Why Is Elon Musk So F'ing Successful? And how do we do more of it?
jacobrintamakiblog.substack.com
jacobrintamakiblog.substack.com
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/01/since-elon-musks...
To provide the service that it does, maybe it doesn't need to be that valuable or that large?
The whole circumstance of having to buy it and then paying off the debt etc is kinda crazy.
Elon bought himself a media company that he is using to help his preferred presidential candidate get elected. If Elon/Trump are successful, I imagine that Elon himself will impute a lot "value" to the Twitter purchase
Hard to accurately value a "kingmaker" like Twitter in traditional finance terms, but Elon (and his backers who will get Tesla stock) do understand what is at stake.
If Trump is elected, with Elon being is highest profile supporter, I imagine that Elon would be okay with having lost ~$33B in the Twitter acquisition.
Crowning the President of the US is probably worth more than $33B to Elon.
And Trump's creative campaign finance tactics should be illegal.
SpaceX is full of brilliant minds well attuned to their domain enough that Elon can't really interfere with technical operations. What he often does, is what most other CEOs don't, is entertains more ambitious and risky ideas, and he knows just enough to make worthwhile bets. On the other side of the spectrum is Twitter, where he knows just enough to interfere with everything. Tesla sits in the middle.
Elon Musk may be a hustler but he's not an honest one. He's not the type of person we should have more of.
He's successful in the same way that other privileged kids are successful: through financial structures that make it impossible to fail, especially at a unique time in history when Internet technology was exploding in a way that made it so that even the most mediocre startups were worth purchasing for hundreds of millions of dollars.
Musk's secret to success is being an early shareholder. That's it.
Let's not forget that there are numerous reports of employees at his companies saying that they work better when he's not around.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/spacex-employees-denounce...
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-employees-elon-musk-f...
I do understand he is an exceptionally hard working man who has no doubt the risks he are taking will pay off.
I don’t think he’s a fascist, as many people claim.
Trump is factually a fascist. His stated beliefs and factual actions line up almost perfectly with all 16 characteristics of fascism, and Elon also lines up quite well (and certainly lines up by extension by actively campaigning for Trump).
Can you think of any aspect of Elon Musk or his preferred candidate's beliefs that do not qualify? Do you see any actions taken by him that strongly refute any of these 16 characteristics?
https://www.keene.edu/academics/cchgs/resources/presentation...
1. Check - anything Trump says is true, there is no room for disagreement.
2. Check - Trump's entire platform is outrage fueled with lies, and Elon is an outrage bait with his online presence. Example: election loss denial
3. Check - The Trump platform is fixated on national decline and victimhood. Elon agrees and has made comments about how China has better workers than the US, etc. MAGA as a slogan is focused on this point.
4. Check - Trumpism is all about white replacement theory and is extremely xenophobic.
5. Disdain for human rights, for sure, see "the enemy within" statements
6. Trump and Elon have both scapegoated a mixture of LGBT, transgender, Mexicans, Muslims, and a long list of other minority scapegoats
7. Big time yes. January 6th was a literal coup attempt by Trump's armed paramilitary
8. Big time yes
9. Literally Elon buying Twitter and his subsequent actions on the platform describe this point perfectly.
10. Yep
11. Not so much for Elon or Trump's personal beliefs but they use this for their base of power, e.g., Trump Bibles
12. Big time yes for Trump ("I don't pay overtime") and Elon
13. Obvious yes
14. Trump and Elon together both represent cronyism and corruption. Their money is already entangled together and Elon will probably get a cabinet position or other direct benefits in exchange for his support
15. It is definitely Trump's desire to claim any lost election as fraudulent and end elections, and he encouraged his supporters to vote for him just one more time and then they won't need to vote again
16. Perhaps the only point that doesn't have any direct and obvious connection with Trump and Elon.
The Boring Company has no active project outside of a curiosity of a "transportation" system that only runs during conventions in Las Vegas.
Their landing page talks about mass transit as if it's not a solved problem - suggesting that the only possible solutions are flying cars or cars in tunnels. The Las Vegas loop already has its own traffic congestion in it, there are actual videos of people getting stuck in traffic down there. And the Tesla cars can't even drive autonomously even though the tunnels are a closed track with no other traffic.
Meanwhile, China has 25,000 miles of high speed rail providing mass transportation to the second largest populated country on earth. One New York Subway train can move magnitudes more people than the Boring Company's projects.
Social media is a really straightforward business model, as long as you can leverage network effects and provide something novel, but then it gets really hard to do both of those. Twitter when it started was a tenable business, but that business has since been irrevocably eroded by the competition.
> high speed rail
Uses tunnels.
> New York Subway
Uses tunnels.
Want to go through a mountain instead of around it? Tunnels.
Want to avoid a grid locked urban center? Tunnels.
Want to go under a river instead of an expensive bridge over it? Tunnels.
Of course, geology can be a problem. Sometimes it isn't the most economical option, but often it is a better option than bridges, and sometimes – as with mountains – it's the only option.
Tunnels are a straightforward and proven business model. Boring I know.
The diameter is too small. That’s why it’s only used for vehicles, which must be professionally driven since tunnels are not built to public traffic standards, which is a pointless application.
It’s literally an amusement park dark ride for adults at the country’s adult theme park.
There was no disruption to be done in the tunneling industry. There is nothing a startup will come in and figure out that hasn’t been figured out by the construction industry.
The Boring Company’s tunnel product only exists to steer municipalities away from improving transit access, just like Hyperloop was Elon’s way of distracting governments away from cheap, highly cost efficient high-speed rail.
It’s literally the GM playbook: build more reasons for people to be dependent on buying cars. Don’t invest in a subway system, a loop of Teslas is cheaper, let’s just hand wave around how useless it is.
Want to avoid a gridlocked urban center? Don’t count on The Boring Company to help out with their tunnels, they can’t even handle the traffic for CES.
https://mashable.com/article/ces-las-vegas-boring-tunnel-tes...
The diameter of their boring machines?
> There is nothing a startup will come in and figure out that hasn’t been figured out by the construction industry.
Because? Why not? Do you have some domain knowledge here? Is there really no room for new technology?
> Elon’s way of distracting governments away from cheap, highly cost efficient high-speed rail.
Hard to know if this was Elon's intention here. Certainly he held some belief in the Hyperloop concept, even if it ended up being unrealistic. I take it more as evidence that he doesn't have the kind of engineering chops that people ascribe to him.
There's a lot of claims here I couldn't be bothered to fact check, and I think we're digressing from the point of contention.
> Link me a news story about Boring securing a single single rail or subway tunnel contract.
Now, I'll pay that. To date, they haven't used the business to do anything substantial. Boring Company might be vaporware, or misdirection, as you claim.
But back to the point of contention. Twitter has made a clear financial loss for Elon – I'm sure that's irrefutable^ by now. It's value for him is some political sway over right wing voters, which isn't nothing, but it's at best an intangible gain.
The Boring Company has value as a company that digs tunnels. Whether Elon will invest the time and resources to do anything substantial with it? Probably not. But at the least, it's not a money sink like Twitt.. erm, sorry... X.
^ https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/02/business/elon-musk-twitte...
Also, many tunnels used for public transportation are built as cut and cover rather than bored tunnels. It's much cheaper. E.g., most of the New York Subway.
There is no room for rapid disruption in the technology because it's been around so long. This is just like how you don't see many startup companies coming in and deciding to disrupt the hand tool industry or the
I agree about getting back to the point of contention: what I was really saying is that Twitter and social media sites like it are a well-established business model. Twitter isn't losing money for Elon because Twitter was a company with bad fundamentals before he bought it. Twitter is losing money for Elon because he overpaid for the company and has mismanaged it compared to his predecessors. If Twitter were a public company today it would have more users, higher market cap, better customer satisfaction, and either higher profits or more modest losses. Twitter may not have been spectacularly profitable but it was in no way shape or form endangered or mismanaged before Elon took the helm.
He was successful because:
1) He got very lucky in the 90's tech boom. Right time, right place, won the lottery.
2) He had enough scientific, engineering, and science fiction education to appreciate and differentiate the 3 edges of:
* "physically possible"
* "possible within the constraints of a project that I can imagine"
* "possible within the constraints of a project that the market can imagine"
and to dream big nerdy dreams rather than to dream specifically of seeing line go up.
3) He was capable of pushing past the last constraint & occasionally the second constraint in a way that was persuasive enough to investors to power a reality distortion field composed of hope for a future that he understood to be technically possible, and convincing them that he was banking on his own success. This is a rare talent, and why tech co-founders have business co-founders. He was always able to put a down payment on these dreams because of #1.
4) Then once he had the money from investors, he put his companies almost entirely in the hands of enthusiastic engineers that were happy to be allowed to contribute to an epic project with actual funding to build the future, rather than spending their lives rotting away writing technical documentation for a defense prime or writing grant proposals or teaching CS101 in a community college or making the 17412nd mobile gacha game. They were given aggressive goals, an aggressive schedule, not a lot of salary, and not a lot of sleep, but free reign to make decisions, move quickly, and break things. The cult of Musk looked less like a religion and more like a fun university extracurricular research project, but for 60 hours a week w/ room & board paid.
Very little of the 'business community' has any special expertise beyond specific social skills, most of them have forced themselves into very-short-timeframe thinking, and they have no idea what's actually possible, when or how to put their faith in the engineers, or what might result. They distrust this entire caste & culture of people, and they perennially shortchange their efforts.
5) Other companies would have outsourced hundreds of parts on these projects primarily to protect management from liability should a project go wrong and the board demand that somebody be ritualistically fired. SpaceX & Tesla preferred to just build their own fabrication shop and hire people to run it, and vertical integration skipped over the prevailing GARGANTUAN market inefficiencies associated with running a complex private-sector supply chain, evidently because there's a top-down disrespect for the sanctity of MBA-type management and for the idea of being accountable to a board of these type of people.
I mean, the system in which we live right now has a very particular Objective Function that optimizes for money and like in the social networks case where they realized the system shaped towards the objective function without considering the well being of its members, it optimized for screen time through extremism, hate speech and fake news... in the same way our current societies don't favor the nicest, most caritative, nor even smartest members; it favors the ones who are willing to cheat, lie, step over, dehumanize others... all for the sake of "being successful".