Elon Musk: Force for anthropic advancement or self-serving con-artist?

The comparison I'd prefer is with Thomas Edison.


A businessman who developed the concept of running teams of engineers and scientists.

And like Edison, much of his supposed successes are either a mythical self-serving image created by a businessman trying to pretend to be a scientist, or just straight ripping off actual innovators and stealing and taking credit for their ideas.
 
Meanwhile, Musk has apparently only just learnt (at the age of 53!) that some jokes you make in private are not suitable for public airing. Maybe he's been too rich and privileged to have anyone tell him (or for him to take notice).


1726566954031.png
 
And like Edison, much of his supposed successes are either a mythical self-serving image created by a businessman trying to pretend to be a scientist, or just straight ripping off actual innovators and stealing and taking credit for their ideas.
And in particular, Tesla.
 
That would depend on specifics. Most criticism of Musk is valid. He tries too hard to be an edgy culture warrior. Using members of his family to make political points is off putting, even if he genuinely believes those points. Airing the family stuff out is imo a betrayal. Generally, though, I think his politics turn the intensity of criticism up past where it should realistically be. Volume on 8, when it should be on 6.

The better question to me is "what changes". There will be another Musk to emerge from the next generation, surely, just as condemned, too. The only thing that realistically will change is that the ball is rolling on EVs and to some extent, the private sector is at least looking at space travel.
So what criticism of Musk isn't valid?
I'm mocking Mysk if that's not apparent.
No, it's not. The man is beyond parody.
1726566954031.png
[/URL]
This reminds me of everyone laughing to Dr. Evil's tune.
 
I took Musks statement as “isn’t this clear evidence the democrats are behind the attempts as they are endlessly corrupt deep staters who will stop at nothing”
 
So what criticism of Musk isn't valid?
The general pattern is to go with the least charitable interpretation because the interpreter wants to tear him down from the beginning.

There have been suggestions by people who worked at SpaceX that he is kept away from meddling with projects. I'm sure this is almost certainly true.

If it's claimed from that that his impact on space exploration generally is negative, and has always been negative? I don't think that's really valid. Nah. Still organized the company.
 
View attachment 703394

Musk has been a controversial figure who in recent years is more scrutinized by the public. Part of the scrutiny has been on his often extravagant claims to be gifted in STEM subjects (science/math etc), while he is not a scientist or mathematician. Another focal point has been the frequent false promises he made to buyers of his products or stock, including tech and machinery which either remains unavailable or manifests only with extreme delays (eg the Cybertruck for the latter and full driving car AI or trips to Mars for the former).
Musk does have a sizable group of supporters, but it looks like he won't ever again enjoy the absence of negative press, or absence of intense scrutiny, that he did while rising to great prominence.

This thread is meant for discussions about whether Musk is a con-artist in regards to how he presents himself, or if any of his companies may counterbalance that with useful tech. To keep it updated, posts from the news are encouraged :)

Moderator Action: New Musk thread. Keep discussion on-topic. Keep things civil and do not attack one another. Don't quote posts from the old thread. Violators may receive thread bans. -lymond

It's just annoying tribalism. Musk would be celebrated & loved for Starship, Starlink, self driving cars - if he would support Democrats (As he did years ago). Now, that he shifted to Republicans, the same people that celebrated him suddenly invent all kinds of accusations. And the Republicans celebrate him.

As soon as he goes back to supporting Democrats, the Democrats will love him again.

This has *nothing* to do with what Musk or others do or say. The only relevant question is what political tribe they support.
 
If it's claimed from that that his impact on space exploration generally is negative, and has always been negative?
Has this been claimed? Or is this another hypothetical disconnected from the claims and criticism actually being made? I find it interesting that you're focusing on SpaceX, arguably the most successful out of his business ventures. Meanwhile most criticism I see comes from his management of Tesla, or Twitter (or Neuralink).

It's just annoying tribalism. Musk would be celebrated & loved for Starship, Starlink, self driving cars - if he would support Democrats (As he did years ago).
I couldn't give a flying monkey which US political party Musk supports. I recommend against blaming everything on "tribalism".
 
I couldn't give a flying monkey which US political party Musk supports. I recommend against blaming everything on "tribalism".

No, left and right exists in all kinds of countries. I blame 90% of these conflicts on tribalism.

Take the absurd criticism of JK Rowling. It doesn't have *anything* to do with Rowling saying that genes determine sex. It's just that currently this statement is associated with conservative parties. And that's why there are people burning Harry Potter books & threatening to murder JK Rowling.

These people don't care about biology, they only care about their tribe.
 
Criticism of JK Rowling is pretty much limited to the anglosphere, most everywhere else they couldn't care less, Musk is in a different category interfering everywhere from Brazil to Ukraine no ?
 
Musk is more like an entrepreneur with deep business associations to various venture capitalists and inventors realizing his ideas for him.

I admire what he achieved with SpaceX. Also, he didn't actually found Tesla Motors, like so many of his fans would like you to believe.
 
If we were going to celebrate Musk for self-driving cars, first we'd need some in action.

Besides which, if you are terminally online and spend much of that time dropping really terrible takes on most things, people are going to clown on you. The size of your bank account or your political influence shouldn't have any impact on that.
 
Musk is more like an entrepreneur with deep business associations to various venture capitalists and inventors realizing his ideas for him.
It's amazing what you can do with a can-do attitude and literal emeralds in your pocket. I feel like one of those is more important than the other though :D
 
Or is this another hypothetical disconnected from the claims and criticism actually being made
Yes. Deliberately. Examples could be picked, but then new thread would become old thread.
I find it interesting that you're focusing on SpaceX, arguably the most successful out of his business ventures. Meanwhile most criticism I see comes from his management of Tesla, or Twitter (or Neuralink
Space exploration is the future.
 

That's certainly a self-driving car, but I don't see why we should be celebrating Musk for that. He bought the company that made that car and (of course) there have been attempts to make self-driving cars for decades now. If we're going to praise him unconditionally (or, rather, blame any of his detractors on mere tribalism), shouldn't he have done something genuinely useful or innovative?
 
Back
Top Bottom