Jobs-effect again and again.
Anyway, I have read the Hyperloop pdf end to end and I think it's great. I don't agree with this author at all that Elon Musk's endeavours distract from improving existing technology. Nor do I think that improving existing technology is as important as inventing new potentially disruptive technology in general.
People are fans of Musk because he succeeds and delivers in the face of spineless critics like this one. Just as people were fans of Jobs as he reintroduced quality into consumer electronics succesfully.
Did we read the same article? I read a rant, sprinkled with lots of verifiable facts that gave strong arguments why this Hyperloop idea won't fly.
For a rebuttal, I would expect claims that his sources are incorrect, that his calculations are incorrect, or that the conclusions he draws from those calculations are incorrect. Arguing that the author ranted too much is not sufficient for me.
For example, what's wrong with his claim that people would get seasick in this thing? If there's nothing wrong with that claim, what's wrong with his claim that that is a show stopper? Similarly, wants wrong with his arguments about the low capacity of this design?
Feel free to add some rantiness, but keep the fraction of content as least as high as this article, please.
And, by the way, I do not think this article says Elon Musk does nothing good; it just claims this idea of Elon Musk is not a good one because it is highly unlikely that it is possible to fix all of its problems. For example, one can straighten the trajectory, but then, costs would balloon to be at least on par with the existing high speed rail system.
Unless the proposed HSR involves moving everyone in California to Spain and using theirs he is the one who is "engaged in fraud or just being dodgy" as he likes to put it according to actual studies of the proposed system energy consumption go as high as 6.5 MJ per passenger KM. As Musk leads with in his document the proposed system is one of the worst HSRs energy and performance wise, quoting the best numbers in existence do not make a compelling counter argument.
Only if you assume that all the trains will be almost completely empty. I don't know about the US, but I've travelled on some odd routes at low-traffic hours in the UK and it's really fucking rare to see a train with as little as 10% occupancy because the rail companies don't run them.
Come to think of it, most of that was on relatively local lines that Hyperloop's not designed to replace anyway.
He compares hyperloop with the smoothest mode of transportation invented, and says it will fail because it doesn't meet it's standard. Why not compare it to flying planes or sailing boats? Or riding a Marshrutka in Ukraine?
As for the low capacity - the critique's author says Hyperloop can handle 3 times less passengers per hour. But forgots to mention that you could buy more than 3 HL lanes for the cost of one HSR lane (if I remember correctly).
Getting sick at sea is OK because you have room to vomit in a sanitary way. Hyperloop gives no such concession.
His verifiable criticisms of the Hyperloop, they're probably true, good chance that people would get seasick in it, and that the capsules are too small and that corrections for this might make the project financially infeasible.
Not sure how that's relevant though.
Even if this project instead of 10 billion is more like the high speed train and would cost more like 100 billion, even if it was more expensive. Even if people could get sick in it.
Wouldn't it still be an interesting idea worth investigating? Wouldn't it be possible these are hurdles we could overcome? Elon Musk seems to think they are, and Elon Musk has a PhD in overcoming hurdles..
Personally, I find it questionable that an automobile entrepreneur is choosing to publicize this concept but invest nothing into building it himself, as if to spread FUD about high speed rail. Calling Musk out for that and for not showing his work when it comes to costs and numbers is appropriate whether or not it offends your hero worship.
Though, there are also important questions he raises about Elon Musk: whether he has a conflict of interest as an automobile executive and why he is releasing white papers spreading FUD about rail projects without investing in the hyperloop project himself. The thought that Musk is a disinterested genius who does everything out of the goodness of his heart is a little naive, and the way people overreact when that's called into question says a lot.
As for Musk's character and intentions, I think he's been forthcoming in enough interviews[1] as to his reasons for starting his multiple current ventures (Tesla, SpaceX, Solar City). I don't believe his actions have contradicted his words in this respect, so for someone to attribute intentions to him that go against those statements and be believed, the burden of proof is on them.
[1]: I don't have the links on hand, but he's talked about how after Paypal he didn't *have* to do anything, being wealthy, so decided to focus on a few major areas he thought major contributions to the future of humanity could be made, to his best judgement. Those being cheap solar power, electric cars, and colonizing other planets.Critics will always have an audience in the envious and the shadenfreudencia.
I write this to point out that, in the US, people will treat any crank seriously if he has enough money or enough prowess in another field. A sufficiently rich person is surrounded by sycophants and stenographers who won’t check his numbers against anything.
The problem is the article's criticisms aren't categorical. He doesn't apply the same standards he demands of Elon et all to his own claims.
It's sad, because clearly the guy is well informed on public transit projects, but there's no reason for him to descend into ad homs and his own pet psychoanalysis of Elon Musk.
Why does this guy hate Elon so much?