Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Berkut]

Except it isn't, right? Thomas Edison started what was essentially the first industrial research laboratory that produced any number of important inventions, and then he made a lot of money on commercialization of electricity. Technologically and even in terms of engineering there is not AFAICT anything innovative in Teslas other than maybe some of their in cabin car software. The battery technology, with minor engineering improvements, is the same lithium ion batteries everyone is using. The concept of a battery powered car is at least 100 years old--including previous working models. The idea of starting with a luxury line first was not even something Tesla was first at--there were several other companies trying the same thing.

SpaceX I've already gone over, mind that they weren't even actually reusing most of their rockets until very recently, and they have been very opaque on how much and what they were doing to lower launch costs outside of reusability. They also consistently have overstated how much they could reduce launch costs--which are again opaque because they are a private company.

Edison literally developed the first investor owned electric utility, and there is substantial evidence to suggest his innovations were key at both the timing and pace of electrification in general. Musk has made no contributions anywhere close to that. It shouldn't be controversial to say what someone has and hasn't done.

Except that Edison didn't do those things, people who worked for him did.  He just took the credit, like Musk.

SpaceX, at Musk's direction, has developed an entirely new way of approaching launch vehicle R&D and it has been wildly successful.  Maybe Musk shouldn't get the credit for that, like Edison shouldn't get credit for developing an entirely new way of approaching R&D for electrical systems, but you can't judge them by different standards just to make Musk look bad.

I will say that Edison didn't let success turn his head the way Musk has.  Edison knew which lane he was swimming in.

Edison belongs to a period of time in which historians described to the great man of history thesis. Most people have moved on from that way of viewing the world.

I don't think "most people" have moved on from that at all, there is still plenty of debate about the role that the individual has in shaping history.

Plenty of people want to believe that individuals don't actually matter, but that is a matter of philosophy, not history. I think that actually aligns nicely with my point - the refusal to acknowledge any of Musks accomplishments are not about any kind of evaluation of those accomplishments, but the rejection that any single person can in fact accomplish anything like that in a way that they deserve credit for at all to begin with. 

That view then means it matters not one bit whether or not he is an asshole or not, or whether SpaceX really is launching rockets at 1/10th the cost. None of it matters, because this argument assumes that even if it were true, someone else would have done it anyway.

It is a fascinating debate though. And one that is never going to be resolved, since the opposing hypothesis seem to be impossible to test.

I don't buy into it myself, and a big part of that is that it seems to me that those making the "great person is bunk" argument seem very selective in how they apply it. It also seems, to me, to take agency away from humans. We are all just flowing along on the flow of inevitability. Lastly, it seems like it is selective in how our angst is manifested as well. Musk gets no credit for SpaceX because that would happen anyway. OK. Then why are we mad at him for fucking up Twitter? Wasn't that going to happen anyway as well?

[The Brain]

The idea that an individual never makes a historically significant difference is weird.

[grumbler]

Berkut, I think that what CVC is noting is that the older historical view that "great Men" made history and that the study of these men is thus critical to understanding history doesn't stand up to modern historical analysis.  Edison, for instance, is somehow credited with inventing the light bulb and electrification, even though there were light bulbs and electrification in the UK before Edison's bulb was developed.  He just made a better mousetrap, and of no "Great Man" is it more applicable to say, "if not him, then someone else."

The accomplishments unique to one person, outside of the arts, is almost always drowned out by the accomplishments of the society around them.  Napoleon didn't create the Napoleonic Wars and they would have happened if he ate a bullet at Toulon.

[The Brain]

Napoleon didn't create the Napoleonic Wars and they would have happened if he ate a bullet at Toulon.

Source?

[Berkut]

Berkut, I think that what CVC is noting is that the older historical view that "great Men" made history and that the study of these men is thus critical to understanding history doesn't stand up to modern historical analysis.  Edison, for instance, is somehow credited with inventing the light bulb and electrification, even though there were light bulbs and electrification in the UK before Edison's bulb was developed.  He just made a better mousetrap, and of no "Great Man" is it more applicable to say, "if not him, then someone else."

The accomplishments unique to one person, outside of the arts, is almost always drowned out by the accomplishments of the society around them.  Napoleon didn't create the Napoleonic Wars and they would have happened if he ate a bullet at Toulon.

Yep, its a damn interesting discussion.

If Napoleon ate a bullet at Toulon, then certainly the conflict that bore his name still happened, because that conflict was not created by him for sure.

The shape of it, and the shape of the world that resulted, IMO, would have been radically different without Napoleon though.

That is an argument though, and I concede that it is impossible to prove, really. But so is the argument that absent Napoleon, the outcome would have been largely the same, just would have been named something else.

[OttoVonBismarck]

the refusal to acknowledge any of Musks accomplishments are not about any kind of evaluation of those accomplishments, but the rejection that any single person can in fact accomplish anything like that in a way that they deserve credit for at all to begin with. 

And what do we call your refusal to be honest about Musk's accomplishments--that they are largely accomplishments in attracting investor capital and not in innovating technology?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't buy into it myself, and a big part of that is that it seems to me that those making the "great person is bunk" argument seem very selective in how they apply it. It also seems, to me, to take agency away from humans.

Yeah, this would be the take if you had a superficial and weak understanding of the criticisms of the "great man" theory. The reality is it is an idea that the sum activities of many millions is more deterministic than the decisions of one man.

Certainly both ideas are philosophical ways of looking at history and cannot be tested with the rigor of a scientific theorem, but both ideas should be portrayed accurately which your statement here does not do.

[Zanza]

Technologically and even in terms of engineering there is not AFAICT anything innovative in Teslas other than maybe some of their in cabin car software. The battery technology, with minor engineering improvements, is the same lithium ion batteries everyone is using.

I disagree. Tesla was extremely innovative over the last ten years. Their battery management (software, cooling) was ahead of the competition. Also they were the first in having a central computer controlling everything in the car instead of distributed systems like all other car makers, which makes OTA updates for them much better. They even made their own hardware for this central computer, which is rather unusual for a carmaker. This has so far not been emulated by any of the legacy OEMs, maybe by some Chinese startups. They also made interesting design choices, e.g. the minimalist interieur and few choices for the exterior, which allows them to manufacture at a fairly low cost level. Commercially they pioneered having direct sales instead of the more usual dealer network and of course they offered the hyperchargers, a critical differentiating service.

[grumbler]

Yep, its a damn interesting discussion.

If Napoleon ate a bullet at Toulon, then certainly the conflict that bore his name still happened, because that conflict was not created by him for sure.

The shape of it, and the shape of the world that resulted, IMO, would have been radically different without Napoleon though.

That is an argument though, and I concede that it is impossible to prove, really. But so is the argument that absent Napoleon, the outcome would have been largely the same, just would have been named something else.

Certainly there are historical figures whose personal characteristics helped shape the world they lived in; Napoleon's  well-known preference for taking the offensive both strategically and tactically meant that those declaring war on Napoleonic France found themselves defending against French attacks very quickly.  A different military or political leader in charge of France might have adopted a less aggressive posture and achieved some sort of compromise peace during the 1805-1815 period.  But the Coalitions against France would have continued regardless until that peace was achieved; there would have been war.

Th Great Man Theory of History, however, didn't postulate that some men influenced history more than others, it proposes that great men largely make history.  Look at how much of Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War is devoted to the leaders, and how little to economic or strategic considerations.  For a very long time the study of history was dominated by the study of biographies.

[grumbler]

And what do we call your refusal to be honest about Musk's accomplishments--that they are largely accomplishments in attracting investor capital and not in innovating technology?

And what do we cal your refusal to be honest about the accomplishments of pretty much every founder of major companies: that their success are all largely accomplishments in attracting investor capital and not in innovating technology?

No major company was created without investors.

[viper37]

And what do we call your refusal to be honest about Musk's accomplishments--that they are largely accomplishments in attracting investor capital and not in innovating technology?

And what do we cal your refusal to be honest about the accomplishments of pretty much every founder of major companies: that their success are all largely accomplishments in attracting investor capital and not in innovating technology?

No major company was created without investors.

That are two different things.  No one is denying these accomplishments.

But Musk's supporters since to place him at some kind of super human genius of engineering.  Which I'm less and less convinced he is.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Getting back to Musk's running Twitter into the ground: ends up they laid off people they actually needed and are begging some of them to return to work.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-06/twitter-now-asks-some-fired-workers-to-please-come-back

[Jacob]

I expect there will be a bit of a premium to rehire folks you just laid off, unless they are desperate.

[Berkut]

the refusal to acknowledge any of Musks accomplishments are not about any kind of evaluation of those accomplishments, but the rejection that any single person can in fact accomplish anything like that in a way that they deserve credit for at all to begin with.

And what do we call your refusal to be honest about Musk's accomplishments--that they are largely accomplishments in attracting investor capital and not in innovating technology?

I don't agree with that reductionist evaluation of his accomplishments. 

But if I am wrong, I won't care. It's not like I have anything invested in the guy, I don't own any Tesla stock, and personally he is an obvious asshole.

I care about what he has accomplished - if you can prove to me that his accompishments are just moving money around and tricking other smart people into giving him billions which he then pretends to spend on amazing things....then ok? Again,  don't have anything emotionally invested in the guy - if the things he has done that I appreciate he turns out not to have done, then.....ok.

[Berkut]

And what do we call your refusal to be honest about Musk's accomplishments--that they are largely accomplishments in attracting investor capital and not in innovating technology?

And what do we cal your refusal to be honest about the accomplishments of pretty much every founder of major companies: that their success are all largely accomplishments in attracting investor capital and not in innovating technology?

No major company was created without investors.

That are two different things.  No one is denying these accomplishments.

But Musk's supporters since to place him at some kind of super human genius of engineering.  Which I'm less and less convinced he is.

We should definitely bring that up with them if one shows up.