Single point of failure does not mean failure. It's an engineering term that refers to the risk associated with consolidating numerous responsibilities under a single system.
I really thought his inauguration performance (the drugs, the saluting) would finally wake people up to what's going on what Elon Musk.
To anyone who can see it (maybe it takes some relevant life experience), it's patently obvious he's been spiraling down a dark hole of drugs, depression, ego, burn out, and addiction.
He's in a very dark place and lashing out, hurting himself and others, like so many people in dark places do.
The man desperately needs help, as much as someone on the street doing fentanyl does. But being rich can actually make it harder to get clean. Wealth can insulate a person from consequences, which can make it harder to hit rock bottom which is often the wake up call people need to shock themselves out of their problem.
Elon Musk isn't the devil, he's actually good and useful person deep down, but right now he's fighting demons and they're winning.
He's been posting on Twitter obsessively for years now, it's definitely one of his worst addictions. He blew $44 billion to satisfy his cravings, which has to be a record spend on an addiction.
But he's also addicted to drugs, work, gaming and who knows what else.
He will either shake his demons or die early after having destroyed his life and probably many other people's lives. I wish him well for everyone's sake.
Some failures: the boring company hasn't done much of anything, other than a very short loop in Las Vegas. Do you know anyone who has bought one of his solar roof systems, and when was the last time anyone mentioned it? The hyperloop idea didn't go anywhere. Twitter is worth about 25% of what he paid for it, though one could argue being in control of it is worth $30B to him personally. He also said he was going to get rid of bots, and failed at that.
Obviously, he has had some huge successes too. Tesla has a huge valuation based on the assumption that it was going to win everything, but growth has stalled -- the 18 wheelers are nowhere to be found, the cybertruck is an article of derision to everyone but fanboys. The sedans growth has stalled, in large part due to Musk going out of his way to alienate his core group of buyers -- liberals who think buying a tesla is green. Space-X is doing great things. The jury is out if starlink and thousands of LEO satellites will be a win or a loss.
His final big win is his support of a particular minority group: Nazi's and the Nazi-adjacent. They are platformed on Twitter, and he is doing his best to normalize giving Nazi salutes (at the presidential inauguration no less).
Musk is a ruthless businessman, but make no mistake - when it comes to engineering, he is an empty suit.
https://archive.li/bePMk
you now have a significant percentage of the educated populace thinks he's an asshole at best and fascist at worst; this was most not the case before he bought twitter and went full-MAGA
I'd call that a fail.
Also, he was supposed to "save" Twitter and make it into a bigger social network and "everything app" (like WeChat). He instead decimated its revenue and so poisoned the brand that it'll never become an "everything app" other than among the same people buying $Trump coins.
what? he's making terrible moves. violating the consitution, mainly. illegally hacking and slashing the federal government without any idea what he's doing, what he's cutting, providing any clear or sensible or accurate reason why, supporting and echoing nazis and white nationalists. i mean he's now the #2 villain to the half of the country with a moral compass. i miss when it was fun to talk about how cool a tesla was and how cool spacex is and now its just miserable to be associated with this guy.
We need government protection of our valuable national resource of Billionaires. I say we first start with weekly blood tests to make sure no one is poisoning/drugging them, with the results made public.
Sincere question: what do you believe should happen when a company becomes successful?
You make excellent criticisms and I've had similar thoughts. But I never really understood what people want to do other than confiscate companies once they become successful. Not saying that is what you want to do - you specifically say not that.
You mention "let’s engineer a network of trust and monitoring and a culture of transparency". I'm not sure what that means.
In the post, I say private individuals can own assets in two ways, as individuals (up to a cap) or through a personal corporation (no cap).
So, if you start a company that becomes huge and your slice is worth $100 billion, or even $10 trillion, you can still own all of that via the personal corporation. And you can invest or spend all of it [almost] however you want.
The difference is that the personal corporation has oversight; I only specify there will be a "board" I don't have anything concrete beyond that.
But the idea is in extreme circumstances, the board can over-rule your money-related decisions. The intent is they will only step in if you are going nuts, but the devil is in the details of how exactly to do that. It might be impossible, but I'd rather see us at least try rather have brain-damaged trillionaires causing unchecked mayhem.
When I make this argument, people assume I want to tax or seize the billionaire's wealth, but no, I'm saying they can keep every penny. Although to be fair, if you did cleave apart people's finances like this, taxing the "personal corporation" higher than the individual portion would be tempting.
The board can and should be friendly with the p-corp owner. Almost all the time they are going to be green light everything. They are really just a "sanity check" (literally).
Now you could say how do we "make sure" the board acts when the time comes? Stands up to the owner? Maybe we don't. We put the mechanism in place, and if the board fails to stop the owner, then it didn't work in that specific case. And the world will know that. But as long as it works "most" of the time maybe that's enough.
Also I forgot, apart from a board a big thing might be reporting. Your p-corp activities would have much more stringent reporting requirements compared to a private individual. You can do anything you want with your $300M in private funds, including get it as small bills and roll around in it, but the p-corp funds need to be much more closely monitored. That alone, even without a board, would be big.
It sounds like you are also libertarian, but you argue that even libertarian societies should have some form of public interest limitation, license or oversight. This is in line with traditional Thomas Jefferson thinking: "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
That's a nice thought but the problem, as we've now shown, is that any organization of humans will by definition become corrupted, the state will grow unless constrained, and any system is imperfect and can be gamed.
What is the place of the state, traditionally empowered through a monopoly on violence, in a multinational world? Right now, it's just a tool to be abused by the wealthy, and by extension to confound and entrap the masses. Can you believe they still teach nationalism? Populism should have been excised from education after the 20th century's tragedies, but instead it seems to have redoubled.
In future perhaps we'll have a dictatorship of AI to keep the humans in check, but the clear danger is that such a system would present too much value not to be usurped and abused.
Democracy in the utopian theoretical sense was supposed to be based upon popular education and representation. We could work towards improving the former with AI and more effective (not child minding oriented) personalized education programs, and the latter with more frequent referendums. Right now we have the opposite: laziness, lack of education, active misinformation, and near zero viable means for meaningful representation even in self-labelled democractic societies. It is no wonder so many people self-medicate.
No and I am eagerly awaiting the day I don’t have to hear his stupid name or see his uncanny valley face ever again. Something irks me that the world’s richest man which many people look up to and actively try to emulate is a petulant asshole.
I understand why he’s relevant to this website, I just can’t wait until we don’t have to hear from him anymore.
People with that wealth can do so much good and choose to do so much bad it makes me so sad and angry. Best I can do is care for my friends and family and my community.
Probably nothing technical but he certainly does provide huge value as a brand and IMHO he is irreplaceable. Who else can convince very rich people invest gargantuan amounts of money into moonshot projects?
I don't mean literal shooting, obviously. How would you say it in a woke and politically correct way that wouldn't offend anybody? I couldn't find a better phrase, wasn't even a pun. Apologies.
I don't think He's overrated at all but I'm also under impression that he can be done in single shot. One day drinks too much, has some family issue, underestimates or overestimates something and he is done.
I also wouldn't be surprised if some bravado thing he does results in a tragedy and people are done with him. Unplugging a server at the Twitter datacenter can be useful method to see what can be discarded and he appears to be following similar methods that can end up having much heavier consequences.
Most unfireable CEO ever despite very obviously harming the company more than working there. If they replaced him with someone who would actually work for Tesla the Robotaxi/Optimus stories would not longer hold water (probably the first thing CEO would do was reset expectations so they don't get blamed for the lies) and it would quickly be valued way less than Toyota.
