Hacker News Reader

In the book "The Paypal Wars", an account of the almost complete history of Paypal through the eyes of one of its employees, Elon Musk is painted as a stubborn, semi-ass. According to the book, when he was assigned as CEO after the merger, he wanted among other things, to replace the Paypal brand with the X.com brand. The whole company saw this as a bad idea because a lot of people knew and trusted friendly Paypal but not weird, porn-sounding X.com, but Elon apparently didn't care and just wanted "his" brand X.com to be the main look of the company, even after a lot of discussions and metrics showing this could end the company.

He ended up being replaced as CEO after a vote because of this whole debacle.

It's the only description of Musk that I've read in which he is painted in a negative way. Keep in mind the author might be biased against Elon because Elon was CEO of X.com which was "the enemy" of Paypal.

Here's what Elon Musk has said about the book:

The only negativity in recent years was due to a book called The PayPal Wars, written by a sycophantic jackass called Eric Jackson. This guy was one notch above an intern at PayPal in the first few years of the company, but gives the impression he was a key player and privy to all the high level discussions. Eric couldn't find a real publisher, so Peter funded Eric to self-publish the book. Since Eric worships Peter, the outcome was obvious - Peter sounds like Mel Gibson in Braveheart and my role is somewhere between negligible and a bad seed. However, to his credit, Peter didn't realize the book would be as bad as it was and apologized to me personally at a Room 9 board meeting at David Sacks's home in LA.

http://m.gawker.com/230076/an-alternate-history-according-to...

Thanks for this contra-point! Interesting to see Elon reply to this description. Personally I have more reason to believe EM than Eric, but still, as always the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

as always the truth probably lies somewhere in between

"The Truth Lies Somewhere in the Middle": Does It? http://politics.ryanrenn.com/truth_in_middle.htm

There are some less than flattering accounts of Elon Musk. I personally haven't yet seen a reason to subscribe to his cult, except that he's put money into some worthwhile ventures. In fact the paranoid part of me assumes that a fair effort is being put into his public image which could account for some of the more ridiculous superhero worship that seems to surround him.

As far the stories there's the one about how badly one of the original Tesla founders was fucked over. I don't have time to look it up but it is ugly. He also insulted some blogger who asked critical questions, replying with "your mom" and stuff like that.

I have no idea one way or the other but be critical of how things are portrayed, particularly if they seem a little too good.

(EDIT: Here's a link about the story mentioned: http://green.autoblog.com/2007/12/02/martin-eberhard-comment...

There's a more detailed account somewhere which includes some very petty maneuvering by Tesla, like removing Martin Eberhard's name from the list of founders and badly damaging his founder's edition Roadster before delivery, but I didn't find it on a quick search)

I'm bewildered by the hero worshipping of Elon myself. Heck, he may even be a complete fraud. It wouldn't surprise me if he is.

> I just wish people like him were more attracted to politics. I wonder if it's because nobody would elect people like Elon Musk or because those people avoid politics.

I'm starting to think that I'm OK with the great scientists and entrepreneurs not dabbling in politics. I'd rather have a world where politicians keep doing what they're doing, so long as they don't ruin everything, and entrepreneurs keep doing the same. But maybe this is just a phase in my own thinking.

More succinctly, Mr. Musk would have a much lesser impact as POTUS than as himself in his current role.

> More succinctly, Mr. Musk would have a much lesser impact as POTUS than as himself in his current role.

There's no way to know for sure, but I'm curious about your reasoning. I'm not sure if I'd even agree with you. A technology and science focused president could do a lot of good, not least of all changing the mindset of people. Of course it'll be hard to get anything done with all the bipartisanism and opposition but that's a separate issue.

> Of course it'll be hard to get anything done with all the bipartisanism and opposition but that's a separate issue.

That's actually my point though, which is purely pragmatic. In a world where we don't have to account for politics, sure, I'd love to see what would happen if scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs were to govern. In a world where most of the time in government seems, to this observer, to be spent politicking, I'd rather see people like Mr. Musk doing his own thing.

Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer. But a lot of people didn't end up liking what he did. Some still say that he ruined the country. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what he should have/have not done, but I know a lot of people that despise the man.

After stating that, I still would like to see more engineering types in leadership positions because engineers are more data driven. However, most engineers are too busy building things to run for office.

Did Carter show anywhere near as much leadership in pushing the limits of technology as Admiral Rickover did, though?

Nuclear Engineer? From his Wikipedia I wouldn't really categorize him as a scientist. It also says he was really religious, which is also out of character for a scientist.

Woodrow Wilson was an intellectual (though not a scientist) and he was president.

Keep in mind the president's cabinet members probably consist of many scientists and this is probably sufficient for advising and keeping the president knowledgeable on issues.

Obama's cabinet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu - Nobel prize in physics - Secretary of Energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Blank - PhD in Econ - Secretary of Commerce

Probably more scientists on board.

Woodrow Wilson was a disaster, and quite the anti-intellectual towards subjects that lent themselves towards one correct answer. Some quotes of his: "I don't let facts cloud my opinions". "The natural man despises mathematics". Also, his Treaty of Versaille was the main cause of WWII. I have no idea why he is revered as a president.

EDIT: After brushing up on a little ww2 history, it seems as though I've attributed too much blame to Wilson. He pushed a liberal approach towards Germany, the French delegation pushed for harsh reparations, and he lost out.

Out of character for a scientist? You mean, besides Werner Heisenberg, Freeman Dyson, Francis Collins, Richard Smalley, and Donald Knuth? This meme needs to die.

There is a nice scene in the film Before Sunset where the two main characters are discussing the fact that the female lead, Celine, is working for an NGO. Speaking about what she sees around her:

I see it in the people that do the real work, and what's sad in a way is that the people that are the most giving, hardworking, and capable of making this world better, usually don't have the ego and ambition to be a leader.

Is there a biography of Elon Musk? I saw a few on amazon, but they don't seem to be well reviewed?

I know he's still young, but given his influence and intrigue, I would buy a solid biography of his in a second.

its too early in his life to have a real biography. there are so many untied ends.

Competence in science and engineering doesn't equate to competence in politics and governance.

...at least not in the modern American political system, dominated by lawyers. China apparently has a lot of engineers (by training) in its high offices.

I'm getting to the point where I'd prefer a government run by engineers, scientists, doctors, astronauts, etc. rather than one run by politicians, lawyers, bankers and oil executives. Imperfect? Perhaps. Lesser evil? By far.

I think the problem lies in attraction. Politics is such a dumpster fire that only the most egotistical, self-absorbed and driven type A's are inclined to seek political roles.

But that's the cynic in me.

He's made comments about how the U.S. taxes are too low - albeit just in passing. Seems like he's not one to shy away from making political statements every now and then.