[bischofs]

This article started out good but got pretty lazy toward the end. "This idea is stupid" is not a good description.

Also I think Elon is generally looking at problems we have (traffic congestion, expensive space travel, fossil fuel cars) and trying different things to fix them with his considerable funding. Why is this a problem?

It's much easier to criticize others ideas on a blog then it is to generate and execute ideas yourself.

[stcredzero]

This article started out good but got pretty lazy toward the end.

It started getting lazy a lot sooner than the end. The "debunking" by pointing out that there are some destinations that are more than 30 minutes away? That's not the actual position they were presenting. There is a lot of the world's population which lives in a strategically drawn circle of that travel radius. They know full well that going halfway around will take a bit longer. Also, the issue of flying around bombs is already mitigated by SpaceX's current practices with reusable Falcon boosters. (Namely that on approach, the trajectory is designed such that everything has to go right for the booster to do other than land in the ocean. Also, by the time the ship gets to the end of a flight, it will be mostly empty, so the explosion risk will be much less than 20kt.) The fact that none of that is talked about indicates to me that this is a hit piece.

[ams6110]

How can travel by rocket even be considered in today's world? Are Falcon launches carbon neutral?

[maccam94]

No, but it might be comparable or better than airplanes.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/07/musks-suborbital-flight...

And for the moment, flights are nowhere near numerous enough to have any effect on CO2 levels.

[wpietri]

For each thing, there's a big question whether he's really trying to fix it or is just showboating. The useless submarine for the Thai cave rescue is a pretty clear example of the latter. SpaceX seems to be doing well, but Tesla's still an open question; they've had big production problems, they've lost execs left and right, they've had just one profitable quarter, and their cars get decidedly mixed reviews. [1]

Also, I think Musk's extensive self-promotion means that public criticism is entirely within bounds. Especially given Musk's dedication to criticizing his critics, like the Thai cave diver he called a pedophile. Or his obsession with people shorting Telsa.

[1] E.g., https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2018-tesla-model-3-test...

[toofy]

> ...they've lost execs left and right, they've had just one profitable quarter...

Im really not a Musk fanboy and I really don’t want to come across as anti-market as I recognize the market’s incredible ability to drive some innovation, but I’d like to point out how markets which are intrinsically linked to quarterly growth can often lead to a race to the bottom and can often lead to a serious reluctance to pursue big experiments—the kind of experiments which can take humanity to the next level.

I certainly don’t know the answer but we need a way to incentivize large risks which, when successful, have a high likelihood to reward humanity.

As the above post illustrates, a system which measures success as quarterly growth is disincentivising big projects and may be making us risk averse on big research, the kind of research and risks we very badly need right now.

[wpietri]

As one of the Long Now's early members, I definitely agree that markets are too short-sighted. But that has nothing to do with Musk's inability to retain key staff. And ongoing losses are definitionally unsustainable.

Big experiments are only good if they need to be big. Otherwise, they're just wasteful. That waste a) raises risk unnecessarily, b) starves others good experiments of capital, and c) makes people less willing to experiment.

Measured in those terms, I think Musk is particularly bad, and it's due to his need to showboat. The manufacturing philosophy, Lean (or TPS) was brought to America right in the building he occupies. But he has made a raft of mistakes, ignoring that history, consuming far more capital and creating more risk than needed to gain any particular learning that Tesla has produced.

In contrast, look at how Toyota tackled the Prius. They also pioneered an entirely new category of eco-friendly car. But they did it quietly and patiently. It's now one of the world's top-selling cars, and sparked widespread interest in greener living. I don't think they've published their capital costs, but looking at their gradual production ramp-up, I suspect they were much better experimenter than Musk has been at Telsa.

[toofy]

(Edit to add: I’m certain this is a case of looking at the past with rose colored glasses but when I hear stories or look at movies, books, shows, etc... from the 50s, 60s, and 70s there seemed to be an optimism, a feeling present in the people that The Future was just around the corner, that there were big thinkers doing big things. That our brightest minds were working to launch humanity to another level. It worries me that we don’t seem to have this collective sense of optimism anymore. Now it almost feels like we’re just waiting for our greatest minds to figure out a way to drive ads directly into our brain. I think this lost optimism is why Musk’s projects make me smile a little. End Edit)

I think we’re mostly in agreement regarding Musk himself, I’m no expert on the guy, mostly just casual reading when he makes the news. His showboating has definitely seemed kind of unnecessary, though if I’m being my most charitable, I would say he may be showboating in an effort to inspire people to think and act on these large problems we face. And if I’m at my most uncharitable I might say it’s all an ego stroke. I honestly have no idea where his thinking really is on that spectrum.

Regarding large risky projects, the three that come to mind from Musk are SpaceX, Tesla, and the hyperloop thing. I personally believe all three of these are absolutely worth the risk and that all three are in the general direction of major changes humanity needs to turn.

Making a sexy, luxury, sporty electric car ubiquitous will, in my opinion, be a major step forward. Think of how many suburban folks we could never convince to buy a Prius, solely because its not as sexy as the neighbor’s car, or the masses of hillbillies who don’t need but surely love their massive trucks. Many of those people sneer at a Prius driver much the same way a racist sneers at a brown immigrant. My initial instincts would be to see this sneering and say “Fuck em, they’re just stuck in their ways, they’ll come around when electric is their only option” but I suspect Musk’s approach of building a sexy, fast, and luxurious car will do more to onboard the hillbillies and vanity-prone-keep-up-with-the-Jones-suburbanites than a Prius ever will. Also his public twitter antics with Australia’s power grid was an interesting study on how to snatch the world’s attention and bring awareness to the technology.

SpaceX seems rather important as a concept, to me anyway. But I can definitely understand why some people wouldn’t mark it as a priority.

The hyperloop project is a direction I’d love to see humanity look towards. Not necessarily the specific idea of a hyperloop, but ffs, lets at least start exploring ideas for new modes of mid-distance transportation.

Like I said, I’m no expert on the guy, but I do appreciate a risk taker who takes the risk-taking-urge and channels the energy towards thinking big and attacking some our collective problems.

All of that said, I can definitely understand why he rubs some people the wrong way.

[wpietri]

Classist sneering aside, your theory that truck-driving hillbillies will buy Teslas is absurd. What they're going to buy is trucks. Which are currently being pioneered by add-on makers:

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1115487_xl-hybrids-adds...

And which will be made by Toyota in volume:

https://www.equipmentworld.com/toyota-to-offer-electric-powe...

Moreover, even if you were right, that Tesla's real innovation is marketing electric vehicles to non-Prius audiences, there's no particular reason to think he had to spend $15 billion of other people's money building (and rebuilding) factories to conduct some marketing experiments. It would have been much easier to go the add-on/rebuild route, which has been going on in the auto world for decades. Or he could have just done a design/marketing partnership with some carmaker. It would have cost far less and achieved just as much.

The reason he didn't is his enormous vanity. I think it would have been much better to spend $1-5 billion on an approach like that so we could spend another $10-14 billion on other long-term, longshot projects.

[toofy]

Wow you’re very passionate in your dislike of Musk and have clearly put far more thought into him than I have. I really don’t study the guy, I was just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ll let ya carry on with your anti-Musk crusade. Good luck!

[bischofs]

Probably some showboating going on, but who cares? Let the guy do his thing; it doesn't hurt me at all and the industries he's in probably need some stirring up.

As for Tesla whether they succeed or fail it's great for the automotive industry - getting the old oem giants off their wallets and looking over their shoulder is great for the consumers.

[dforrestwilson]

^ This.

For someone who claims to be dedicated to saving the world he (1) is receiving one hell of an executive package and (2) spending a significant amount of time being a rude asshole to critics.

[Robotbeat]

Those things can be simultaneously true.

[annerajb]

His pay package does not come into effect until Tesla network triples in a few years. Supposedly he doesn't claim the salary checks / have a salary at Tesla and his regular stuff seems to be mostly margin out to pay for stuff assume his income comes from SpaceX .