Comment by qoez
20 hours ago
The best counter argument to that is that he did manage to predict/make into reality electric vehicles (when going into that industry was crazy) and reusable rockets. If someone makes a thousand moonshot attempts but still succeeds with two that's impressive.
Electric vehicles were the first types of cars invented.
Musk also bought into Tesla.
So its not like he invented some kind of alien technology.
It was always about having good enough marketing to permit 10 years of R&D to make the car actually attractive.
> Electric vehicles were the first types of cars invented.
Where is this claim coming from? I don't see that in the history of the automobile wiki [1], and given that the first early motorized carriages were a century before Ben Franklin flew a kite I have to assume they were electric vehicles.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_automobile
They were also mass produced before Tesla.
Nobody with any knowledge at all is claiming that Elon Musk invented electric cars.
The simple truth is that he made electric cars viable competitors to gas-powered cars. His genius is not that he invented them, it's that he profitably manufactured decently reliable cars for a price that lots of people found attractive.
You can try and dismiss it as "marketing," but things like the Gigapress and FSD/Autopilot are impressive technical achievements in their own right. Even more impressive is that he built up a new car company that didn't fold and has had the best selling car in the US for significant chunks of time.
I don't like the guy, I think that FSD is dangerous, and I will never buy a Tesla for as long as he's in charge, but it's crazy that so many people feel the need to discredit his achievements. Sure, he benefited from selling carbon credits and EV subsidies, but if it were such an easy thing to do why did it take so long for anyone else to sell a good EV?
Gigapress has almost nothing to do with Tesla. It is just the name given by Tesla to a process they purchase from a third party vendor(Idra Group). Tesla was the first to use this product for large scale automotive production though.
1 reply →
Musk's behaviors should be separated into before drugs and after drugs. Since the day he smoked pot on camera, it's been all downhill.
13 replies →
> it's that he profitably manufactured decently reliable cars for a price that lots of people found attractive.
Huh? Nearly all of his profit was government subsidies designed to push EV adoption. And now he’s trying to pull the ladder up behind him.
Tesla has not been profitable for the vast majority of its existence when it comes to selling a car for more money than it takes to produce.
1 reply →
Something is missing here. Once you get two moonshots done, you have free pass to claim anything any number of times with zero results? I cannot agree.
he did manage to predict/make into reality electric vehicles (when going into that industry was crazy)
Nissan might like a word about that.
Nissan made a golf cart with an ecobox car cabin.
That’s underselling the Leaf quite a lot. The original 2011 model had 107 HP and 207 ft-lb of torque (later bumped to 147 and 236, respectively), which puts it handily above several gas models of gas cars that don’t get labeled as golf carts. It was a perfectly fine car, it just had a poor battery.
5 replies →
Yes, early Tesla cabins just oozed luxury, for twice or more what the Leaf cost. :eyeroll: Regardless, Nissan put out production EVs before Tesla did, accouterments aside.
So Elon invented selling a slightly more expensive EV in a state with generous government support for this?
A business plan that the real Tesla founders actually came up with because they'd seen Silicon Valley homes with Porsches and Prius parked next to each other and thought they could combine those two things?
> he did manage to predict/make into reality electric vehicles
I miss the morning delivery of milk to the doorstep. And the milk carts that used to deliver it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_float
Likewise, but those were famously slow. Might have been expandable into other delivery vehicles, but neither the batteries nor the motors were up to being commuter vehicles… well, possibly electric bicycles back then, the European Blue Banana* was better positioned than much of the world to commute by bike, but not much more than that in performance or geography until much more recently.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Banana
But they weren’t designed as a commuter car. THey were designed to deliver milk.
1 reply →
[flagged]
The Lancet[1] forecasted Musk's 'bit of a jerk' elimination of USAID[1] will cause a death toll that puts him around 10x that of Pol Pot.
> Projections suggest that ongoing deep funding cuts—combined with the potential dismantling of the agency—could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4·5 million deaths among children younger than 5 years.
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Lancet lost all credibility long ago. They had to retract several seminal papers on autism and vaccines as well as Covid.
USAID isn’t an aid organization, it’s a front for CIA efforts internationally. It funded CORDS during the Vietnam War which was a paramilitary force.
DOGE didn’t get rid of USAID, Rubio did day one (since it falls under the State Department).
You mean Trump's elimination of USAID? You really think he's worse than Hitler?
3 replies →
Traditionally it’s TWO minutes of hate at a selected government target after your morning exercise program. To do otherwise is wrongthink
Reusable rockets are a rehash of old tech that was considered - at the time - not economically feasible; Given how subject to interpretation spacex commercial numbers are, there is nothing indicating a clear cost or efficiency advantage compared with traditional launch systems so far. What we clearly know is that using software development methodologies to building critical hardware is as a bad idea as it sounds.
I’ve got as much of a distaste for Musk as anybody else these days, but SpaceX’s methodology has if nothing else netted them velocity and turnaround times that no other company or governmental space agency has been able to hold a candle to thus far, and do it with a very low failure rate. They’re clearly doing something right.
Weird hill to die on in 2025
If you had said this in 2015, we would be nodding along
tbh, it still isn't economically feasible. spacex 'cheated' to achieving reuse by just making the the entire plumbing and engine assembly bolt-on to the lower stage on F9 and they just replace that every time one is 'reused'. to my knowledge, they still haven't reused an engine without either replacing the nozzle, turbopumps or both, which are so expensive that reuse might actually cost them more money in the end for the benefit of faster turnaround times in years where launches are booked heavily.
There is no “subject to interpretation”. The costs they charge for launches are lower than any other provider by a significant margin. And fundraising docs have shown many times that the Falcon launches make money and Starlink was just starting to make money about 1.5 years ago.
> What we clearly know is that using software development methodologies to building critical hardware is as a bad idea as it sounds.
This methodology is what provides high speed, low latency internet to the South Pole and every other spot on earth allowed by regulatory.
Yeah, Falcon rockets are a regular workhorse kinda rockets. Nothing special about them. NASA could have made their own but someone decided it needs to be outsourced.
I mean they did a fine job there, but nothing to write home about IMHO.
And on the topic of reusability I can't really find much info besides that it is just partially reusable. Not sure what the point of it actually is. I guess what matters is the launch price?
The question I still have it, wasn't SpaceX supposed to get USA back on the moon? And I heard they got billions in subsidies but have nothing to show for it.
1 reply →
Spacex is a private company; this means "we" know nothing about actual costs. Fundraising documents dont show this either, as they are a washed-down version for, well, fundraising purposes. As an investor, it is common practice to sign an NDA just to get access to actual somewhat relevant numbers, so any actual relevant info isnt public.
Also it seems you conflate "making money" with being profitable - its not the same thing. A private company can easily "massage" the PNL sheet to present itself as at a break-even point, and some back-of-the-napkin calculation seems to point to it. Granted, I may be wrong, but the fact is we don't know for sure.
You also seem to not be aware that there are multiple internet satellite providers with south pole coverage, as well as other regions in the globe.