I bet Theranos could have still be a thing today if Musk was the CEO instead of Holmes. Instead of failing, they would have delivered slightly smaller machines that work with about the same amount of blood but with better UI and integrated fart jokes.
That said, I don't think that Musk is a fraud. I think that he is amazing in building financial hype machines, thus capable of concentrating wealth that can be used to work on far fetched ideas. Even if he fails to deliver on the high promises, he menages to change the landscape. After all, electric cars and commercial space flight are a thing now, aren't they?
Holmes should have delivered iOT blood testing machines of regular type when being funny on Twitter and could have been fine. When asked when the 300 test from 1 drop of blood is coming, she should have always answered "I'm confident that we will have it in 2 years". Even maybe she could have sold a more expensive machine that "has the hardware to do 1 drop blood test but will be enabled with a software update later".
Musk claimed that reusable rockets and electric cars were the future and people said those things wouldn't happen for 50 years. Now where are we? Saying that FSD is 50 years away seems like a risky bet given what musk has accomplished already.
What I am saying, she should have delivered what she could and promise to devliver better in the feature instead of failing to deliver on the promises.
She could have bought a small manufacturer with all that funding, slap a nice UI and iOT functions on top of it and deliver that. Continue to work on the original 1 drop of blood tests, maybe integrate it into the more expensive version of the machines of the manufacturer she bought, call it beta and use on own risk and the accurate version will be enabled through software update in the future.
Also, being funny on twitter could have been better strategy than imitating Steve Jobs.
Theranos was fraud from beginning to end. They literally tested samples on Siemens machines and pretended that their own machines did the analysis.
They were taking small amounts of blood, too small for the siemens machines and then diluting it down to increase the volume.
So not only were they passing it off as if it was their own machines, but they were providing inaccurate test results leading to incorrect diagnosis.
And I can't believe they got as far as they did with the scam because lots of experts were saying what she was claiming was not possible. Because a drop of blood is simply not large enough to get a statistical result for most things tested. It doesn't matter how amazing or sensitive your machinery is, you can't give a correct result if you simply don't have a large enough sample.
Also, Tesla too failed on cost and quality control issues until they stopped failing.
Yes, she apparently faked the tests but faking till making is nothing new in SV. With all that money, she could have bought a manufacturer or lease buy and rebrand from Siemens by adding something on the top of it. Many big names start by acquiring their parts from OEMs. She could have build on top of some less known European company that sucks at the software UX, for example and keep kicking the can down for the one one drop blood tests. When asked what is going on, give a presentation about the challanges and about the work you did and say that it's going to be ready in 2 years.
You can't know what a research will bring, maybe it will be discovered that you can do all these tests through some proxy measurement etc. In biology they don't deal with "laws of nature" in the same sense with the physicist, therefore everything is engineering problem since you always have the option to go above or below the biological processes.
You can't transplant a heart until you find a way to do it, you can't change genes until you find a way to do it.
There's no natural law prohibiting measuring something something from the finger that can be measured from somewhere else, it simply cannot be done with the current methods due to some process going on in the human body. The task would be to find a way around the mechanism that is preventing you doing it.
"single finger prick drop of blood at levels that consistently correlate with venous levels" is definitely not one of the fundamental laws of nature. They may not correlate but maybe it's possible to acquire the information about the body through some other channels. It's not like there's a single way of surveying the body, right? A specific test can be impossible but another method can be develop for obtaining the same information.
If a doctor needs the patient's current platelet count for treatment they're not going to be able to get it through a nasal swab or urine test or whatever. This is restrained by fundamental physical laws. If you're still not getting it then all I can suggest is taking a remedial biology course.
Blood test nerds can be disappointed, of course. I doubt that the core audience are the blood test aficionado, but you can always make them happy by saying "We are confident that the test can be done through single drop of blood in 2 years".
How so? The very basis of what Holmes promised with Theranos is impossible based on current knowledge. Musk promised something that at least had a basis in reality, and could be worked on refined (not the autonomous driving, but an electric car).
Holmes just promised something arbitrary and then hoped for a scientific breakthrough.
What he does is nothing new, electric cars or vertically landing rockets, reusable space vehicles are not new but he is the only one who could manage to collect the funding necessary to work on these things again and be the one who is doing it with the current technology(which could end up financially sound this time).
For example, hyperloop is proving to be total BS, no roots in reality. Just look what he promised and what he delivered. The trick to keep party going on, if the party is not over you don't fail. "Hyperloop delivered nothing" is a failure, "Hyperloop delivered something that is nothing that was promised but a car in a concrete tunnel, nice CGI and a model of what it could be" is work in progress.
If you can keep the party going on for long enough, ether the technology will catch up or people will forget the original promise and accept the current delivery. Musk could end up being Tube magnate if he can keep up the funding despite not delivering on the vacuum tube hypersonic travel stuff.
Yes, a lot of what he says is nonsense, like Holmes. But the difference is he also delivered big time on some of what he said. I assume many people are aware of his pie in the sky hopes for the future, but that is different from Holmes claiming she already had a technological breakthrough and succeeded in something all the other scientists with decades more experience knew wasn’t possible, and yet not providing any evidence.
Musk's biggest achievement is changing the Conventional Wisdom[1] of government policymakers in the west from "electric vehicles are a nice idea, but a toy for rich people" to "right, we're phasing out fossil fuel powered cars" in the space of a decade.
That is something I did not expect to see in my lifetime.
You will quibble that lots of other people did the technical work. But Musk had the public visibility.
Especially considering that a ton of these policies are about as old as the Tesla roadster. Must be a hell of a achievement to change policy retroactively.
The reason why we have an electronic car revolution now is because batteries have finally become cheap and dense enough. Maybe the largest manufacturer of EVs deserves some credit, but that's of course never been Tesla.
Then why did newspapers only report them in the last 18 months?
There were government subsidies for EV cars more than 18 years ago, and they were almost everywhere 18 months ago. Anyway, what newspapers report and what's the "conventional wisdom of policymakers in the west" is unrelated, if we even accept that "the west" and "conventional wisdom of policymakers" aren't nebulous constructs.
I was talking about announcements of government policies in various European countries to prohibit or tightly limit sales of new fossil fueled vehicles by 2030 or 2035 or similar year, not about current annual sales of vehicles.
As I said, the conventional wisdom changed from "electric vehicles are not practical" to " we must have only electric vehicles" in the space of a decade in which Tesla showed that EVs could be as practical as fossil fuel vehicles.[1] Other manufacturers (VW, Toyota, Hyundai-Kia, etc., are now scrambling to catch up.
1. Yes, the Nissan Leaf was there too, and a few others, but it/they suffered from short range and/or other compromises, so the "impractical" label remained in the minds of policymakers. And it/they suffered from undermarketing, because the makers didn't want to cannibalise their ICE vehicle sales.
And as for Space X, space travel is also nothing new. We have been traveling to space since 60 years and vertical landing and reusable space vehicles had been done before.
All these stuff is simply re-do of the stuff humans did in the past but failed commercially. As I said, Musk is brilliant in building commercial systems. This time we have better cheaper technology and these things can actually be feasible.
> All these stuff is simply re-do of the stuff humans did in the past but failed commercially.
That was my point. At least some of Musks’s claims were based in reality and so he was able to deliver something. The entirety of Holmes’ claims were fictional. That’s the difference.
As a financial delivery, sure. It turned out to be a good stock investment. So may others like AMD, Apple or GameStop. I don't argue that Musk can't make brands and money, he surely can.
Sure there were a few other electric cars out there before Tesla but nothing with 500km range that was compelling and affordable to the middle classes. There were other rockets too but SpaceX significantly reduced cost and launch frequency. Nobody had recovered an orbital rocket before SpaceX, let alone reusing it another 7 times.
The world will not accept it when a self driving truck does this. Computers are supposed to be perfect, as far as the public is concerned. If a computer killed a bunch of people, there must be a flaw. The fleet must be grounded until the flaw is found and fixed.
How much better than a human driver does a self-driving truck need to be before people will accept and trust it? 3x? 10x? Infinitely better?
I tend to think the scale trends towards 'infinitely better'.
I believe that for self driving vehicles (at least commercial ones) to truly find adoption there's going to have to be the perception that there's still a human supervisor, even if this is a 'polite lie'. Perhaps it will take the form of lower paid and less skilled human 'co-pilots' who are simple there in the truck or taxi cab as 'sin eater' to take the blame when something goes wrong. Or perhaps one individual can monitor several vehicles remotely (in a totally ineffectual manner). At the end of the day though, I think that for the public to accept truly self driving cars in the near-ish future, there's still going to have to be a human they can blame if something goes wrong.
He needs the money to try and as such needs to present it as something that will happen soon to get that money. I don't think there's any other way to go about it. Who would spend on "we don't know if and don't know when"?
I think there's a lot more trial and error in human tech advancement then we want to admit. Especially for developments that take more than a few years. Failure is always an option, recent popular optimism "anything is possible" is wishful thinking. To answer if it is possible you can only try and see. And to really try you need to believe.
But let's focus on the salary package, it is a optimized for growth not for success, those are 2 very different things.
I am kinda conflicted about this, but when I am calm and analyze the situation from a neutral standpoint I always come up to the conclusion that it takes 2 parties to come up with an agreement . Musk managed to sell his way during the negotiation and arrive to that advantageous salary compensation which is basically crafted for him to achieve by basically keep doing what he's doing (growth and nonstop promotion), can't say anything other than "well played mr. Musk", good for him, he managed to get what he wanted out of the negotiation.
Will the definition of FSD be slowly reworded, or are they careful to never state the delivery date for it in contracts. Or will Tesla rely on traffic authorities not approving the technology, so they can say that they've delivered but government won't let customers use it.