[JoshCole]

Would be really great to hear someone who isn't trying to build a brand around Elon Musk hatred dig into the details. For myself, I've grown very tired of CSS. It is clear he does a lot of research - which makes his tendency to lie about facts and photoshop his sources to hide the contradiction disturbing to me.

https://littlebluena.substack.com/p/common-sense-skeptic-deb...

[gregjor]

It's hard to refute the logistics issues CSS raises. Or the radiation and lack of gravity problems. Musk frequently changes his promises so it's hard to keep up. Full self-driving? Tesla semi? Hyperloop? Solar roof tiles (since you brought up lying and faking)? Musk deserves the critics he gets.

[JoshCole]

I agree that there are real logistical issues. that is why I really would love to hear someone more honest dig into the details. I think there are real logistical issues here.

My problem is that I know that CSS just starts with a narrative and lies about facts as he moves through his narrative. I'd like to know the places where the planning fallacy is likely to be blinding people working on these problems.

His estimate of Starlink projected costs is three orders of magnitude higher than reasonable estimates I've seen. You don't get three orders of magnitude off by accident. If someone asks you to estimate the cost of a car for example and its true cost is $10,000 and you guess $10,000,000 that is really surprising - so surprising that I find it be an error term, not a surprise term to correct on. I'd like to hear more from the people that guess $10,000, not someone whose error term is being maximized because surprising things are more engaging.

This is actually material relevant to the question of his helping us to reason about these issues, because clearly funding for the travel ought to be up there as one of the single most important issues. But he's giving us three orders of magnitude of error in this central issue. Elon Musk claims one year and than it takes like five. Three orders of magnitude is different. Three orders of magnitude would be someone saying it takes one year, but then it takes 1000 years. The difference between "honest planning fallacy" and "making stuff up" seems kind of easy to discern to me. I don't know, maybe others disagree, but it doesn't feel so hard to tell the difference.

I also hold very different standards for claims about the future than I do for claims about the present and past made after research on the subject. I don't consider people who don't claim to be prophets to be required to meet the always predicts the future successfully bar; it seems kind of silly to expect that. However, it does seem pretty important that someone reporting on say, the price of a service, to give an honest price after months of research - which CSS doesn't. I'd hold a different standard for CSS if these were off the cuff videos or sharing - more like tweets - because then getting some stuff off would be reasonable. But lying about stuff that is so easily verified and photoshopping evidence to preserve the lies? Just reeks malice to me. If he was actually honest - why does he try to hide the lies?

[mlindner]

There has never been long term studies on the effects of low gravity.

On the radiation aspect, the radiation is not significant and simply increases your long term risk of cancer. It's not a show stopper by any means. It's also mostly mitigated with minimal shielding.

[HWR_14]

> someone who isn't trying to build a brand around Elon Musk hatred dig into the details

Isn't everyone who regularly publishes "trying to build a brand". And isn't everyone who covers Elon Musk critically trying to incorporate that into their brand? How do you distinguish between "I analyze Elon Musk's statements for accuracy" and "Elon Musk hatred"?

[JoshCole]

Well, he names himself Common Self Skeptic, but he has only videos about Elon Musk rather than videos about skepticism. And he just blatantly lies about facts - for example, speed test numbers, service prices, and so on.

The thing that makes it really easy to distinguish though is that facts are entangled. That ends up making lies contagious.

So when he starts talking about a government conspiracy and my surprise goes way up, it becomes pretty easy to check his facts, and realize the reason I'm so surprised is because he is lying.

As another example of the contagious nature of lies, when he lies about the projected cost of Starlink, the natural result is that anyone who thinks Starlink could be profitable is insane - it costs more than the economy, according to him, since he gave an estimate that was three orders magnitude higher than reasonable estimates. Therefore, when he moves forward to talk about Shotwell, he gets put in a situation where making his claims seem reasonable requires he continue to keep up the lies. So instead of calling her a good executive he makes sexists arguments as to to why she is so stupid. His previous lies were contagious and so he was forced into sexism in order to cover them up, because the entangled fact of a good executive having been involved in the business decisions would cast a lot of doubt on his claims.

And... it isn't that hard to criticize Elon Musk without lying? He isn't perfect, at all. I don't think its necessary for a critic to invent things to criticize rather than to just tell the truth?

[HWR_14]

I took your original post to be two different complaints. You don't like CSS because he lies and you want someone who provides details without building a brand around "Musk hatred"

I'm completely neutral to CSS. If he lies, that's bad. If he's not lying, that's not bad. I don't watch his videos.

But I think there's nothing wrong with someone who is trying to build a brand (what many content creators are trying to do) taking a firm Elon-love or Elon-hate stance. That's what I was responding to.

> it isn't that hard to criticize Elon Musk without lying

I think that's very true. I also think people who praise him lie almost as often. I don't understand why. There is plenty to criticize or praise him on that's true.

[JoshCole]

> If he lies

He lies; that is very core to my point and it isn't an if. Just fact check him. He lies. I'll save you some time:

Here is a link to an article he screenshots: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/12/spacex-starlink-satell...

Here is the time where he shows the screenshot: https://youtu.be/2vuMzGhc1cg?t=441

Here is a sample from the debunking article about him which I linked in my first post:

> 7:16 - CSS claims that the reported aspirational costs for the satellites is $250,000 each, citing this article.

> A VERY IMPORTANT NOTE ON THIS SECTION OF THE VIDEO!

> CSS screenshot the headline for this article, but removed “and Falcon 9 Costs Less than $30 Million”. Why? Because they just finished the section where they claimed Falcon 9 refurbished launches cost SpaceX $55 million each. This is a clear case of intentional dishonesty, rather than so many other instances that could be written off as merely being mistakes. It is far from the only such instance where their motives are obvious as well. Getting back to the topic at hand.

My point is that his brand is these lies. He is like a flat earther conspiracy theorist. The lies are the point. The worldview is the point. His video isn't starting with lets look at the facts and get to the truth. Its starting with lets find a narrative that conforms to a view. You don't make the number of reasoning errors he makes while being genuine. Contrasting his behavior with reasonable critics - like Munro - is very revealing. Their opinions vary based on the observed facts instead of facts varying based on the predetermined opinions.