Still, it's not a logical fallacy to think "someone very successful at X is more likely to be successful at Y", in many cases. Do you think that there is literally zero correlation between massive business success and success at whatever-it-is Musk is trying to do now?
(I agree it's a fallacy if you think is' assured he will succeed, as opposed to this just being a correlation in your mind. I just bumped on the use of "logical fallacy" to describe something that is not a fallacy at all!)
That it's not entirely clear makes it impossible to know if it might be something he could have success in.
Fired from PayPal, Twitter, neurolink, the tunnel thing
He bought his way into Tesla, and SpaceX, though suppsedly he's not actually the one running it (believable I think there's not enough time)
And having failures is not that uncommon, especially for serial entrepreneurs. You've gotta accept some failures to get to successes.
As for the whole "he bought his way into Tesla" thing, this is just making the idea of a "founder" some kind of sacrosanct thing. By most histories I've read, he is the reason the company is the success it is today.
The local Bodega down the street has been profitable for 40 years. They seem to be doing just fine and as a bonus they haven't burned billions in subsidies or hijacked public transportation initiatives.
> And having failures is not that uncommon, especially for serial entrepreneurs.
IDK how you can call this anything else but luck. He got forced out of paypal with a ton of money and was able to keep taking risks because of the safety nets he had that most do not.
He also threw a fit and left openai, that was a poor business decision.