[mike_hearn]

I've also read the biography. It's clear that he's stable and trustworthy enough to run multiple large companies, assemble a loyal force of allies who follow him around to his different ventures, a force that includes multiple family members, and win long term government contracts.

The conclusion Isaacson himself reached is that Musk has an extraordinary need for intensity and challenge, to the extent that he becomes uncomfortable and unhappy if there isn't something big riding right on the edge of going spectacularly wrong. This is a trait that most people don't have, and it's ideal for doing the kinds of things he does. But don't mistake that need for intensity for being unstable or dishonest.

[consteval]

Au Contraire, don't mistake drive and ambition for being a good person. It's not uncommon for highly successful people to be awful. Typically, you need to be bone headed, rude, highly opinionated. Often you need to lie and steal.

Just because Musk has financial success does not mean he isn't awful. In fact, financial success is probably one of the worst indicators of being a person of high integrity.

[mike_hearn]

I didn't mention "being a good person" anywhere, that's not the question at hand largely because I don't think it's a usefully complex way to think about people.

[consteval]

Ok, replace that word with stable and trustworthy, which you did say. I get very frustrated with people who play pedantic games. I know you understand what I'm saying. You're not being clever by doing this. All you're showing is that you don't have an argument or any useful thoughts to add, but you love the sound of your own voice, so you'll butt in with pedantic bullshit. It doesn't make you look smart; it makes you look pathetic and conceited.