That also do real work. I don't think it's fair to say what Elon does isn't real work or isn't important. I don't think many people would say SpaceX would be where it is today without him.
The real answer is to simply accept that real people are not one dimensional characters. They have good points and bad points. You are perfectly free to appreciate the good points while disapproving of the bad ones. Maybe there's a limit for really bad people (Hitler etc.) where you just don't want them involved in society at all, but that clearly doesn't apply to Musk. Nothing he has done is outright evil.
True, but that level of nuance likely isn’t going to make contact with those that have staunch political views - it’s worth the reminder that any company is not the CEO.
Pretty much everybody knows that a company is not the CEO, and only people with staunch political views seem to think that everybody but themselves is so stupid as to not be capable of nuance and be in need of reminding.
But people also know that CEOs tend to have a huge influence in the success or failure of a company, and founders have a not entirely negligible influence in the company existing in the first place.
> that level of nuance likely isn’t going to make contact with those that have staunch political views
Interesting; you appear to suggest that an interest in politics makes someone more stupid - in that they become incapable of appreciating a nuanced view of a topic. Is this what you mean?
On the broader topic, the “it’s the workers that do the work not the CEO, man” point you made is often irrelevant to the argument it appears in, and amusingly (given it’s often levelled against him) is weakest in Musk’s case. When a CEO is just an interchangeable face at the top of an established company hierarchy, who has limited influence on the company for their tenure, it’s well taken. But in the case of SpaceX (definitely) and Tesla (probably) those companies likely wouldn’t exist at all (or wouldn’t exist in their current form) without the direct hands-on work and direction from Musk himself. Yes, he doesn’t construct or weld things himself, but that’s already obvious to any rational observer of the world; he employs many thousands for those and other roles, because that’s just how companies scale and operate.
> Interesting; you appear to suggest that an interest in politics makes someone more stupid - in that they become incapable of appreciating a nuanced view of a topic. Is this what you mean?
Not who you're replying to, but I think there's very strong selection effe ts in play where those more likely to speak up with passion in public places like this are more likely to lack nuance in their political views.
So it's mostly not that those with an interest in politics (even a strong interest) are less nuanced (though they probably are somewhat, as being bad at nuance makes political radicalization more likely), but that those with an interest but nuanced views will have a harder time actually bashing out a comment on the subject and will think it less likely they will be able to convince anyone (because its not a simple matter).
Also worth noting that one can be strongly interested in politics (e.g. political scientist) and hold neutral policy views.
So the comment was aimed at the poster with strong enough political views that they felt the need to post in this forum that their support for the launch was affected by it - where as most folks would not.
In this case, it’s less about interest and more about behavior.
Staunch means "steadfast in loyalty or principle". Someone who doesn't change their mind and has unwavering political opinions is kinda by definition less likely to appreciate nuanced viewpoints.
I'm not sure how you made the leap to "interest in politics = more stupid".
You’re overthinking it. The comment was aimed at OP (and personas like it) suggesting difficulty supporting the launch due to Musks politics.
And yes, folks leaning toward hard edges of a political spectrum reliably demonstrate lack of nuanced thinking in my experience because it involves compromise, something you see less of as you approach the aforementioned edges.
Yeah I mean when you let him directly get involved with something, we get the Cybertruck, which I believe is going to be a huge failure (but we'll see).
To me it seems like he's just hyping up things that are never going to happen while a lot of the engineers and designers actually focus on the things that make money.
> the Cybertruck, which I believe is going to be a huge failure (but we'll see).
I'd probably take that bet, although of course it depends how we define success vs. failure.
I suspect short-to-medium term, it will be a big success, as there's a lot of pent-up desire for one: hardcore Tesla fans, Tesla fans who want a pickup, people that like to be first-movers, people that like how it looks, people that want a pickup and appreciate the benefits that Tesla still brings (efficiency, supercharger network, etc.), and so on. The billion-dollar question, of course, is how it will fare in the market once that initial demand has been satisfied.
--
Aside from this, the interesting thing about the Cybertruck is that originally, the odd looks and build style (i.e. the flat sheets of stainless steel) were meant to be engineering-driven: the concept discussed on stage when it was first announced was that it was an exoskeleton, or a stressed-skin design, meaning that in theory it wouldn't need a traditional chassis, and would have weight-savings over a traditional pickup (or car) design. IIRC there was talk of a Model 2 (i.e. a smaller hatchback than the M3) being built using the same approach.
Then, somewhere along the line, this was lost (too difficult? or always just a pipedream?) and it was ultimately built using a very similar approach to Tesla's other cars, without the benefits originally discussed. I'm interested whether we'll learn what happened with this, one day.
As lazy as it seems, I’ve made a couple contributions to Neovim whereas I probably wouldn’t have bothered if I first had to figure out a mailing list flow.
