If there ever was a guy who could have become a real life Tony Stark, but instead he chose to be a 4chan edgelord. What a waste.

He didn't build much himself, so where could he be Tony Stark?

Neither did Tony Stark, excluding that one episode stuck in a cave with a box of scraps.

I the movies he is pretty much building himself. With high sophisticated tools but not build by other people.

Elon is literally the It-needs-to-be-pointy guy.

Though the movie character was partly based on Elon:

>According to Fergus, the character was inspired by an amalgam of real people — but none so much as Elon Musk. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/08/tony-stark-elon-musk...

I guess fiction is often cooler than reality.

Right, there weren't entire montages about him building them by himself.

And that's just the movies, the comics went way deeper.

Terrible take this time, I'm afraid.

Nobody can do it all.

You can criticize him all day. Reality is he is building rockets, electric cars, kids with multiple women, ai, neuralink, humanoid robots. Opinions of people are worthless. They think it matters because it gives them an illusion they are living a worthy life blah blah blah. At the end result matters.

I like the idea that "kids with multiple women" is somehow an achievement more notable than Neuralink or robots.

Perhaps it's a thing that incels admire. Elon is living the life they desire.

Also genetically varied offsprings from point of view of nature is probably the only measure on how successful your life is. Have stood the test of time for millions of years.

Beliefs and opinions like labeling someone else incel physiologically create an illusion that you are somehow better than me. If fooling yourself helps you physiologically why not I am an incel.

Truth is harder to reach and require more than word gimmicks.

> Also genetically varied offsprings from point of view of nature is probably the only measure on how successful your life is.

For a farm animal.

Even among farm animals, it's the alpha that gets to impregnate most females. Other males probably just choose to watch. Human animals uses words like farm animals to justify their obvious failure to reproduce with a multitude of females.

i suspect your understanding of this comes mostly from goofy pornography and weird podcasts

Where did you understanding of this come from? Teach me this source of truth.

just have incel radar

It takes a wise man to understand a wise man.

if you want to measure success by how genetically varied your offspring is, go for it man. just a pretty fringe view. to most people, it's just extremely comical to use in this context.

No. You can measure it through various lenses. This being one. Ideally you want to maximize the measurement across various lenses.

The only reason people find it funny is because most people can't afford to have kids with multiple women. Financially and time management wise. And probably the bar for women to have kids with someone who already have kids with many other women is also high. So by default 99.999 % of the men can't do this not because they choose not to. But they can't even if they want to.

So to protect you from this obvious failure psychologically, the body triggers a funny, absurd reaction when someone points it as a win musk has children with multiple women. It's okay.

the reason most men (85%) don't have kids with multiple women is not because they can't afford to financially

Strangely his children are all white. The continent of Africa has more genetic diversity than the rest of the world combined. Seems like he's not picking the mothers very well if he's maximising "genetic diversity" of his offspring.

I imagine you would also applaud fertility doctors who fraudulently use their own sperm and end up with 100+ children? Maybe they're winning at making a genetic impact, but it doesn't seem very admirable to me.

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

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.

have you done either?

is this a smart retort?

No, I rather like the fact my kids all have the same father, and all in wedlock, too.

Having lots of kids with different women is very common, especially in the lower classes, and not much of an achievement.

My dad has lots of half-siblings from three different mothers in total, and accordingly grew up without a father, and I very much did not want that for my own kids. Not even if it carried wealth and fame. I think you'll find if you ever have your own kids, two present parents cannot be wholly replaced with money.

Having all the facts about Musk clearly available now, the people who he got rich with, is clear evidence we perhaps chose to not see, or didn't yet see, the edgelord he always was.

If those cherry picked definitions and ideas physiologically helps you justify why you didn't achieve remotely anything compared to what musk did sure why not.

Mm.

I was rather hoping that this would at least attract the (stereotypically not interested in the environment) republicans, but apparently not.

Anecdotally, the number of Telsas that have popped up in my deep red state is astounding. My own brother bought a Tesla Y a few months ago, then my father bought one just this month. I go to the gym and can pretty reliably count 15+ Teslas in the parking lot. I see cybertrucks almost daily now, whereas a year ago, I had never seen one in person. I am also planning on buying a Tesla next year, after I get my solar system up and going. We republicans may not do these things because we're worried about global warming or climate change, but I can tell you we certainly care about air quality and cool technology, at least where I'm from.

Of course you'd never seen a Cybertruck a year ago because they were not yet available.

> We republicans may not do these things because we're worried about global warming or climate change (…)

Hilarious every way I turn it. The consequences of global warming are ever more clear, but for the time being cooler cars prevail. I’m not trying to moralize here, just pointing out that the reasoning here is very funny. If I ever catch you recycling plastic I’ll be sure it’s only because it involves cool technology.

I can't speak for all republicans, because we are a diverse group. But if you care to understand why I am not bending backwards at every turn to try and fix global warming, it's very simple. I believe God created this world for His children, and that He will return to it in due time. That's it. I understand that may appear as though I don't care, but that's not true. I certainly don't go out of my way to pollute the earth. I always leave a campsite cleaner than when I found it, etc... this rhetoric that Republicans only care about number one couldn't be further from the truth though.

At some point we have to judge based on actions, not beliefs.

To judge one's actions is to judge one's beliefs, because beliefs drive action. I go to the gym because I believe it'll make me healthier. I eat beef because I believe it to be one of the most beneficial foods on the planet. I teach my kids to think critically, because I believe it will serve them well in life. I act in accordance with my beliefs, and you act in accordance with yours. Actions are dictated by beliefs.

> I believe God created this world for His children, and that He will return to it in due time. That's it.

Taking your beliefs as stated here at face value, I don't see how that would be relevant either way: you clearly live in a world where evil deeds are physically possible, where your god (for whatever reason, free will or otherwise) does not intervene to prevent it. Pollution just seems like another one of those things — a death by a thousand cuts, where (if you will excuse the mixed metaphor) you can't tell which straw broke the camel's back.

Fair enough. I think the difference is that any issue that falls into the "save humanity" category, such as colonizing other planets, or saving the earth from global warming, do not feel urgent for me, because of my perspective. For the Earth to be uninhabitable due to global warming would mean that it could no longer serve its intended purpose, and thus God would wrap things up before that point in time. Now it's perfectly fair to ask "What if you're wrong?" I don't believe I am, but I am willing to do my best to take care of the Earth the best I can. It is after all God's beautiful creation, under our stewardship. But I have to balance that with many other things that may be more important. For example, having a strong economy with the help of fossil fuel, so that families can support having children, etc...

People ditching Teslas because they don't like Elon is political though. If you want to nut-pick between the two sides, we are going to be here a long time.

No they want big trucks modded to blow extra smoke so they can own the libs.

People on twitter told Elon he was nuts the very first time he started toying with conservative ideas. Just jam that whole hand in your mouth and bite the wrist that feeds you. Great idea bud. He’s a fucking idiot for having not listened. Which any of his dozen children also could have told you.

> Which any of his dozen children also could have told you.

Perhaps; certainly he would benefit from an anti-sycophant to tell him "no" and that he will listen to.

It's pretty amazing how much they really like Elon (enough to put him on a billboard with Trump) but they'll still shit talk EVs and solar power with abandon.

It's really not. You don't have to like everything someone does to support them or accept their support. Purity tests are toxic, and it is a large problem on the left side of the aisle.

it's amazing/funny (not surprising) because it demonstrates that they are more interested in culture wars than science or technology, which i think is embarrassing for them

Isn't it the opposite? If they had flipped their views of electric cars based on the politics of who made them that would demonstrate they were more interested in culture wars than science or technology, but they didn't: their views on the merits of EVs remained the same.

The article on the other hand is about that exact inversion happening in (parts of) Hollywood, showing that they care more about Elon's tweets than the environment. This indicates they care more about culture wars than science and technology.

no, it's not the opposite. they should have flipped their views to be in line with reality. they are celebrating the culture war while ignoring science.

the people in the article likely care more about elon's tweets and the environment than they do about buying tesla cars. i suspect they will prefer other electric vehicles.

Because according to Trump EVs don't work.

The Chinese make much longer range electric/hybrid vehicles now, with better interiors, and cheaper prices.

Should Trump win, arguably Musk is helping him to win by providing a free speech platform, Trump is more likely to tariff Chinese competition.

There's no proof of these cars even existing, while we all see Tesla's every day on the road.

> There's no proof of these cars even existing

Here's a Nio covering 891.4 km (554 miles) on a single charge with its 150 kWh battery pack:

https://insideevs.com/news/732567/nio-chinese-ev-range-test/

Here's a Nio doing a battery swap in 6 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmWL1hZQmD0

Chinese EVs are not concepts or prototypes. they're in mass production already.

outside of China, yes, they're probably a rare sight. in Chinese cities however, from what I saw, a double digit percentage of cars are their EVs - which is a lot of cars in a country with 1.5 billion people.

don't take my word for it, there are probably plenty of videos on youtube that show and discuss Chinese city roads.

I can testify that Chinese EVs are starting to pop up in Europe. Not a lot, but if you do a lot of driving, you can spot one or two a day.

Given their price and performance, I think we'll be seeing more of them in the future. The two downsides (that I was told of) are build quality (at the same level as tesla) and obsession with large screens (same as tesla).

Until it reaches the most important and greatest market in the world (Midwest US) it's hard to take these cars seriously. The variety and diversity of terrain is the real test of a car's longevity - until then, they are simply toys.

Nah, they’re common enough in Europe.

Somewhat impeded by weak dealer networks, and dubious marketing (for a couple of years, ORA was trying to sell something called a Funky Cat, though they’ve recently rebranded it as something more boring) but they’re a thing.

I took a few DiDi rides in China when I was there December last year, and most of the black car drivers used BYD electric cars that were really nice. I met some new friends at a wedding there and they showed me their car which had voice controlled windows that worked really well, it was a party trick for sure but cool. I came home wanting a BYD car and then I was sad to find them unavailable in the US.

… I mean, if you’re basing your entire view of the world on what you, personally, see… Well, it’s an interesting approach. Walk solipsism?

Many of these cars don't pass western safety standards and can never be sold in Europe.

There are some that are Tesla competitors, but it is widely believed (there is not enough evidence to show conclusively) that none of the Chinese manufacturers make money on selling EVs.

The situation is similar to that of Rivian or VW. The Rivian is a spectacular car but it is expensive to make that Rivian loses 10s of thousands everytime they sell a car. VW is also losing money on every EV they sell. If you buy one you're getting a good deal, but edging the company closer to bankruptcy at the same time. Buy the car avoid the stock.

BYD refuses to give financials on their pure EV profit numbers. They sell a ton of hybrids and ICE cars and eek out a very small profit. Anyone who pays attention to the space must ask themselves why they don't boast about their pure EV margins? It's likely because they are losing money.

Tesla on the other hand has positive gross margins on their cars and have since the day they started selling the Model S. That is the reason why the stock value is so high, because Tesla is the most efficient EV maker on earth by a significant margin. They can lower prices further than any competition and remain profitable.

>Many of these cars don't pass western safety standards and can never be sold in Europe.

Same for the Cybertruck

I tend to agree, however I'm going to reserve opinion for 3-4 years because I think there's a risk to this opinion aging badly as aggressive cost cutting continues, and electric vehicle usage expands beyond fairly left leaning people to the general populace. The chance of a surprise bounce back and expansion of sales as prices go down to areas where competitors are deeply unprofitable but tesla can still be profitable combined with a significant minority (if not an actual majority) of the populace agreeing with many of the things he has said that tesla's current quite far left customers find so detestable may lead to a surprise here.