My kids are too young for this, but surely there's a tradeoff here. Should you override some of your child's natural wonder because of adult aesthetics (or worse political concerns)? Yes. But how often? I'm not sure the line should be drawn at a truck design. (Although, maybe you're teaching your kid taste, again I'm not sure.)
Every parent influences their children. It's called parenting.
Both think it looks ugly.
No need to influence most people, IMO. Vehicles are shaped the way they are because the designs have broad appeal in general (familiarity? proportions? trends?). Most of us would find a normal, well-tailored black suit to be appealing and be baffled by avant garde, high fasion men's clothing.
Why should anyone be surprised that a completely novel design isn't appealing to most?
Isn’t it mostly fuel efficiency standards and manufacturability? You’ve got a chassis that’s used for like five different models for five years between refreshes, not a lot of room to innovate without driving up all the costs so only the luxury cars can afford to look different.
People who want cars to look different for it's own sake are saying they want worse cars.
Why? Why do those people need their cars to be shittier cars just to look different? What are they after? I bought a car as a toy, but it's average looking and not really special, and that doesn't have to actually impact how much I enjoy it. My previous shitty car was also very much enjoyed.
I don't understand the insistence that it looks "different" as if there is any virtue to a car design that was randomly generated to look different.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Create hundreds of thousands of jobs, paid the most tax of anyone in history by a large margin, and provided hope for America? Where would we be without spaceX launches? Still reliant on foreign adversaries to access space?
Otherwise you're of course right.
Why are my tax dollars going to foreign healthcare, education, and food banks when we could definitely use that here?
> claims about 200+ year olds recieving pensions Elon and a SSA inspector general investigation identified approximately $298 million paid to 24,000 deceased beneficiaries over a period spanning 1998–2019. Some of that money was recovered.
He did nothing. He was an advisor to the president, and his team made reccomendations. Also, there is a GAO that has reviewed all canceled contracts. All of the recipients had the right to protest... unfortunately, most of the NGO's simply had to show up to court to get the contracts back, but they didn't because it was obvious fraud.
And, that grok part? What is all that about? Any AI, can do all of those things? Spending on election interference? So all money donated to political orgs are election interference?
The reasons you seem to hate him, all seem like good things to me?
I somewhat agree. You vote for universal healthcare, or against it?
Either way, addressing communicable diseases in far away places also helps keep them from becoming nearby diseases. It's far cheaper to fund some vaccines in a far away land than deal with widespread disease domestically. And in the end, cutting these things did practically nothing for the deficit. It was a rounding error of spending to save so many lives around the world.
And they want to argue they're instituting a "Christian" nation. How about following His red text words?
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.
I'm 31, i was too young to vote last time the US tried to pass universal healthcare (Obamacare.) However, I don't like government if you can't tell. So no, i would not vote for universal healthcare. Our system has it's flaws, but it seems to be the best system i've witnessed. Medical debt can't effect your credit score, and they can't garnish you wages to pay it off... so technically it is free? I think what really needs to be done is we need to "decertify" doctors. There's no reason I need someone who went to school for 16 years when i break an arm or feel sick and want some over the counter drugs.
As for the aid thing:
"If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid.”
Western governments sending enormous quantities of subsidized agricultural products into Africa, harms them more than it helps them. Kenyan Economists took note of when food aid arrived in Kenya, some was diverted by corrupt officials, while other shipments were sold on local markets at extremely low prices. Kenyan farmers couldn't compete with these prices, so their businesses suffered. As local agricultural production declined, the country became increasingly dependent on outside assistance. During the next drought, Kenya would have fewer domestic food reserves, creating another cycle of dependency and killing thousands.
How many systems have you actually witnessed firsthand? Have you spent life uninsured with medical issues before? Have you ever actually had significant medical debt?
> Medical debt can't effect your credit score, and they can't garnish you wages to pay it off
This isn't true across most of the country. It really makes me question your idea "the best system i've witnessed", as you're repeating commonly held beliefs which are not based on reality.
https://www.moneylion.com/learn/debt/medical-debt/can-medica...
> There's no reason I need someone who went to school for 16 years when i break an arm or feel sick and want some over the counter drugs.
This is already a thing and is rapidly growing. Urgent care centers largely staff NP/PAs, which can write prescriptions. Its becoming more common for these providers to have many shifts with only NP/PAs. PA's didn't go to school for 16 years.
That said, if I break my arm I'm definitely going to want to go to an ortho if I've had even a slightly significant break. Not healing right will mess you up for life.
Once again, are you sure you understand this system you're claiming is the "best system"?
> sending enormous quantities of subsidized agricultural products into Africa
I can get behind winding down enormous amounts of food aid when there aren't active famines happening. Far better to give aid to help jump start their own food production, enable them to be self-sufficient instead of the corporate farm welfare we had.
Its still not exactly wise policy to suddenly one day completely cut it all off. Its also not the only thing that was suddenly slashed.
Obamacare is not universal healthcare.
Because the US wants to have influence around the world to maintain its empire. Mostly using hard power but also some soft power and this is seen as a relatively cheap way to maintain NGO presence in foreign countries that can be used for both.
> when we could definitely use that here?
Agreed, unfortunately that gets called socialism/communism in the US, which means a large chunk of the population will instantly reject it based on labels alone.
> He did nothing. He was an advisor to the president, and his team made reccomendations.
His team did a lot more than that[1][2].
"DOGE has gained access to sensitive data about immigrants and farm workers. [A] whistleblower at the National Labor Relations Board claims that staffers observed spikes in data leaving the agency after DOGE got access to its systems, with destinations unknown."
> And, that grok part? What is all that about? Any AI, can do all of those things?
There's a difference between potentially can do and is basically advertised as doing[3]. Note that what Grok did was not limited to adults either. But maybe you're fine with that too.
1 - https://www.wired.com/story/doge-is-just-getting-warmed-up-d... 2 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/20... 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_sexual_deepfake_scandal
1. Elon didn't "create jobs," he profited off other's labor by having his name on some pieces of paper. Furthermore it's often reported that rather than an innovative force in a company, usually people have to work hard to keep him as uninvolved as possible, because he's mostly incompetent.
2. He's the richest man in the world. I don't care the volume of tax he paid, I care what percentage of his spending power it is, because that's how my taxes and my neighbor's taxes are calculated, and it's only fair his should be as well. By that measure, he pays functionally no taxes. My taxes impact my purchasing power and I have to budget for it. His should as well. After all, his money only has value because of the existence of this government.
3. SpaceX sucks the air out of the room the same way his fake drill company killed California HSR. Stop letting crony capitalists suck government contracts dry and then have their buddies sell the "more efficient private solution" that also doesn't get delivered. It's frankly absurd to not nationalize something as critical to sovereignty as a space program.
I worked at Tesla for two years on the capital expenditure team... He literally goes around the factory making hundreds of changes. Sometimes those changes are bad, and are reverted but in my experience, he's right 95% of the time, and the other 5% he'll revert when shown evidence of why it's a bad idea. I'm sure he does the same thing at SpaceX. He is literally the HEAD ENGINEER. He approves the factory layouts, he is responsible for tak time personally, he is constantly on the factory floor.
>"Furthermore it's often reported that rather than an innovative force in a company, usually people have to work hard to keep him as uninvolved as possible, because he's mostly incompetent."
WTF are you talking about? Who could possible keep him from being uninvoled? he is on the factory floor bi weekly making adjustments and negotiating equipment delivery. No one has the power to try and "Keep him uninvoled" and if so, they would be quickly fired.
>It's frankly absurd to not nationalize something as critical to sovereignty as a space program.
Uhh... we tried that. it'd called NASA, and it's been behind the soviet union since the early 2000's.
What happens when you nationalize it? You realise you can't force people to innovate, right? Do you think Gavin Newsom will be a better CEO of SpaceX? Do you think we have any chance of reaching mars after nationaliztion?
Why do you feel the right to be able to take what someone else has built?
Damage control at Tesla https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-tesla-life-inside-giga...
Twitter finally distracting him away from his meddling https://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-employees-relieved-elon-mu...
> Uhh... we tried that. it'd called NASA, and it's been behind the soviet union since the early 2000's.
Fascinating. You know what, actually, this part of the conversation is far more interesting to me. I concede that Musk is a super genius that definitely didn't do a Nazi salute on live television. I'd rather explore this with you.
So, you said it right there... NASA, which functioned as a government sponsored project manager distributing out contracts to businesses from a government budget... Failed to keep up with the Soviet Union space program, which was, well you know the answer! Fully nationalized.
I'm not surprised that American half measures at nationalization fail, just like I'm not surprised that the HSR failed through crony capitalism. There in the name. I'm arguing for something a little more dramatic than NASA. Something provably effective. Speaking of HSR, I'm reminded of another modern nationalized infrastructure project that is unparalleled in scale or success, somewhere in the East ;)
> Why do you feel the right to be able to take what someone else has built?
Musk's money has value only because of the society we all together create. It's silly to draw some lines around and say "actually the country's national space program should move to the whims of this one guy that signed investment paperwork and occasionally yells at people on a factory floor." A deeply unserious way of managing something critical to national sovereignty. The Soviets understood this which is why they got to space first. The Americans could only come close when they got a little commie about it; they surpassed the Soviets only when they centralized even more than the Soviets did, which is why Ayn Rand got upset enough to write about it: https://courses.aynrand.org/works/apollo-11/
If SpaceX was nationalized, Starship development would of never happened. Catching the boosters with giant chopsticks, would have never happened. We would probably spend $100B to get to a human to mars and we'd say "Done". However, keeping a profit incentive ensure proper allocation of resources and goals with economic fucundity instead of dumping 60 years to build a death trap with no meaningful payload capacity to the moon. SpaceX has only 20 years, and has rapidly advanced past any agency or company on the planet. SpaceX has the capacity and access that Governments wish they could create, but inside a government system the incintives can never exist to create those in the first place.
You'd need evidence for this claim, because it's evidently false given the nationalized space program of the soviet union and the nationalized HSR program of the PRC both had cost optimizations built in. Also, the Soviet Union's wasn't entirely centralized, different design departments competed.
> they never would have developed reusability,
Space shuttle.
> However, keeping a profit incentive ensure proper allocation of resources and goals with economic fucundity
What's the profit incentive of a nuclear weapons program? Access to space is an assurance of sovereignty. There's no room for inefficient resource allocation mechanisms like profit incentive.
Last piece of evidence i'll show... SpaceX is vastly farther ahead, with a order of magnitude less budget. Thus, the reason crazy libs want to nationalize are exactly what will be destroyed by it's nationalization. You can't force people to innovate only give them economics incentive to do so.
I get that you're trying to engage in a sort of confidence struggle with me here, but just saying I've provided you evidence doesn't actually mean I have. You said that NASA is incapable of producing a reusable design. That's demonstrably false. The question of whether it can improve on that design is a different one - demonstrably yes is the answer, since the shuttle wasn't its first design. There's nothing unique about SpaceX. The people that worked there would simply be working for NASA instead under a nationalized space program. Hell maybe Musk would even be there!
> You can't force people to innovate only give them economics incentive to do so.
I posted about this recently elsewhere, but the long and short of it is: you can't force people to innovate, full stop. No amount of money inspires innovation. People are inherently driven to innovate by their human nature. Longer comment about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50389140
What criminal charges, specifically, do you think he could and should be tried on?
Mostly I've seen younger kids love it. I was at the park and a little girl saw a Cybertruck pull up -- "Look, Dad, it's from the future!"
I think Cybertruck is probably ultimately a failure, but the amount of hate it gets when they are at least trying to push things outside of the normal makes me sad. The amount of negativity towards anything new that's not perfect is insane.
A significant portion of the hate they get is for what they represent and who they’re from, not because they’re “new” or “different” or “not perfect”.
But anyway, I don't think it's fair to say he "hoarded" wealth. It's all from ownership in companies he led, or selling stock in said companies. It's not like, I don't know, post-soviet Russian oligarchs or Carlos Slim or something, who you could all reasonably say were hoarding wealth.
If the CyberTruck were the size of a Honda Ridgeline or Ford Maverick, I think truck folks (who skew conservative) would look at it a lot less derisively. There are entire swathes of the half-ton truck market that the Cybertruck simply cannot compete in due to a seeming fundamental misunderstanding by the design team of what the vehicle needs to be capable of and amenable to. This is especially evident in the fleet/work truck market where the unibody design immediately shuts out folks who need to put an aftermarket bed replacement (think plumbers, welders, and other trades).
It straddles the 1/2 to 3/4 ton segment in terms of specs, but it is fundamentally impossible to tow a 5th wheel or gooseneck trailer with a Cybertruck.
Again, there is "think different" and there is "misunderstand the market."
Because adults groomed them to do that opinion.
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.
Teaching kids to boot at cars is unsubstantive?
> and flamebait?
You missed the anti-Elon-booing child-grooming flamebait I was replying to. But I guess if you're also anti-Elon you don't notice that.
> You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly.
Point me to where the repetitiveness is. Thanks
Other people breaking the site guidelines doesn't make it ok for you to do the same (I don't mean you personally, of course, but all of us), so pointing the finger at other commenters doesn't work here.
[editing - bear with me...]
Let’s keep in mind that Tesla invested in this truck to be the next F-150, which is the best-selling vehicle in the USA for the past multiple decades.
Even the hated Edsel is worth quite a bit today. Although it might be harder to keep a Cybertruck running for 50 years due to all the computerized components. Restorers will probably be relegated to rebuilding Cybertruck bodies with new components.
And all the well-documented reliability and quality issues.
If anything, the centralized control units of modern cars may make this sort of thing easier. A 2000’s car has more distributed pieces of vehicle control units (more similar to microcontrollers) while a modern EV built in the style of a Tesla has fewer compute components.
So in 50 years you’ll have some kind of recompilation scene where those computers get replaced, almost like how people replace their router software with OpenWRT or the people at vintage computer festivals who stand up reverse engineered AOL Instant Messenger services.
Really no different than any classic car, really. GM isn't selling OEM parts for a '57 Chevy, for example. If you need replacement parts on those, nowadays, you're likely going to specialty manufacturers given there really aren't any "parts cars" around anymore.
Good book on the subject: https://www.sup.org/books/history/disaster-dearborn
Tesla’s corporate leadership would be much happier if the Cybertruck was selling 100,000 units a year and was not at all a collector’s item.
Best selling truck of all time. Not really about rarity.
Nobody said anything about it not failing, it certainly did fail just like the Ford F150 Lighting before it.
Liking something is subjective and lots of people like the design of the Cybertruck. Just because you dont like it doesn't mean everybody else doesn't as well.
This is interesting to say given that by most objective measures of what constitutes a good truck, the cybertruck is a bad truck.
There is literally no such thing. But regardless, in this subthread, we are discussing the response of children to the pure aesthetics of the truck (or lack thereof) vs. the coached, politicized reaction to what it is claimed to represent.
There are, of course, plenty of subjective measures such as NVH, amenability to modification through the aftermarket, total cost of ownership, offroad capabilities, etc.
From everything I've seen, some of which OP mentioned in an edit, points to the Cybertruck being a terrible truck seemingly designed by folks who have never owned/used a truck. And again, that is ignoring Elon's politics.
> Payload capacity.
Fighting against truck size, MPGs
> Towing capacity.
Fighting MPGs, possibly diesel prices
> Towing range.
Only matters on electrics, everyone else goes to the gas station.
> Stopping distance when at GVWR.
I don't max my truck out, and I don't really think others should, either.
Anyway, maybe you can see that objectively, I'd rather have a Nissan Hardbody than whatever Superduty Diesel you have in mind.
It's always an excuse and everyone else's fault that things are politicized. The same people telling us to leave every social problem to the Invisible Hand get fussy when it actually manifests.
God you people are retarded.
Yep. This is the world the Supreme Court handed us with Citizen's United. Now that money is speech, we all have to accept that when we buy things, our money can be used against us.
This is the world they wanted, and if you hate cancel culture, then you need to get on board with fixing the damage from Citizen's United... not raging against regular people who are doing exactly what they are supposed to do, and using their money as speech.
What you buy is your politics now. It fucking sucks, but look at it with clearer eyes.
Not all HNers are good parents
The Cybertruck does not have that quality.
The classroom of kids Ive seen (my kids attend 3 different schools), all of them are amazed by them - age ranges: 3, 7, 9 all their classrooms loved them. Same with some of the older kids I've been around. They're all boys, I do imagine it's a very boy-friendly car.
I personally don't have a cyber truck, not big on it personally, but never put my own opinions into my kids. The kids may not "like it", but they are amazed by it.
I'm in an area that doesn't really hate Musk, so I think that does have an impact.
Do you have anything empirical to back this up? This feels like someone kind of hoping something is true. It's like the Harley rider sure that everyone thinks they're super cool with their super loud bike.
In the same way that I'm entirely certain kids don't look at a monstrous mobile trash bin and say "wow, cool!". But the owners of those ugly abominations sure think they look cool.
Unsurprising, as they look like they were designed by an 8 year old.
There's going to be 3 owners perpetually going to Cars and Coffee with theirs, rotating with their pristine Pontiac Aztec.
And that's all they'll do with it because there is no way a CyberTruck is going to last 30 years otherwise.
You don’t see that with a Ferrari or Rolls Royce.
It is definitely going to be a collectors items, if it isn’t already.
That’s not gonna pay the bills for Tesla, but I guess it’s something.
The Ferrari arguably wins on aesthetics and engineering but I'm not sure that's the reason people aren't spitting on them.
They are going to be very valued collectors items in 30 years once the kids of today have enough disposable income to buy whichever are left roadworthy by then.