For those interested in their clinical trials:
Could be for saltiness over his politics. Could be for skepticism that he can deliver (robotaxi, Mars, etc). Could be for wariness that he'll turn it to shit like USDS, Twitter, and Tesla's finances.
Before Neuralink, there was no major investment into BCI tech as far as eye could see - because medicine is where innovation goes to die. We've gone from Utah arrays in 1990 to Utah arrays in 2020. All while computing and AI - the other key enablers of neural interfaces - advanced in leaps and bounds.
So does everyone else who tries to create new things. Edison had dumb ideas, too, like his mining ideas. The Wrights also had dumb ideas like their persistence with wing warping, and the canard stabilizer.
The sub thing didn't hurt anyone, it was an emergency so he didn't have much time to think about it, so really it's uncharitable to slam him for trying to help.
Do you think his rockets are dumb ideas, too? Starlink? Tesla?
> Unsworth had mocked Musk’s submarine in an interview with CNN, deeming it a “PR stunt” and saying Musk should “stick his submarine where it hurts”.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/05/elon-musk...
He said a lot more than that, and none of it nice. He definitely threw the first punch in this exchange
And he is an attention whore who will go after people who are dismissing his ideas. The cave guys in Thailand had to waste precious time thinking about his submarine. If Musk had really been willing to help, he would have done testing in quiet and published things only when it was clear that it worked. But he is an attention whore because he knows it's good for business.
Same for DOGE. They could have done their work in quiet and with deliberation. Instead they fired quickly some random people whose work they didn't understand or like.
His amazing track record with success means his ideas merit more attention than your ideas or mine.
> The cave guys in Thailand had to waste precious time
insulting Musk on CNN. They didn't have to do that. They could have simply said "no thank you, we'll handle it".
> But he is an attention whore because he knows it's good for business.
Yes, offering his company's considerable engineering talent and resources for free is pure evil. Sheesh.
> Instead they fired quickly
They didn't have the people to evaluate tens of thousands of individuals, nor did they have several years to do it in. The way they proceeded was the only practical way. It's the way all organizations above a certain size cut costs when hemorrhaging cash.
That's not a fair take. This isn't "just a thing", this leads to massive financial gain by someone whose now a very influential power into people's lives from his involvement in politics and other circles of influence.
People can do good and bad at the same time, and if you're impacted by the bad things the person does, the good doesn't excuse it, and you'd want to stop them from doing more bad, it makes sense not to cheer on the good things they do that then fuels their effort into the bad things.
There can be disagreement on if they are doing bad, but to someone who believes so, it's a rational stance to not cheer on what can further fuel what they consider bad.
- The people getting it are in very rough shape and even a tiny bit of improved ability to control their environment is a tremendous gift to them - Musk seems to be busy playing with his other toys - We're far to early in this tech's progress for enshitification to start
Much as I dislike Musk, for the sake of all the people with debilitating conditions that this could help, I wish him phenomenal success with this project.
OTOH, I don't trust him to manage this as a product in an ethical way. What's the DBI equivalent of locking you in a car to drown?