Even this, you need to put asterisks on "created" because he spends so much time building out lies about the companies he runs/ran because the creation myth is so important. The amount of unforced errors behind his tenure at Paypal, a lot of it around trying to be taken as the guy who "made Paypal"... it's just very silly!
And I think ultimately in a place like HN, where there are supposedly a lot of "builder" types, when you hear every Musk company say "yeah the way we stay productive is to keep Musk out of things...." everyone's natural bias against bullshitters kick in!
I think it's hard to discount Tesla really pushing forward EVs. I think it's extremely easy to discount all of his other stuff if you're cynical (yes I include SpaceX in there, though it's easy for me because I think manned spaceflight, let alone "going to Mars", is extremely silly). But this stuff isn't really fungible...
[1]: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-lists/elon-musk...
For a person who does and says so much, the need to egregiously pad a "top ten" list of "lies" like that is, IMHO, a compelling case for the inverse.
When Musk said “we can do this right now” he meant it’s possible with today’s technology, and that Tesla had probably run experiments to that effect already.
The hypothetical ability for a vehicle to act as a robotaxi would absolutely lift the value of the asset. That’s not even controversial. It’s a separate question whether the technology is ready to go in time for people to take advantage of it.
He made some good choices with Tesla. And some boneheaded ones. And SpaceX is a great example of success, because he made a really great decision there -- he hired Gwynne Shotwell. Then there's Twitter. Which is less about overt lies and more about gross incompetence. I think being a billionaire might have gone to his head and made him think he could only be successful.
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/tesla-cybertruck-beast-vs...
My zero-evidence guess is that the Cybertruck team predicted the outcome in simulation, hyped everyone up about this as a visual demonstration, then spent tens of millions of dollars replicating the outcome in the real world, buying two Porsche 911s, renting a film crew etc. Except they couldn't replicate it in the real world. So instead of admitting the wasted money/time, they covered their asses and misled their boss.
There are many possible explanations for the discrepancy. The failure might have been in predicting the performance of that base model 911. Maybe the data they used was someone who was very slightly less urgent on the manual transmission.
The failure might have been a failure to predict the performance of their own product when it was still in the late stages of tuning. A last minute change to tyre compounds or stability control algorithms could have made enough of a difference in this very very close race.
It could be argued that in a fair comparison between cars, the stopwatch should begin when the driver slams the pedal, not when the car itself starts moving. The latter is how races are timed, but I'd argue that the former is more honest. Including the split-second delay of the ICE engine might make enough of a difference.
“___ is a pedo” ?
Like, the guy has done good shit (better than most), but he has certainly set his reputation on fire with many of his (at best “inaccurate”) tweets. At that point you gotta caveat praise lol.
Never heard that from people at Tesla or SpaceX.
This happens for many online debates where extreme positions are common.
What an understatement. He’s one of the most impactful humans in the world and one of the greatest entrepreneurs America can claim as our own (despite him not being born here). I find it beyond unfortunate that so many in this community constantly feel the need to belittle Elon or downplay his accomplishments simply because they don’t like the guy, his politics, etc.
That man need a therapist.
The public hatred he has gotten is his making, ultimately.
His dark side is out in the open for everyone to see. What you are saying is the people prefer someone who is apparently appears not have a dark side. IMO such people are just adept at camouflaging their dark side, politicians do it routinely.
>That man need a therapist.
Well, IMO it's mostly the public that needs therapists.
Quote: It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society ~ Jiddu Krishnamurti
>The public hatred he has gotten is his making, ultimately.
Agreed.
When this person owns one of the largest communication platforms on Earth and regularly spreads conspiracy theories, disinformation, and transphobia... yes, I would prefer they hide that. That rhetoric does real harm to people.
Accusing someone of being a pedophile without evidence isn't something you just say "Well at least he's speaking his mind!" to.
The richest man on Earth should be able to afford a therapist, or at least a PR firm. If his ego is preventing him from doing so, well, that's a fair thing to criticize.
Good thing Elon owns it and not you. One person’s conspiracy theory is another person’s unpopular assessment that later turns out to be correct. I want to hear it all whether you want to or not. There’s a pretty long list of things that are now considered facts but were once fringe conspiracy theories. An easy and recent one is the COVID-19 lab leak theory [0][1a][1b][2] (I could easily post links for hours of all of the “dangerous conservatives” who were called every derogatory name in the book for what turns out was the correct assessment).
And terms like “misinformation” and “disinformation” have completely lost their meaning after watching how they’ve been used as a tool to censor views those applying the labels don’t like…
[0]: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
[1a]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/16/tom-cotto...
[1b]: https://cis.mit.edu/news-media/news/2020/tom-cotton-keeps-re...
[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/25/timeline-...
The only thing that does exist is racism
What you are saying indirectly are that common people are idiots to believe those 'conspiracy theories' ? or am I misinterpreting you?
>Accusing someone of being a pedophile without evidence isn't something you just say "Well at least he's speaking his mind!" to.
No I did not quite mean that. No excuses for him to call someone names. But if you know people ( or along lines of what I understand of people), actions speak louder than words. The most evil people manage to hide their evilness though glib talk.
I think people have a hard time separating out the good work someone has done vs the bad. We humans are imperfect, but ironically have the tendency to put a binary label on people as good or bad without leaving much room for gray area.
Ex. Shockley got a Nobel prize for his foundational work on transistors and semiconductors - inarguably one of the most important 20th century inventions, but he was also an extremely vocal racist and eugenicist. Was Shockley a brilliant scientist or a vociferous racist? He can be both while acknowledging the good contributions to society he made.
I find this is often the case of many historical figures that made their mark on humanity. Is Elon Musk a brilliant entrepreneur or a micromanaging arrogant narcissist who carries some deeply rooted insecurities? (Among other "flaws" such as being an absentee father) Why not both? Perhaps the dark side has enabled their success to some degree? Who knows.
Its hard to do anything important without a carrying a little bit of controversy in life.
A soldier dying to save his friends - nobody can give more than their life and nothing can compensate a person for losing it. That's an example of 'admirable' to me...or a doctor working for Medecins sans Frontiers.
He was vocal about scientific evidence and what conclusions he drew from that evidence. I wouldn't draw the same conclusions but the evidence was quite clear (and is now clearer still).
You're well versed in all the possible hurdles he'd run in to in all of Asia, are you? If you are, you're more impressive than Elon Musk I think.
(Surely the most dangerous social media platforms are the ones used to influence kids/teens? Twitter and Facebook are for the oldies at this point)
To me, there has been no significant change, aside from hearing more people on the left bemoan that Elon is giving "dangerous" people on the right a platform.
But I honestly don't see an actual difference aside from people saying there is one.
Perhaps it was the weird hyperbole about democracy his comment was targeting?
Yeah, but everyone who does use Twitter will see it. The place is going down in flames - no matter what you write, you'll get likes from a "<firstname><bunchofnumbers>" bots, and replies such as "P U S S Y I N B I O" in a matter of seconds.
Allow the right to have opinions and speak their minds just like the left does? No! They’re dangerous, so we should silence them. Okay, so let’s just silence half of the American population. That’ll do it. Democracy.
Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, so let’s do the most pro-democracy thing by using the law and the justice system to persecute him, even though he’s leading in the polls as Biden’s opponent. You know, the same type of behavior we usually lecture other nations about (e.g., Russia), because we consider them undemocratic. Totally the pro-democracy move right there.
The most fascinating one for me was Colorado’s attempt at disenfranchising their Republican constituents in order to “save democracy” [0]. Truly incredible and democratic stuff.
The worst part is, the irony of it all completely escapes them.
[0]: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1230453714/supreme-court-trum...
That's who Elon unbanned.
Now if you've bought into the lie that Elon is a free speech absolutist, which he absolutely is not, you might consider that a good thing. Now take a look at a partial list of Twitter accounts Elon has banned [2]. This includes many journalists and a guy posting where his private plane is (from public information), many of whom were banned for simply hurting his feelings or calling out one of his lies.
[1]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgwa7z/twitter-elon-musk-dom...
[2]: https://observer.com/2022/12/elon-musk-suspend-twitter-accou...
Heavy moderation is a technique that makes dang’s job easier by perpetuating rigorous standards and makes people police themselves. See Broken Window Theory.
Nonsense. Buying X is probably one of the best things Elon did for the world and democracy worldwide.
Before Elon, X was a bubble that only one political viewpoint was allowed to thrive on (the exact opposite of what a democracy should enable and empower). I avoided most of the social media platforms prior to Elon buying X and that was one of my reasons why. Even though I have my own beliefs and biases like everyone else, I hate the idea of only one narrative being shoved down my throat. I want to hear all sides, in good faith and in their own voices. I’m willing to listen to Fox News as often as I listen to MSNBC, and then I make up my own mind. X under the previous regime didn’t allow that. The left-wing voices were given a platform while they worked behind the scenes to figure out ways to silence right-wing voices (the Twitter Files exposed this quite well).
During the pandemic, they blacklisted Stanford doctor Jay Bhattacharya [0], because he was out of line re the establishment/leftist narrative, even though the doctor’s posts weren’t politically motivated at all (as it turns out, most of his views that were silenced are slowly being proven right).
When I go on X now, I can expect to see posts from every corner of politics, business, etc. I don’t need some random and unelected folks choosing for me what I’m allowed to see. No thank you.
[0]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-twitter-blacklisting-of-jay...
Aren't these examples far right and center-right? Or have I fallen off the other end of the spectrum?
I am well aware that that is not what I looks like to people from the US.
Clearly, the context is within the U.S. Why use a straw man to respond to my question? I wouldn’t enter a topic about Canadians to talk about Brazilians. Very bizarre.
(I’m very well aware that American politics is quite different from the rest of the world. E.g., a neoliberal like Hillary Clinton is considered a leftist in America, which wouldn’t fly in most of the rest of the world.)
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
For the record, if, for whatever reason, you just don’t want me here, as much as I love this community, I’m happy to leave, because I’d rather do that than have my views silenced because they’re unpopular or be targeted like this for responding in kind to others who openly share their own views.
You're not being targeted personally and we don't take ideological sides nor care what your (or anyone else's) views are. If other people are breaking the site guidelines too, and their posts don't look moderated, it doesn't follow that moderators have deemed it ok. That's a gigantic non sequitur. Far more likely is that we just didn't see it: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
> The thread got more ideological as more folks commented.
In my experience, the feeling "other people just started behaving badly for reasons that had nothing to do with my post" is generally not very reliable. It does happen sometimes of course. But it's more likely that you (I don't mean you personally—I mean any of us in this position) are underestimating the degree of provocation in what you posted.
Funnily enough I was just writing about this in a different context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40601722.
It's hard to learn to recognize one's own part in the way things are and set ego aside, but it's one of those essential growth milestones that makes everything better.
I’ve reread my initial comment [0] probably a couple dozen times (at least) trying to see why it’d be considered a flamewar comment and I just don’t see it. What am I missing? Is it me calling the text I quoted an understatement? Or is it the last part where I object to the consistent negative rhetoric re Elon I see on HN? I have a feeling it might be the latter, since it specifically calls out the community. Do you mind clarifying so I can understand?
> You're not being targeted personally and we don't take ideological sides nor care what your (or anyone else's) views are. If other people are breaking the site guidelines too, and their posts don't look moderated, it doesn't follow that moderators have deemed it ok.
You’re generally pretty fair from what I’ve seen (and also from communicating with you via email), so I believe you and I appreciate that. Thank you for making that clear though.
> […] it's more likely that you (I don't mean you personally—I mean any of us in this position) are underestimating the degree of provocation in what you posted.
Fair enough—I’ll keep that in mind moving forward.
"I find it beyond unfortunate that so many in this community constantly feel the need to belittle Elon or downplay his accomplishments simply because they don’t like the guy, his politics, etc."
When I read a sentence like this it breaks down something like the following:
I find it beyond unfortunate - pejorative rhetoric
so many in this community - "me vs. the mob" is a provocation trope (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...)
constantly feel the need - this is a putdown as well as an assumption about the inner state of the other
to belittle Elon or downplay his accomplishments - more or less fine, except that "belittle" and "downplay" are pejoratives so it adds to the provocation
simply because they don’t like the guy - another putdown and imputation of inner state to the other
his politics, etc. - ups the ante at the end
I know I'm exaggerating quite a bit! I'm sure these interpretations are not what you intended. But this is exactly the sort of exaggeration that takes place in the reader's mind, so if the reader happens to be one of the people who you are criticizing, there's no doubt that all these signals will pack quite a punch, even if it wasn't a punch you intended to land.
It's hard to remember in these discussions that other people have thoughts and feelings and perspectives and fall back on assuming they're just being irrational, or trying to obfuscate their true motives.
This is why I'm a fan of this particular guideline:
>> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Maybe my interlocutor is a sniveling suck-up to power driven entirely by fantasies of becoming the next boot on my neck, but we sure aren't going to go anywhere in a discussion if I launch off with that assumption. Especially if I'm wrong.
I like it so much that I even wrote a mini essay about it a little while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40602266.
I am European and they look very left of center to me.
To enable liars is absolutely evil and you cannot avoid making decisions about who is lying without risking being wrong and evil yourself.
The guy is a huge asshole. He gets away with being blatantly libellous by accusing someone of being a pedophile because they didn't think his idea was realistic. Which is all feasible when you're the richest guy in the world with good lawyers. Some people need to experience what it's like to be punched in the face.
Where are they?
EM (as far as i know) didn't crash and burn other EV startups or rocket companies.
Who are you talking about? I'm talking about the guy who declared "cis" is a slur and promised to ban people for saying it on his private free speech platform.
Cybertruck. That's the real Elon. A child's fridge drawing of a fantasy car whose build quality seethes with barely hidden contempt for his adoring stans.
Mars? From the man who gave the world a car that can't handle rain?
* Please note that I’ve driven a Tesla in rain just fine, but I’ll pretend the critique is legit and in good faith for the sake of the argument.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Values are important. A business that is successful that embraces values which differ from those many people hold is going to be seen as "bad."
It's not unfortunate that people belittle Elon. They don't belittle his business acumen. They belittle the values that he holds dear.
There are many other successful people whose values don't align with society's values. It's OK to critique that.
It's sad that Elon's waves of fans come to his side, even after the incredibly offensive "pedo diver" episode. He is not the "man of the people" he'd like you to believe. It surprises me that hackers think Big Tech CEOs are on their side
Upon reflection this is also a problem with me, but I don't own SpaceX or Tesla, so fewer people are going to call me out on it.
[0] I will accept that choosing a side is fine if it aligns with your goals, but Elon's most ambitious goal appears to be going to Mars, and voicing his opinions about politics on Xwixxer appears to be hampering his efforts to achieve that goal
You know why people really do it? It has nothing to do with Elon Musk, but rather is a response to our own fears for our own social standing. We fear that if we say something good about a person that our social group has, in defiance of your complex human point, decided is "a bad guy" that we'll just as cavalierly be excluded or derided from that group.
So when you acknowledge that complexity or something good that this "good for nothing" person has done, you have to start off with with virtual signaling: "oh this guy is terrible, but... ", (meaning "please see that I'm still one of you").
I find the whole act kinda craven, perhaps even moreso than a social group that demands it.
Boring Company was always bad so I guess that doesn't count.
Twitter is doing fine.
Then Musk came in with several million dollars and got it created in any real sense of the word.
As for Twitter, what's your evidence that it isn't doing well? I use it regularly, and it works fine.
... and since then called a rescue diver a pedo, got into quite the mess regarding his partnerships and offspring [1], burned dozens of billions of dollars in Twitter, seems to be doing the public customer service for a bunch of literal neo-Nazis on Twitter [2], and is apparently on a truckload of drugs on the regular [3].
It takes years to build up trust, but it's very easy to completely erode it in a few weeks.
> Why do people always have to preface Elon praise with some initial criticism.
Because otherwise, people might accuse one of being a Musk shill, and there's unfortunately quite a bunch of these, completely ignoring any of the countless issues with Musk.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Relationships_and_ch...
[2] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2022/12/19/c...
[3] https://www.wsj.com/business/elon-musk-illegal-drugs-e826a9e...
He does remarkably well for someone on a truckload of drugs on the regular. Perhaps other CEOs should copy that? ;)
He also has a section of people that are cult-like in their defense of him which adds fuel to the fire. “You’re jealous” or “you’re just angry he’s rich” or some other such nonsense seems to come out of the woodwork for anyone who has anything even slightly negative to say about him.
He says what he thinks. Unlike most public figures who filter everything through their PR person.