Nobody has done this before, they're working out how to do it as they go along, they make quite a few mistakes along the way. One of the things the video highlights is how, when this happens, the team wouldn't just stop and try the same thing again. They'd keep going, break it all the way, basically just use it as an opportunity to fuck around with their materials.
He waxes poetic about how great this is. They're taking advantage of an unparalleled opportunity to learn more about the behavior of the materials they're working with. Because they're now free to try things they wouldn't want to do if they were still on the path to creating a complete, polished product. It doesn't even really count as taking risks anymore, because you can't really mess up something that's already trash.
And he points out, rightly, that a mindset like that that values learning and experimentation over always succeeding, is one of the best ways to become truly great at what you do.
The goal is to avoid analysis paralysis and "just try it" instead of keep thinking about it.
It's a bias toward action and rejecting sunk cost.
I will listen to the guy who's actually getting things done, thanks.
If anyone thinks he doesn't have enough time for that, go over to Twitter and look at what he's doing with that time he doesn't have right now.
His life might be richer, but I don't think he would get more done. I do think he is a cautionary tale, but there are also many insights to be gained.
You shouldn't optimize your life for output, but for those moments when you do want to optimize your output it makes sense to glean from those who are very good at it.
I really think we're giving him far too much credit to assume this is all an intentional time-saving life hack to improve his ability to optimize his output for some planet-saving goal (which his most recent work, frankly, has not been).
The people I know who satisfy that definition don't generally get shit done. The ones who do are outliers; i.e. so rare that you may as well judge them to be a rounding error.
His pleasures, accomplishments, fears, and compulsions.
A personality and a lifestyle that drives away everyone except acquaintances and employees.
The kind of insecurity that causes a person to gravely insult a someone who risked their life, many times over, to save the lives of strangers half a world from their home because they dismissed your media ploy in public.
The kind of personality that is so addicted to attention that despite repeated public embarrassments that would make most people rethink their actions, they reform their own worldview in order to blame society instead of rightfully feeling ashamed.
A person who has a compulsion to make money constantly when there is no longer any purpose to do so -- to the point where they use guest appearances on comedy shows to pump and dump novelty crypto coins in order to make a few more pennies.
Does that sound like a happy, content person? If anyone is jealous of that life just so that they can have the fame then all I can say is that there is ever an opportunity where one of us can grab that for themselves, please -- be my guest.
Called him a pedophile no less. He didn't win the libel case in court, but he certainly deserved to.
The actual story of the cave rescue and the highly specialized cave divers that pulled it off is quite incredible, I highly recommend seeing it as it happens in The Rescue. The documentary takes the high ground and doesn't mention the Musk fiasco, but without directly doing so, also lays waste to how impossible the submarine idea was: https://films.nationalgeographic.com/the-rescue
Yes, Musk's personal life is a mess and noone would enjoy being him.
That can be true at the same time as his business philosophy effectively pushes forward multiple businesses more quickly than their competitors. That can even be true while his businesses are run in ways that most of us would find unacceptable.
Regardless of palatability, SpaceX is effective.
One particular reason I don't like this false dichotomy is that SpaceX's approach has negative externalities that aren't getting enough attention because everybody's so starstruck by all the fancy rockets. There's a reason the FAA and EPA are starting to pressure SpaceX about the environmental and social impact of their way of doing business. Maybe next OSHA can get on them for the high workplace injury rate. You're not actually doing things more cheaply if what you're really doing is hiding costs that would belong on your balance sheet by surreptitiously foisting them onto the public with the help of corrupt politicians.
(Ostensible libertarians, pay extra attention to those last six words.)
I sometimes find myself working on a project that goes nowhere, thinking that if I just put enough effort it will go somewhere, and I'm not having any fun or learning new things. And I'm hard on myself with thoughts like "I need to finish it, I need to finish it" but then when I ask myself: 'why?', it's usually because of this fear of _not finishing the project_ or maybe it's the fear of not being able to distinguish the grinding phase from the failed project phase.
Either way, too many times I have experienced a liberating feeling when I failed. It's a chance to start over.
I think your reluctance comes from a different prioritization. The writer is clearly interested in developing their creativity (and are wildly succeeding!). The project is the means to do that. Continuing on a project even after it no longer is the best use of your time is just a type of sunk cost fallacy.
also: sunk cost fallacy