I'm not a high functioning selfish c.nt - I have a diagnosis.

[dyqik]

That post is a pretty unconvincing endorsement of Musk. Despite unsubstantiated claims that he is clearly a genius and a net positive for humanity, the only tangible thing it presents in his favour is that he has 'inspired an extraordinary flow of capital into EVs and innovation in transportation'.

That, in and of itself, is a good thing.

Right, but I don't see anyone arguing that it's not, and it's totally consistent with the characterization of Musk as a high level b.llsh.t artist.

And even consistent with the characterization of him as a high level b.llsh.t artist that's actively slowed Tesla's development and roll out of consumer electric vehicles with some of his b.llsh.t. Stable capital flow counts for an awful lot.

[Pishwish]

I really thought we had got beyond the "what is NASA for?" type arguments.

Er... Nasa existed 13 years before Musk was born. The question isn't what Nasa is for. It's whether cheaper access to orbit is more valuable than other things that could have happened.

Obviously I have difficulty explaining myself. Either that, or some smart people on this thread are pretending to be stupid. In case it's not clear "what is NASA for?" is a stupid, but fairly common argument against spaceflight.

where people are wowing at how renewables got so cheap.

Yeah, "people" was me. And I pointed out in this thread that the two were not comparable. At the very least, solar panels have a relatively simple structure and vast production runs while rocketry is a complex, low-production run technology. I am having flashbacks to a tedious thread where you claimed that war didn't advance technology or some such nonsense, so I think I'll leave it at that.

[dyqik]

War opens up sources of funding...

[lpm]

I am having flashbacks to a tedious thread where you claimed that war didn't advance technology or some such nonsense, so I think I'll leave it at that.

I'm pretty sure my argument wasn't that. War might well advance war technology but simultaneously hold back non-war technology. The net outcome might be better or it might be worse.

This thread is yet another example of the forum's belief in infinite resources. Choosing all the players you'd like in your fantasy football team without bothering with the money element. When resources are finite, rushing ahead in one area will always require holding back in another.

[jimbob]

There's no billionaire driving that 99.6% straight line drop across the decades. The chart is absolute proof that, in Plodder's words, "technology and invisible forces kind of invent themselves in some sort of primordial capitalist soup".

Yes, I agree. As I argued in another thread, with renewable energy the story has been year on year marginal improvements which bring down production costs.

It's more than that. Once the technological improvements were such that certain areas had grid parity, there was a positive feedback loop which would have existed even if there had been no further technical improvement, simply from economies of scale. If you add in the highly-cyclical nature of the photovoltaic industry to date (very similar to the wider semiconductor* industry) and the overinvestment leading to gluts then contractions probably drives the price down faster. Over-investment in the PV industry to address the new market causes a glut and price collapse of the solar cells, which allows more applications to be economical. The industry contraction then means that the equipment will be available fairly cheaply for the survivors when the restriction in supply increases the price. It's a ratchet effect.

And then you add in the technological improvements that further drive the price down.


*I mentioned the cyclical nature of the semiconductor market to my dad, years ago, and he said "oh that's The Pig Cycle" and is one reason why bank managers were traditionally reluctant to lend to pig farmers.

[temptar]

Elon Musk, that Elon Musk that announced that Tesla would no longer accept bitcoin for payment? That one?

I've long come to the conclusion that people who get very rich off the back of opportunities not available to everyone are broadly lucky rather than specially talented. And I am concerned that the people who ran Paypal were sufficiently unimpressed that they fired him from being CX to leave Peter Thiel in charge. Neither of them are saints, or people I'd like kids to aspire to emulate.

Regarding Tesla: last time I looked, compared to its market share en gros, its shareprice was completely out of kilter with most of the car industry. I think there's a different dynamic with Tesla than there is for most other cars; the story of the plucky outsider (always good), appealing potentially to a slightly different market, and certainly the initial models were not in a standard market sector. Even the M3 is sufficiently expensive for it not to be a mass market automobile by normal standards. However, the automobile market is changing and anyone who thinks that Musk is uniquely responsible for that is naive. Research was ongoing in alternatives to internal combustion engines for years and they would always have happened. The business model and demand is adjusting and in culturally diverse ways. Much wider discussion to be had on the question of the impact of self driving in the future and how that might affect personal transport consumption.

On the question of SpaceX, it's a much more tightly operated ship as I understand it, with significantly better internal controls. Musk is responsible for much the same thing as he is for Tesla, and it's this: he's responsible for being a figurehead. My view is that much of Musk's input to both of those companies has been to provide PR more than most other things.

I don't think he is anything special per se; but then I don't think any of the tech billionaires are special. He came out of Paypal, as did Peter Thiel. In terms of what both are doing now, Musk is probably more defensible but you have to remember that during Paypal area, he was fired as CEO. So I think to some extent, he was lucky and lucky enough to be able to capitalise on that luck. For every one start up founder that makes it, probably 1000 or more don't. The bar is lowered then with each apparent success until at some point no one asks hard questions (viz Trump). I think if you put someone identical in every respect to Musk in charge of Tesla with only name recognition being the distinguishing point, it probably would not be where it is now. It could be better actually but that's a detailed argument.

That being said, there are some wider issues to be debated here. How necessary is what he does. Realistically, SpaceX cannot come out of nowhere; it has to stand on the shoulders of giants. In short, if we had to wait a bit longer for self landing reusable rockets, would it matter all that much? I am not sure it would to be frank. Not to me anyway. I'm fascinated by the technology but Musk has had little to do with that in the grand scheme of things. For Tesla, it existed before him, and possibly they could have made it without him albeit, more slowly. But again, what is revolutionary about them is less the fact that they are building electric cars - lots of others were too - but the business model. Order in advance, wait several years for delivery, only sell through own network.

tl'dr: I think the guy was not starting from the same block as most of the rest of the world, and I think that became a reinforcing loop for him. He's better than Thiel in terms of what they are now (not hard) and frankly, I'm not interested in him using a lack of neurotypicality as an excuse for bad behaviour. It's one thing to be different but that doesn't defend being obnoxious. I think his chief asset over the years has been narrative and I submit that certain of the things he tried to do might not have worked if he had been unlucky enough to be in a different time window doing it. No one mentioned Hyperloop, right?

Also, it was glorious to see a bunch of people hitherto fans arguing about pump and dump and the health of Tesla's balance sheet on the bitcoin reddits this morning but your mileage may vary on that.

[nezumi]

I'm not interested in him using a lack of neurotypicality as an excuse for bad behaviour. It's one thing to be different but that doesn't defend being obnoxious.

This is the highlight of a very eloquent and convincing argument for me. What are the knock on effects of someone this high-profile claiming that he is a dick because he has autism. I wonder how perfectly nice people with autism think of that? What impact will this statement have on autistic service provision in the future? There are plenty of people who will just take at his word that being autistic = being a dick.

[secret squirrel]

... Also, it was glorious to see a bunch of people hitherto fans arguing about pump and dump and the health of Tesla's balance sheet on the bitcoin reddits this morning but your mileage may vary on that.

This in particular has only gotten better over the last few days. The same people who over the last couple of months have been furiously appealing to his authority as one of the "smartest people in the world" now claiming he just doesn't understand bitcoin.