Hacker News Reader

Comment by mmastrac | Hacker News Reader

Did he get some sort of wake-up call from his bizarre Ukraine-foreign-policy poll yesterday?

I don't understand his motivations, but if you see him as a super-depressed billionaire with ADHD it makes a _bit_ of sense.

View on HN

There's a simpler explanation than depression or ADHD. Elon wants his wealth to translate into national and international political power, as has been the case historically with figures like Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Gates, Waltons, Kochs. He is finding out the hard way that a number in his bank account will not automatically get him that standing. He simply doesn't have the skills to work his way up in those circles.

I agree with this. Still think that the ADHD, depression and narcissism are clearly detectable, in addition to substance abuse.

Giving more and more power to individuals who clearly struggle with mental health may not be in the best interest of society.

It's an Elon thread so HN users turn into doctors diagnosing depression, ADHD, etc.

Throw "narcissism" in there too for good measure, oh wait you did, bingo!

It couldn't be that he just thinks differently than you do, no he must have a mental illness!

- edit -

Someone flagged my reply to the person below concerning the pedo diver so I'll just drop this link here too:

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/idyllic-thai-provi...

If you are a public figure and call a rescuer a pedophile on twitter I question your mental stability. What other comments does he make in private I wonder?

The pedo diver picked the fight first after Elon offered help and the pedo diver expat Brit lives in a known location for child exploitation:

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/idyllic-thai-provi...

In the end Elon did apologize to the guy for calling him a pedo, he probably just likes diving over there after all!

But I see... if you call people a name you must be unstable, makes sense with all the people spouting out racist this and that.

I wonder what comments you make in private that we can all use judge your mental soundness.

> The pedo diver picked the fight first after Elon offered help and the pedo diver expat Brit lives in a known location for child exploitation

After reading this paragraph I cannot take anything written by you seriously. You use “pedo driver” instead of a name of the person. A person who obviously has zero connection to child exploitation and a documented record of saving lives - at the risk of his own.

Here’s another take on the story:

A mentally unstable narcissistic billionaire attempted to latch on the publicity of a tragic event by publicly suggesting a solution showing his complete misunderstanding and incompetence.

After being exposed in an interview by Vernon Unsworth, one of the people risking their lives to come up with a real solution, the malignant narcissist launched a public attack toward the rescuer, hitting as low as to accuse the rescuer in pedophilia.

When sued by the rescuer for defamation, “ Mr Musk told the court this week the phrase "pedo guy" was common in South Africa, where he grew up.”

The billionaire himself can be seen in a photo with Ghislaine Maxwell who is now in jail for child exploitation and specifically arranging forced sex with minors for the ultra rich.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/18/17576302/elon-musk-thai-cave-r...

On the topic of this rescue mission - please watch Jimmy Chin’s documentary The Rescue.

Elon’s contribution in this situation was beyond narcissistic and pure idiocy.

The documentary provides a lot of context - anaestesia was the last resort crazy idea - applied after a few other survivors almost drowned because of panic attacks - being moved at the fraction of the distance.

The rescue that these people pulled off is beyond anything I’ve seen. An incredible testimony of humanity’s kindness, commitment, and potential.

What is that link supposed to prove?

One can be both exceptional and have deep seated emotional and mental health issues. The former does not excuse the latter, nor that observations made of the latter are any less relevant.

Also, it’s not one’s fault for having emotional and mental health issues but, crucially, it is their responsibility for addressing them.

I was commenting mostly on the mass confusion in our culture surrounding these issues. Our collective enthusiasm to further trust and empower such people is a symptom of our collective condition.

We have been hypnotized to measure only one or two things and blinded to the rest.

Money can be made much faster in the absence of empathy and care for others.

Musk is great at underpaying engineers, pushing his workers, manipulating stocks.

I couldn’t - not because of merit but because of internal discomfort and turmoil.

“Leaders” without such internal regulatory mechanisms can get further, faster, partially because as a collaborative species we don’t have strong built-in protective mechanisms against exploitation.

Your analysis seems to fit the old saying that the rich can only be eccentric. More accurately, I would say few other than the rich can be worthy of the wasted time on analysis (beyond the simple categories).

Since I believe that even the "eccentric" are unconscious rational actors, to a point, I would still like to know why people don't believe his goal is to diversify away from his holdings without ruining their value. If he sold a lot of stock his companies would be doomed, unless he can justify it with a complex expenditure with unexpected problems. Then he can ditch the unwanted investment and fail to put the money back in his one basket.

Then why did he try and back out of the deal?

Maybe it was a bluff to try to get a lower price?

It was always a bluff and a gamble. He clearly always wanted to own Twitter. Then the stock market came down.

The fact his risky gamble at getting the price reduced didn't work is not surprising. Whether or not he's the actual loser here is not clear, a lot of wealthy people own expensive sports teams that lose money but do it anyway because they like it.

> He simply doesn't have the skills to work his way up in those circles.

It looks like he’s more interested in the Trump route: making his own circle.

People forget that Trump has been very actively involved in politics since at least the 80s. He has been taking out newspaper ads for or against candidates for decades. He has been a regular speaker at political conventions. He ran a presidential campaign in 2000 and was #3 in polls behind Bush and Gore (on a third party ticket). There was a lot of speculation that he would run in 2012. His 2016 run didn't happen out of nowhere, as people seem to think.

No, I didn’t forget.

I was referring to the fact that Trump (and Musk) were not accepted into the “Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Gates, Waltons, Kochs” circle OP mentioned.

So they blazed their own way, happy to ruffle feathers and make enemies along the way.

> There was a lot of speculation that he would run in 2012.

I'm not sure why people keep on forgetting it: He ran in 2012 and lost very, very badly. To the point almost no one cared and remember that.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_career_of_Donald_Tru...

So, he "unofficially" campaigned and did not get much interest

Misdirection is the name of the game....

Tesla shares dip more than 8% after third-quarter deliveries report" - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/03/tesla-stock-down-after-third...

He bottom ticked ticked the market with much more to lose on Tesla Stock and publicly disclosed twitter's dirt prior to purchase.

> Tesla shares dip more than 8% after third-quarter deliveries report

That's a rather roundabout way of saying "the entire market was very significantly down yesterday". S&P500 was down, tech companies were down, almost everything was. You could write that story about any company using the premise, just swap the company ticker and the event at the end of the sentence.

... Are you writing this from an alternate universe?

The S&P opened at about 3618 yesterday (after closing Friday at a little under that), and closed at 3677. Today it opened at 3749, and remains at that level or a little higher.

Tesla closed Friday at 265, opened Monday at 243, closed Monday at 242, and opened at 252 today, before falling back to the low 240s.

No, I am writing it from the universe where I looked at the closing price on friday and then checked the open price on monday, and I was consistent with it.

All while you posted friday close for TSLA and compared it to monday open, but didn't do the friday close for SPY. If you are looking just at monday-open to monday-close (which is what you did for SPY), TSLA moved from 243 to 242. As of today, TSLA is over $246.

As I said,

> The S&P opened at about 3618 yesterday (after closing Friday at a little under that)

I didn't think it was worth mentioning the numbers, because the change wasn't hugely significant for the S&P, but Friday close was 3589, Monday open was 3616; that is a rise of 0.7%.

this. and the fact that his funding for twitter (which he will be forced to close on settlement or not) is mostly margin funding against his tesla/spacex shares the house of cards is on a shaky table. Variations in value on either side can trigger automatic calls/sells. Even in the best of times and without his self sabotage of twitter value the full on profit from twitter does not cover his funding interest per year. This whole thing was a bone headed move from the start -- it puts his entire wealth and controlling interest in jeopardy.

Or, his realization of the likely outcome of the Twitter trial had the paradigm of "what if we just surrender already" primed in his subconscious, hence his Ukraine tweet.

The simple explanation is he knows he is going to lose (as everyone has been saying since he tried to back out), and either be forced to buy the company or pay a break up fee. With most thinking the fee would be in the 10B+ range, there's an argument to just go through with the sale and at least end up with an asset. In some ways at 10B+, he's pot committed.

This makes the most sense to me, esp considering it lets him avoid potentially messy depositions of himself and his billionaire friends.

Maybe. I really just wish he would go away.

It's weird to me how he tries to shoehorn himself in to every single global news story. We did not need Elon's hot take on Free Britney. Don't you have three companies to run?

He needs/wants you to be thinking about those companies (or their stock) as often as possible. It's an attention economy, and he is a master at getting as much of it as possible. Some percent of the people reminded of The Elon will also thus be reminded to buy some stock (esp. in an era when buying stock is just a smartphone app away). I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm just saying it probably works.

the impending court case is probably a bigger motivator. better to do a 180 now and control the narrative than lose in court, I guess.

Why is seeking peace and reducing nuclear risk considered bizarre??

Because his version of "seeking peace" suspiciously lines up with exactly what Russia is asking for.

Seeking peace also lines up with what every sane person should want

Giving aggressors what they stole is not going to achieve peace, it's going achieve more aggression.

If you're going to give up something just because someone else has a nuke, then you'll end up giving them everything you have, because they're not going to give up their nukes. They will always have power over you.

Safety and self-determination is what everyone should want.

Peace between nations is only part of the picture. Peace between people and their government is another part.

We could all have world peace between nations tomorrow if every nation capitulated to Russia. But you’d have endless tension between the people and their new Russian authorities.

If someone punches you in the face then says they simply want peace right after, does that make them a criminal or should you just let bygones be bygones?

Chamberlain had a similar goal at Munich. "Peace for our time," he declared.

There are two outcomes for the war: Russia loses or Ukraine loses. We know Russia isn't going to "lose". So work out from there what needs to be done.

We knew Russia would take Kyiv in a weekend. Then we knew they would do it within a week. Then we knew that despite their initial setbacks they would achieve their goals in a month. Then we knew that their goal wasn't to topple the Ukrainian government at all, and they would achieve everything else in a few months. Then we knew that they would take full control of the eastern regions in under six months.

Now eight months later they are down to barely holding on to some fringe regions despite mobilizing the entire country, and Ukraine is taking back control of major cities daily. So I question what we all "know".

At this point, Russia can't win, they can only choose how badly they want to lose.

There is precedent for nuclear powers losing wars in the sense of them having to withdrawal from quagmires without accomplishing their initial objectives.

It's really strange how a certain contrarian viewpoint about Russia's invasion has developed which just totally ignores everything from the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and America in Vietnam all the way up to America in Afghanistan.

There's a lot of precedent.

It's not. It's calling the bluff on NATO's narrative.

Which is what, in your opinion?

The narrative that it's interested in an end to the conflict. It's still entertaining Ukraine's application to NATO which would mean World War 3. Everything I see is NATO escalating, rather than de-escalating.

Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs said the same on Bloomberg yesterday.

If there is nuclear risk from Russia, losing a war of conquest that Russia started, Russia ought to take a step back and reassess their options rather than reaching for the canned sunshine.

Cowering to threats emboldens those making the threats.

I was thinking more of a manic depressive thing.

He's not bipolar, he's just a child.

His text messages from discovery make clear that reducing head count was his priority. Everything he's done since the deal has been about that, including his tweets yesterday, that where studiedly adversarial to most tweeps.

He doesn't want to fight employees to re-instate "the boss". But he was only "permanently suspended", after all.

I can't believe Elon Musk will actually get to own twitter. That's pretty messed up.

> I can't believe Elon Musk will actually get to own twitter. That's pretty messed up.

Either way, I don't care what happens and it is best to watch the two fraudsters fight over a sinking ship and watch the whole chaos from a distance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com