Hacker News Reader

Musk's submarine was a joke. The video of it shows it was clearly too large and too rigid to maneuver through the caves. Musk said they would make a video showing the submarine going from point a to b, but never did. Watch these videos of Unsworth both after the rescue and the trial and compare them to Musk's response. It was absolutely sickening.

I'll have to find the video, but he said that sub wouldn't have made it through the first 50m.

I saw and touched the sub; it was featured at a science expo in Bangkok not long after the rescue. It was a metal tube with some plexiglass plates on it with air valves mounted in them. I'm sure there was some engineering involved, but didn't seem at all impressive.

My son was a big fan of Elon, the "cool rocket guy". But after his comments about Unsworth he asked me "Why did Elon say that stuff about the man who is a hero?" My son is a Thai boy living in Thailand, close the the same age as the boys who were rescued. Sadly I had to walk back the idea that Elon was a good role model.

I thought Unsworth should have sued Elon in Thailand. It wouldn't have meant much since Elon would never travel here again. But in Thailand defamation is a criminal offense that carries jail time. And since Unsworth is a national hero there's little doubt the court would have found in his favor and Elon would have had an outstanding arrest warrant. Again, wouldn't mean much unless Elon forgot about it and ended up traveling to or through a country that would arrest him on behalf of Thailand.

So now you can update your son based on another comment we know that Elon was lied to by a private investigator - and seems safe to assume his comments based on that faulty/made up information; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27796249

Elon is a good role model, he's not perfect though. I'm not sure why so many people blindly put him on a pedestal assuming he should be superhuman - especially at the abnormal level of pressures and responsibility he has.

That's a good idea. A demonstration of that old phrase "birds of a feather flock together." Musk employs a sleazebag to do Unsworth dirty, gets done dirty himself. Or maybe karma is a better word for it.

I don't know about that putting on a pedestal thing. Musk is a brilliant guy, but has demonstrated that he has a pretty rotten character. IMO, a good role model for a kid really needs to have good quality of character above all else.

To me hiring an investigator to find dirt on a guy who bruised your ego by pointing out correctly that the sub sucks, is already crossing a lot of lines for me.

It wasn't just bruised ego, the guy brought legal charges against Musk claiming libel.

How is hiring a 3rd party to investigate the underlying libel not a good initial response? Especially if he could easily afford it.

He had already called him pedo guy amongst other things at that point (i.e., the libel in question in the first place). So it couldn’t have come from the investigation that came later about the libel. The timeline just doesn’t make sense.

A scam billionaire that did nothing by himself is anything but a role model.

Has anyone done anything by themself? Weak argument.

Tesla bought Solar city to bail out around $6 billion in assets owned by the Musk family. He came up with an overhyped product launch (the solar roof) to instill confidence while behind the scenes he gutted Solar city (renamed to Tesla Energy) to nothing. I don't want him to be a role model for anyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QqtSqy3oeY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f0PzbJOau8

Not to mention credit deals between SpaceX and Tesla as well. Also his habit of promissing outlandish stuff (self driving taxis for example) to keep money flowing and evaluations high. And then manipulating the unregulated Bitcoin market, trying that with stock traded on wall street would get you in hot water with the SEC. Something Elon has already experience with. Good cororate governance is something else.

> But in Thailand defamation is a criminal offense that carries jail time. And since Unsworth is a national hero there's little doubt the court would have found in his favor and Elon would have had an outstanding arrest warrant.

While Thailand is certainly within their rights to run their justice system how they want:

1) The punishment doesn't in any way fit the crime.

2) "He's such a hero" is a terrible reason to do something. Focusing on who the person being wronged was is a bad path to justice - it is better to focus on what the perpetrator did.

So I hope the courts in Thailand would have found in Musk's favour.

How do you know the punishment doesn't fit the crime when the case is a thought experiment at most? Or are you saying that because it would be a criminal case it is too much no matter what? It makes no sense to me that it is too much just because it isn't US style justice. Criminal doesn't mean prison time. It's not like the US justice system is much better (clearly not working at all in this case). Compared to those countries justice systems the US should be compared to it's broken, corrupt and unfair (to the extreme for minorities).

The comment was hoping that Elon would have an arrest warrant out on him, of the belief that he would never enter Thailand and was pointing out that the maximum penalty was imprisonment. There is an element of crazy - nobody should be facing arrest for saying nasty things. Maybe a fine, after a difficult court case.

Leaving aside that Thailand's defamation laws are largely a club to stop people criticising the government and not really intended for use against people like Musk.

More than "a club to stop people criticising the government", it's used extensively by the rich and powerful to stop anyone from criticising them.

Another funny thing about it is that the truth is not a defense. So even if Unsworth was a pedo and Musk could prove it, that would not be a defense against a defamation case. All that is needed is to show that the person making the defamatory remark intended to cause the victim to lose face.

"impressive" is not a relevant criterion for prototypes

"Bizarrely, Unsworth's lawyer was L Lin Wood, famous for later apparently having a mental breakdown and supporting conspiracy theories accusing chief justice John Roberts of pedophilia and murder, and being asked to undergo a mental examination by the state bar of Georgia.

"L Lin Wood's handling of the Unsworth trial was widely panned as incompetent. Unsworth is clearly a hero, and Musk inserting himself into that situation and permanently tainting Unsworth's name was unconscionable."

Bizarre! I saw his suits when I went digging through the post-election hootenanny. Incompetent would be the gentlest way to describe them.

As well as completely transforming many people's view of Musk (he ceased to be "the least bad billionaire" for many), the case also reflected extremely badly on the US legal system, showing that if you are rich enough you can get away with pretty much anything.

"Least bad billionaire" is a weird tag to give Musk.

I mean, there are a bunch of people who either inherited a billion dollars or married into it, and, not being psychopaths, they just decided to spend that money doing good and have done with it. That seems pretty easily to be "less bad" than somebody like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, or Warren Buffett who set out to acquire wealth..

I guess if you've got a really out-there moral utility function maybe saving the eyesight of a million children or whatever counts for nothing while making a slightly better toaster oven is a 100% goal achieved, but outside that I can't see any way Musk could be the "least bad billionaire".

Actually I can see a case for a different weird utility function if we also had some billionaires who got wealthy from scientific discoveries or mathematical breakthroughs or philosophical insights. If Martin Hellman had earned $100M per year since the 1980s for licensing fees from DH kex he could be a billionaire and we could argue about whether that's an important thing to give to the world. Or if Judith Butler had become fabulously wealthy explaining to people that gender is a social construct, she'd be a billionaire and we could argue whether that was great. But in reality we do not pay philosophers or cryptographers billions of dollars, that sort of money goes to somebody like Musk or Bezos.

JK Rowling is a good example. She became a billionaire from writing Harry Potter but didn't stay one for long as she donated most of it

"Least bad billionaire" - isn't that Tony Stark, rather?

>> supporting conspiracy theories accusing chief justice John Roberts of pedophilia and murder

I miss the good old days when such accusations were extreme. Reporters would hesitate to say the word pedophile on air. Airing such an accusation would almost certainly trigger a serious defamation lawsuit. News outlets would instead talk of unspecified personal accusations. Now, thanks to a certain popular letter-based conspiracy theory, calling any public figure a "satan-worshipping pedophile" doesn't even raise eyebrows.

Is is "popular letter-based conspiracy" or "letter-based popular conspiracy"? I'm slipping on my royal order of adjectives.

The former.

If the accusation is ludicrous enough, the "artistic license" defense can work. Alex Jones has used it. Tucker Carlson has used it. Rachel Maddow has used it. There's a difference between serious factual reporting and shitposting on Twitter. The fact that some readers might not be able to distinguish the two may be disturbing, but it should not guide jurisdiction.

https://twitter.com/QTRResearch/status/1017914936289349635 sounds kinda rude, but not worth a reply

This doesn't excuse Elon slandering Vernon Unsworth, but didn't Vernon talk shit about Elon's good faith attempt at making a submarine to try to rescue the people?

He didn't 'talk shit' about a 'good faith attempt'.

Unsworth - who knew the cave system - said that Musk's idea was impractical and a PR stunt. Both of those claims are valid and came from a reliable source. During a crisis, there is no particular need to be polite to people getting in the way.

I thought he called Elon name’s on Twitter and Elon reciprocated (two wrongs don’t make a right). Maybe I am wrong. Even if his idea was impractical, I was under the impression that he made a best effort attempt (I doubt he willingly chose something impractical) and the solution they chose was the better one (divers).

Musk started the Twitter fight after Unsworth gave an interview: https://twitter.com/RickyReports/status/1018597245275557888?...

https://www.gq.com/story/musk-submarine-where-it-hurts seems kinda rude, or just british /jk!

Didn't Elon disrupt the whole operation at one point, traveling there to get footage or an Instagram Story video?

It is easy to see what is going on and that it isn't in good faith. Look a his breached commitments during the Flint water crisis (filter every home to below FDA levels), coronavius (produce ventilators), Peurto Rico huricane aftermath, and more. He as a common pattern with these kind of events.

I’m not familiar with his commitments during flint or the hurricane, but his behavior during COVID was despicable. I’m pretty sure he fought to try and prevent work from home, and constantly downplayed the severity of the disease.

Not to mention reopened in defiance of Alameda County regulations.

And Vernon did not initiate the Twitter fight, he gave an interview and suggested Musk "stick his submarine where it hurts". Musk took to Twitter where he has millions of followers to strike back.

The tweets are deleted but somebody saved a screenshot: https://twitter.com/RickyReports/status/1018597245275557888?...

"Please consider this a commitment that I will fund fixing the water in any house in Flint that has water contamination above FDA levels. No kidding."

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1017149641991680002

Now you are slandering Unsworth.

I’m really not. He told Elon to “stick it where it hurts”, which was why I said he talked shit to Elon. Again, I’m not trying to deny that Elon is the bad guy here. But Vernon can be the good guy in a situation and still have made a distasteful mistake (talking disrespectfully).

The sub was a bad plan from the beginning, one of the main issues with the rescue was the narrow twisty path through the cave. This wasn't unknown when Musk was touting his sub. Also even if someone was talking shit about his sub and it wasn't a bad idea, that doesn't justify insinuating they're a pedophile...

Hence “ This doesn't excuse Elon slandering Vernon Unsworth”. I still think Vernon’s response to a good faith attempt at solving the problem “stick it where it hurts” was distasteful.

I'm think it wasn't really a good faith effort because there were such clear problems with trying to shove a rigid steel tube through the cave that it was clearly wasted attention/effort. There was a lot of criticism during the whole thing that it wasn't doing any good except to get Musk more attention.

Fair point

So what?

You can call each other names and fight.

Musk has gone beyond that and accused Vernon of being a pedophile and marrying child bride.

Maybe it was the heat of the moment. But then some days (or weeks) later he followed up with "I'd bet my signed dollar (that Vernon is a pedo)" (or something like that).

Musk intended to destroy Vernon with the pedophile accusation. There is no doubt of that. This is pre-meditated plan to destroy a person with the pedophile accusation.

For some reason, there's no outrage from tech companies though. People are still praising Musk as usual. I'm looking at you all the CEOs like Jack Dorsey and etc.

I’m not debating that Musk slandered him, and I think Musk should have payed out in court. However I still think Vernon’s response to Musk’s submarine solution was distasteful. Instead of saying “sorry, this won’t work because xyz”, or “we’ll try that if our original plan fails”, he told Musk to “stick it where it hurts”. Not a very professional response.

I find it interesting that you position this guy as a "hero" with supporting arguments being that he brought failed legal action against someone else for calling him a name on twitter, while implying the reason he lost was because the hero chose to hire a crazy lawyer. Then say he's clearly a hero since the lawyer he chose has opinions about things you don't personally agree with, as if that has any relevance whatsoever to the legal case here.

Pretty sure the reason he is being positioned as a hero is due to his involvement in literally saving the lives of 12 children.