Elon Musk


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 381 - 400 of total 867 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>

Andrzej Citkowicz far away from Poland
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 15, 2018 - 10:29pm PT
Leave my chain alone, Reilly!

Credit: moosedrool


Big Wall climber
Jun 15, 2018 - 10:40pm PT
I saw a Tesla on f#%%ing fire right after work today, flames shooting out of the front wheel well. Santa Monica Blvd and Fairfax.

It seems like that would have to be the battery pack? Either that or they're trying to integrate that Boring Flamethrower rig into the car. Sort it out, Elon.

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Jun 16, 2018 - 10:24am PT
Musk has positioned Tesla as a growth company, but he just had to lay off 9% of his employees. That, and the company is having problems with their fundamental task: building cars. Today car makers are enjoying a boom while Tesla is shrinking. I think we're about to see the ideals of the tech world collide head on with the realities of the car making world.

You know the old adage, buy low sell high? Now might be the time to do the latter.
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Jun 16, 2018 - 12:09pm PT
Tesla will be filling chap 11

It is certainly possible Musk runs it into chap 11. I still think it would be a better move to sell it to another car maker before it got to that point. Musk would probably only do that if investors really forced him to, but that could happen.

And even though I think the odds are against him, I don't rule out the possibility that Tesla gets through this rough patch and some day becomes a profitable company.

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 16, 2018 - 06:12pm PT
It is certainly possible Musk runs it into chap 11


If you retards ever read my posts (and anything else other than The Daily Worker) you would recall that not long ago I posted Tesla’s Altman Z-Score, a respected and quite reliable measure of a firm’s liklihood to go bankrupt. Solvent firms run in the mid to high 4’s. Anything less than 3 is cause for grave concern. Below 1.8 and it’s time to call the undertaker. Tesla’s, as of only a few week’s ago, was 1.3!!!!! Glowing press releases and Chairman Musk rants ain’t gonna fix that.

Big Wall climber
Jun 16, 2018 - 06:49pm PT
If you fine fellows think I was kidding about the Tesla on fire, here's some video. I knew with the ubiquity of video recording on every cell phone, someone in that crowd would record it:

T Hocking

Trad climber
Redding, Ca
Jun 16, 2018 - 07:01pm PT

they're trying to integrate that Boring Flamethrower rig into the car.

That's the new Tesla Barbeque option fer grillin weenies n such on the go. :)


Andrzej Citkowicz far away from Poland
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 16, 2018 - 07:08pm PT
LOL, Tad!

Reilly, so why do you have TSLA in your portfolio?


Trad climber
Jun 16, 2018 - 09:58pm PT
17,000 cars burn each year in the US but one Tesla makes the news. 17,000 climbers summit a route each year but one rope soloing couple falls off el Cap and my mom freaks out that I’m headed out climbing since that’s all the news talks about. Even though a gas car burns four times more often than a battery car and a newb raps off his rope more often than those of us who have been climbing for 20+ years.
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Jun 16, 2018 - 10:25pm PT

Your free association with one of these things being not like the other leads me to ask you where you think the electricity comes from in regions that don't benefit from a hydro electric power resource.

Big Wall climber
Jun 16, 2018 - 10:33pm PT
Well, Tooth, I wasn't a few feet away from those other 17,000.
It was quite impressive to see what looked like a giant road flare shooting 2' flames out of the wheel well.

The majors all have BEVs in their pipelines with Jaguar set to drop one fairly soon.

And unlike the egotistical weirdo Musk, the majors know how to build cars, at scale, quickly and have the facilities to do so. Tesla will be bankrupt within 10 years, likely sooner. They may hang around like a zombie husk, akin to how Sears has, but the only thing that distinguishes them is being a BEV, and that is an easy hurdle for the majors to clear. Enjoy your overpriced golf cart, and please avoid the self driving "feature" if you want to stay alive.

Andrzej Citkowicz far away from Poland
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 17, 2018 - 12:21am PT
I don’t give a damn what happens to Tesla. I keep TSLA out of curiosity.

What fascinates me, is Elon Musk. I hope he succeeds, if not financially then in his vision.

People like Musk are visionaries, they are not prophets, they make mistakes. And that’s OK. If only a few of Musk’s ideas pan out, we’ll all benefit from them. If he fails, there will be no harm. (For those who think Musk’s ideas hurt people, look up the statistics).

The man is trying to tackle some of the biggest problems of our times. If I could help him, I would.

Wouldn’t you?

Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Jun 17, 2018 - 12:27am PT
Moose, I have a pair of really nice Nike trainers, still in their box. You can have them for free if you accept delivery from your post surgery bunk bed.

Andrzej Citkowicz far away from Poland
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 17, 2018 - 01:07am PT
Jim, translate, please.


Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jun 17, 2018 - 04:15am PT
Moose, I suspect he is hoping you don’t suffer unduly from yer recto-cranial infarction.

The man is trying to tackle some of the biggest problems of our times.
Going to Mars is a problem? It’s not even a First World problem! And please don’t disillusion me by telling us you think his elitist subterranean white elephant benefits anything remotely close to the majority of us. And the problem of building cars economically is only a problem for him, and his crankloon kool-aid drinking investors.

BTW, I think I erred in saying I have much TSLA stock. I sold most of my funds with it quite a while ago and put the money into bonds. I’m sure I still have some but I haven’t bothered to look.
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Jun 17, 2018 - 05:48am PT
Here ya go, Moose:


Big Wall climber
Jun 17, 2018 - 07:06am PT
I keep hearing "he's a visionary". I disagree.

He's an egotist.

Solving the world's problems? The "hyperloop" solves nothing and is on net inferior to existing solutions. Going to Mars solves nothing. A vanity company making flamethrowers solves nothing. There is nothing visionary about solar cells on a roof - but something very problematic with the cells being built into the roofing material itself.

There is nothing "visionary" about a projectile with a re-usable casing - I've reloaded my own rifle ammunition for 30 years. There is nothing visionary about a battery-pack based home power supply, as thousands of bush cabin owners with a bank of 12v can attest.

If he were scaling carbon sequestration machines, crusading for world wide distribution of free birth control, and scaling clean power driven desalination plants, I'd view him differently. But he's not. And he's starting to melt down publicly, I have to say the schadenfreude is strong as this over-hyped blowhard gets taken down a peg.

Trad climber
Jun 17, 2018 - 07:26am PT
I sell carbon sequestering machines. They are called trees.

If you are worried about powering electricity with dirty coal plants or something , look at the stars and what power has been added this year and what is in the pipeline. The grid is getting cleaner and has the possibility to go all non carbon producing. Gasoline cars do not have that trend or option. I’ll keep my overpriced golf cart since it is run by falling water and sunlight here and it can outrun any car that doesn’t do 0-60 in 3.4 seconds.

Here's a good article from the dailykos

offgrids hotlist
Share this article

Upfront: If you think that anything is justified against a person simply because that person is wealthy, this is not an article for you. If you think it’s okay to lie, mislead, or otherwise attack a person simply because of their financial status, consequences be damned, then you should probably look elsewhere. You won’t have far to look.

We, Model 3 owners and people on the waiting list, have noticed a strange, disturbing, but all too explicable trend whenever the topic of Tesla comes up with people who don’t follow the company in detail.

“Tesla… didn’t they go bankrupt?”
“Too bad you’re never going to get your car, given that they’re going bankrupt. They lose money on every car they sell.”
“Isn’t that that car that killed people?”
“I wouldn’t get into one, with all those fires.”
“But all their management is fleeing!”
“I can’t support Tesla, they treat their workers terribly.”
Yet the reasons for these sorts of reactions, as frustrating as they are, are all too clear. Let us begin with the basics.

1. It’s hard to overstate how much people stand to lose from Tesla’s success.

Contrary to a newly emerging narrative that Tesla has “had it easy” in the press, Tesla has been smeared from Day 1. Back in the Roadster Days, TTAC for example ran a “Tesla Deathwatch” series, supposedly counting down the days until Tesla’s inevitable bankruptcy. Top Gear famously staged a scene where the Roadster supposedly ran out of power on the track and had to be pushed off (it didn’t), suffered a dangerous brake failure (it only suffered a blown fuse and never lost braking power), and a bunch of myths about EVs in general and the Roadster in particular, concerning charge time, range, and general usability.

But then, it was just an ideology at stake. Today it’s much, much bigger.

Tesla is the most shorted stock in the United States — 10,7 billion dollars bet against it. What does this mean? In short selling, you pay a stockholder interest to “borrow” their shares, which you promptly sell, with an obligation to buy them back for the stockholder later. Because these stockholders would not have otherwise sold their stock, it injects new stock into the market, which depresses the stock value. Inversely, when shorts cover their position by buying the stock back later, this creates extra buying that otherwise wouldn’t have happened, elevating the price.

Short selling is always dangerous, but it’s unusually dangerous when a large portion of the stock is in short positions. The downside to a short position is technically unlimited; if you shorted a stock at $1 a share and it rose to $1 million a share, your losses would be a million times your investment. To prevent shorts from getting into a situation that they can’t get out of, short positions come with contractual obligations to cover their shorts (aka, buy back the stock) if the stock price rises too much. However, as shorts buy back stock, this raises the price of the stock, which can trigger other shorts to be forced to cover. This self-perpetuating cycle is known as a short squeeze. The more of a company’s stock is shorted, the more of a risk there is for a short squeeze, and the more the price will spike during it; in a Tesla short squeeze, the shorts would have to buy nearly a quarter of all of the stock in the market in a relatively short period of time. But most entities holding Tesla’s stock are long-term investors, and correspondingly don’t want to sell. This puts even more upward pressure on the stock.

Tesla has gone through several short squeezes before (due to the large number of people who either don’t believe in EVs, don’t believe in automotive upstarts, or just simply don’t like Musk). But never on this scale. To reiterate, if Tesla’s stock rises too much, people with 10,7 billion dollars bet against Tesla stand to utterly lose their shirt

So far, they’ve managed to control this. As production delays with the Model 3 have been being resolved and the company moves toward an increasingly clear road to profitability in Q3/Q4, short sellers have been increasing their short positions, offsetting the gains in Tesla’s stock that would normally occur.

But this tactic has run out of rope; they’re running out of stock to short. Only a fraction of the available stock is in institutions that lend to short sellers; they cannot endlessly borrow more to sell, and what remains is now charging much higher interest rates to do so.

Literally the only thing short sellers can do at this point to try to hold the price down is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). And they have $10,7 billion dollars on the line in order to do so.

2. It should be understood who, exactly, the shorts are betting against.

When people picture Tesla’s stock holders, they generally picture a bunch of silicon valley hippies investing to save Mother Earth. Reality, however, tells a different story. The largest owners of Tesla stock are, in order:

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (9.21%)
Fidelity Management and Research Company (8,23%)
Baillie Gifford & Co Limited. (7,53%)
Tencent Holdings Ltd (4,95%)
Vanguard Group Inc (4.20%)
Capital World Investors (2.62%)
BlackRock Institutional Trust Company (2.04%)
Jennison Associates LLC (2.00%)
BlackRock Inc (1.29%)
State Street Corp (1.47%)
BAMCO Inc (0.96%)
Invesco PowerShares Capital Mgmt LLC (0.81%)
Susquehanna Financial Group, LLLP (0.75%)
PRIMECAP Management Company (0.65%)
Geode Capital Management, LLC (0.61%)
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (0.57%)
Morgan Stanley & Co Inc (0,55%)

Around 3/4ths of Tesla’s stock is held by major institutional investors — companies who have built their empires based on choosing good stocks. Furthermore, institutional investors have recently been increasing their stakes in the company.

The shorts aren’t betting against dirty ignorant hippies that Tesla is going to fail. They’re betting against ruthless Wall Street bean counters.

Why did these firms invest?

3. Tesla’s vehicles have large margins.

A common myth is that Tesla loses money on every car they sell. This can only be arrived at by the most naive of calculations: taking their quarterly losses and dividing by the number of vehicles sold. But Tesla has been spending massive amounts of money on capex in order to build huge factories and expand their store, service and charging networks in advance of the flood of new Model 3s. Rapidly growing companies run negatives (see Amazon), and it’d be utterly irresponsible of them not to. No investor in such a company wants the company to start paying dividends when they’re small; they want them running at as much of a loss as they can sustain while they divert all of their funds into scaleup.

So how does Tesla actually do on a per-vehicle basis? To that, we turn to the quarterly reports. Before Model 3 production became significant — aka, just S and X sales — Tesla was earning a 25% non-GAAP margin / 27,9% GAAP margin in their automotive division. These are very healthy margins. As Model 3 production ramped up — and famously encountered difficulty — Tesla’s gross margins fell, bottoming out at 13,8% non-GAAP and 18,3% GAAP, before rising back to 18,8% non-GAAP and 19,7% margin.

Now, working against Tesla’s budget sheets has always been two big line items: research and development, and SG&A (Sales, General & Administrative expense). The first, however, rises little to none in proportion to the volume of vehicles being manufactured. The latter rises somewhat in proportion to manufacturing volume, but less than linearly, and more to the point you have to pay much of it in advance of reaching high volumes. In short, over the coming years, these will become swamped by the (ever growing) automotive margins. Nothing to mention Tesla’s emerging solar and energy storage product lines, both of which should start becoming significant late this year.

4. Let’s just pretend that none of that was true.

And let’s pretend that Tesla was actually in trouble, for the sake of argument.

Tesla has significant physical assets which they can borrow against which they have not yet borrowed from
Tesla can reduce R&D at will (and to a lesser extent, SG&A) — the two main negatives on their balance sheet.
Tesla can dilute its stock by issuing new shares; with nearly half a million people on a waiting list, the intrinsic value of the company means that there’s always going to be a buyer.
Musk can create contracts at will from SpaceX (and, to a lesser extent, Boring Company). SpaceX is on a roll and flush with cash.
Musk can sell off a portion of his SpaceX stake to personally bail out Tesla. There’s a massive demand for buying into SpaceX that hasn’t been able to be filled because it’s privately held. And Musk has shown repeatedly throughout his history that he isn’t, if anything, afraid to go personally “all in”.
To sum up: Tesla is in no way, shape, or form going away. Period.

Oh, and I forgot to mention the executive departures: there have not been an unusually high rate, Tesla just has an unusually large number of people at the director/VP level or higher. But don’t let that interfere with breathless headlines like “Tesla Executives Continue To Flee As The Company Goes Rogue” (Forbes), “There's something wrong: Tesla's rapid executive turnover raises eyebrows as Musk thins the ranks” (Financial Post), etc.

5. The scaremongering, however, does not appear to be going away either.

1,3 million people die in road accidents per year. How many of them do you hear about? Yet literally every time someone dies in a Tesla (vehicles which are becoming increasingly common, and thus will be crashing more often), it’s front-page news — sometimes covered for weeks on end. If there’s a fire, the story is “EVs are dangerous in fires” or “Teslas are dangerous in fires”, despite this having been debunked years ago, and again recently. A gasoline vehicle is statistically five times more likely to catch fire per unit distance travelled than an EV. In the US alone, 174000 gasoline and diesel vehicles burn per year; where’s the headlines?

The reason for the safety, in case anyone is curious, is that the individual battery cells are not only physically isolated from each other, but also surrounded by non-flammable coolant; the rupture of one cell just dumps its heat into the coolant. A pack generally has to be severely mangled to be able to burn. Here’s the front of a Model S that was literally burned to the ground without managing to catch the pack (further back, under the driver and passengers) on fire:

Of course, if there’s no fire, the standard fallback is, “blame it on Autopilot”.

Tesla has by far the most vehicles on the road with level 2 autonomy features. Level 2 means a combination of a human and a computer, with the human in charge. This contrasts with level 3 (the computer is in charge, but the human must be able to take charge at a moment’s notice), level 4 (the computer is in charge and can get itself out of trouble, but cannot drive in all conditions on its own), and level 5 (the computer never needs assistance). 1/3rd to 1/2 of all miles in Teslas are driven on Autopilot. Every time there’s an accident, there’s immediately entirely-baseless speculation that Autopilot was on.

Take, for example, the recent Tesla crash near San Ramon, CA. Right away in the first paragraph, speculation that Autopilot was on! Then again, 4th paragraph! Then concluding with a paragraph talking about deaths that have occurred when on Autopilot. Because of course, when you don’t know the facts, the perfectly responsible course of action is scaremongering, right? Of course, nestled in-between in this little nugget:

The driver's speed in the 35-mph zone was not yet known, but "it was great enough to leave the roadway, hit a fence, keep going down an embankment and into a pond on the property," Jacowitz said.

The fastest AP would allow you to drive on that road is 40mph. If the car was moving at a great speed, by definition Autopilot was not on. Despite having all of the evidence right in front of them, did they bother to mention this? Of course not.

By the way, Autopilot was not on. As is most commonly the case. The initial story got a huge amount of coverage. The reveal? Very little.

Of course, when Autopilot was at fault, they cover it for weeks or more. They’re still covering the highway speed crash into a stopped fire truck that left a woman (who was using her phone and not looking at the road) with a broken ankle. I’ll repeat: a highway speed crash into a stopped fire truck left her only with a broken ankle. Teslas have an amazing safety record, with an average fatality rate of 1 in 320 million miles, compared to the US average of 1 in 86 million. Yes, they’re on average newer, and yes, they’re on average in a higher price category. But this is nonetheless an amazingly good safety record. And to reiterate, 1/3rd to 1/2 of all miles on Teslas are on Autopilot.

One can rightfully understand why hearing “Is that the car that kills people?” is amazingly frustrating.

As an aside: we’ve probably all heard of the Consumer Reports testing, where they talked about how much they loved the vehicle, but couldn’t recommend it because after one emergency braking stop, subsequent braking stops were inconsistent in length, and sometimes worse than a pickup. They also reported problems with wind noise and a stiff ride (although these have been fixed for months; the CR cars are early production). Not as widely reported: Tesla diagnosed the problem remotely (ABS calibration), fixed it in a day, and rolled out the fix within a week. Compare that to, say how GM handled the ignition switch controversy — a decade of denial and downplaying. Just days ago, Fiat announced a recall for 5,3 million cars due to cruise control getting stuck on, leaving drivers in the terrifying position of having to fight their car to a stop with the brakes. But it got almost no coverage compared to the Model 3 testing, which required two emergency stops in a row, to brake like a pickup.

Regardless, Consumer Reports plans to retest.

6. Who needs shorts when you have UAW?

I’m normally very pro-union. I'm a union member at my current job, and (unsuccessfully) voted to unionize in my last job. But UAW’s actions in this regard have left a very bitter taste in my mouth.

Tesla’s Fremont factory used to be NUMMI, a GM-Toyota joint venture — and a UAW shop. During the automotive downturn in the late ‘00s, there was pressure to cut back on US manufacturing. To save their Detroit base, UAW dropped NUMMI like a hot potato. Workers were furious.

Because Tesla moved in, many of these same people now have jobs again, and UAW is about as popular there as the plague. They’ve been trying to unionize the Tesla factory for years and haven’t been able to get enough signatures; they can hardly even get anyone to show up to a free BBQ. But hey, if you can’t beat them, why not spend nearly half a million dollars to smear Tesla?

UAW frequently argues that the Tesla factory is “unsafe”. Most commonly they rely on data from three years ago (when Tesla was still learning mass manufacturing), which showed their factory as having a 33% higher injury rate than the national average (8,8 recordable incidents per 100 workers). Ignoring that they’re around the national average now, UAW neglects to mention that when the plant was a union shop, it had an injury rate of 30-45 recordable incidents per year before Toyota stepped in, and even in its later years was double the rate at the Tesla factory today.

(And for the record — Musk has publicly called for a vote on unionization).

7. But hey, send in the cavalry.

Step up Reveal, an “independent journalism organization” to start “reporting” on Tesla. Quotation marks are normally considered to denote sarcasm, and boy do I ever mean it.

Reveal seems to have made it their goal to prove that Tesla’s Fremont factory is some horribly dangerous place — in a manner that’s covered with UAW’s fingerprints. Strangely, they never thought to bother to mention a single injury anywhere else in the auto industry, because I guess everyone else is spotless. They additionally push the notion that Tesla has been “keeping injuries off the books”, ignoring that Cal/OSHA is probably the most stringent auditor in the nation and Tesla has never been cited for doing so (while the Big Three have been repeatedly cited — but you wouldn’t know this from listening to them). Mainly, though, they focus on “personal stories”, which are nice and convenient because even if they’re false, the company can’t respond because it would interfere in any potential litigation.

The first of their “personal stories” was about how a person involved in developing the factory was told that they can’t use yellow caution tape or beeping forklifts because they offend Musk’s sensibilities. The lack of these things, according to Reveal, could be to blame for the “high” rate of injuries.

Now, apparently Reveal never discovered The Google, or couldn’t allocate 30 seconds for fact checking, because literally you just go to Google Images or YouTube and search for the Tesla Fremont factory, and here’s what you see:

CBS This Morning

Etc, etc, etc.

After being repeatedly badgered by Reveal on Twitter, Musk responded sarcastically:


21 May
Replying to @elonmusk and 3 others
Hi Elon. We'd love to have you on the show to talk with @al_letson.

Meantime, the story was based on internal company documents, interviews with five former members of the Tesla safety team and dozens of other current and former employees.

More detail:https://twitter.com/reveal/status/986294387259748352

Elon Musk

Cool, we can do the interview at Tesla in front of the yellow barriers & beeping forklifts you said didn’t exist. Please send your meeting request to wakassliar@tesla.com.

2:15 PM - May 21, 2018
237 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Now, having been duly corrected about their error, Reveal did the proper journalistic thing and promptly posted a retraction... haha no, I’m just kidding, they made no mention of their falsehoods and just doubled down on their single-target hit piece series.

In Reveal pieces, you can see the similar fact checking quality applied to everything they do. You’ll learn about the guy injured in an arc flash which threw him “15-20 feet through the air”, because apparently the laws of physics have stopped working and we now live in a cartoon. (Yes, we’ve all seen people “thrown long distances by explosions” in the movies; that doesn’t happen in real life. That’s done with hydraulics). You’ll also hear about the guy who was left with “permanent lung damage” when a piece of metal being welded near him caught fire and he breathed in the fumes. As someone who also welds, I know the sickness well; if you heat galvanized steel too much the zinc coating can catch fire, and the resulting zinc overdose you get from breathing the fumes leads to uncomfortable symptoms very similar to the flu. Also similar to the flu in regards to the fact that unless you overdose so much that it kills you, it goes away. Zinc is an essential dietary nutrient; your body digests it over time. You cannot be left permanently disabled by a zinc overdose.

Of course, Reveal has shown no interest whatsoever in fact checking. If you have anything bad to say about Tesla, by all means, give them a call. They'll write an article about whatever you tell them.

8. Enter Twitter.

For a while I had thought it was just we — Tesla owners and people on the waiting list — who were getting extremely frustrated by the way Tesla was being covered. Musk had — with the occasional snarky comment or retort — mostly been staying silent. That changed late last week. Irked on by a combination of aggressive UAW supporters on his twitter feed, Reveal, and an unfortunately timed false article condemning him for meeting with the Saudi crown prince due to Yemen (he never met with him; the journalist posted a retraction), Musk started tweeting about his annoyance with false reports and announced plans to create a crowdsourced site where users can rate journalists for accuracy. And Twitter lost its collective mind.

Just over the weekend it spawned four new controversies. From least significant to most:

1) NanoGate: Musk criticized a person (in response to their criticism of him) as them not being an actual scientist because they were crowdfunding “nanotech” research, and Musk considers nanotech to be a vacuuous buzzword. This is being widely spread (somewhat in the press, but mainly on Twitter) as “Elon hates science”.

2) CultGate: A person with legitimate journalistic credentials (Jens Erik Gould) tweeted to Musk an op-ed on The Knife analyzing recent coverage of him in the press, noting their heavy use of weasel-words about him and generally only citing one side of any given story. What Musk didn’t know (and wasn’t immediately obvious) is that Gould is now involved with a recently-prosecuted cult (NXIVM), and The Knife is one of their websites. When this was pointed out to him, Musk deleted his retweet and apologized. This is being spun (particularly in the press) as Musk just randomly tweeting out op-eds from a cult site because they happened to suit him.

3) MisogynyGate: Journalist Erin Biba — who had previously written personal attacks against Musk on Twitter (including about his genitals), but then hid her twitter feed when they were pointed out — condemned Musk for “attacks on science”. He responded, “I have never attacked science. Definitely attacked misleading journalism like yours though.” Biba responded by accusing Musk of misogyny, in a conversation that had literally nothing whatsoever to do with gender. She recently wrote an Op-Ed on the Daily Beast talking about receiving personal attacks from “MuskBros”, saying that Musk’s following on Twitter is “angry men”, even though just a cursory reading of the comments shows around a 50-50 gender split.

Is it worth mentioning that SpaceX’s president of 10 years, hand-picked by Musk (and one of the company’s first employees), is Gwynne Shotwell?

Myndaniðurstaða fyrir site:flickr.com gwynne shotwell
4) AntiSemitismGate: Perhaps the most ridiculous. When someone tweeted to Musk suggesting that powerful people were trying to destroy the media, Musk responded, “Who do you think*owns* the media?” A concept that we here, annoyed at Sinclair and the Murdoch empire, would quite agree with. But of course, why interpret something according to context when you can turn it into a smear? That’s right — the interpretation Twitter went with — and shamefully, some press accounts — was that Musk was trying to say that Jews control the media. Even more annoyingly, this led to an influx of deplorables into Musk’s twitter feed.

In case it needs clarifying:

Ben Collins

26 May
Replying to @elonmusk and 4 others
Uhhh Elon where are you going with this

Elon Musk

Pointing out to aspiring journo & Rodin spokesmodel, Josh Top, who thinks public polls are controlled by “powerful people” that the media is *owned* by same. Anyone who thought this was anti-Semitic is just revealing their inner bigot. The context is very clear.

9:07 PM - May 27, 2018
1,121 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
For the record: while he’s not Jewish, Elon is a Hebrew name, and he’s proud of it. This year he took his children to Israel on spring break to learn about the country’s history.

Paid respects to Masada earlier today. Live free or die.

A post shared by Elon Musk (@elonmusk) on Mar 19, 2018 at 4:36pm PDT

To sum up: I have plenty of disagreements with Musk. I think his journalism rating site is a dumb idea (crowdsourcing just leads to fights and ballot stuffing). I disagree with his universe simulation hypothesis, or that intelligent AI is around the corner. I think self-driving will take longer to mature than he assumes, and I think Venus is a better colony destination than Mars. I could make a long list of disagreements. But this level of attempts to distort and smear literally anything about him have been taken to absurd levels as of late.

Likewise with Tesla. Tesla can rightly be called out for setting way too aggressive schedules for itself, then failing to meet them. Early production vehicles are often not as refined as they should be (although Tesla nonetheless generally gets stellar owner satisfaction ratings). The Model 3 delays will slow down their expansion plans, and allow some of the late-to-the-EV-party automakers a chance to catch up a few years from now if Tesla isn’t careful (VW in particular is finally spending big). But in general, I think they’ve plotted a very prudent course — recognizing first the potential for li-ion EVs, changing their image, changing the concept of how long charging should take, and seeking to bring costs down while maintaining profitability through sheer scale. And regardless of whether you like them or not, they’re going to be around long into the forseeable future. Regardless of how desperate the people who shorted the stock in the $250s are to see that not happen, or how much bad reporting they can generate.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Jun 18, 2018 - 09:00pm PT
Hey, I came here first to read comments on Musk's claims of company sabotage.
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Jun 18, 2018 - 09:18pm PT
As soon as you identify yourself with the "We", you are a commodity.

Tooth, enjoy your automobile but please don't lose sight regarding the personal trouble that identifying with a consumer good requires.

It's a personal conveyance that cost you money. Elon isn't inviting you to his house because you bought one of his cars.
Messages 381 - 400 of total 867 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta