I am surprised that YC would make this page so remarkably mobile-unfriendly. I don't have the time to listen to the interview, I just want to read the transcript. They could have just pasted it in a reader-friendly format, but instead it's in an annoying Scribd applet. I don't want to sign up for their service or download the app, not to mention that it's a terrible mobile reader anyway. This was very disappointing.
Used the $$ selector in Chrome to find Scribd's .ff0 elements, copied them into SublimeText, did some regex work to clean out the tags (a span element for every line? with absolute positioning? Really Scribd?), and then exploited the fact that paragraphs got jammed together with no whitespace between the last punctuation and the beginning of the next paragraph to use a regex to auto-break the paragraphs.
Your work is awesome. Thank you so much. Here, I pasted it into a gist so that it's not in a typewriter font. I thought it would also fix the lines being 25 words long but it didn't, but it's still an improvement: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/3ea317a1f71bbfeca6df5d8469...
In other communities, to circumvent asinine ploys at lock-in, someone would just brute force the pdf file with a burner facebook login, and repost it. But then, you'd still be stuck with a pdf.
It's always been well behaved and predictable though. And if you have a mobile browser that forces text to wrap when you zoom in (I don't know how you brows the web without this) then it really was fine.
It is great to bring this topic on mobile unfriendly display. The posts like these are ones that make keep coming back to hackernews. It reminds me that there are people who really care of the things i care about.
Sama> How should someone figure out how they should be useful?
Elon> Whatever this thing is you are trying to create.. What would be the utility delta compared to the current state of the art times how many people it would affect?
Certainly very interesting, in fact I wrote this down when I heard it. And if you look at the projects he's working on (Renewable energy, cars able to powered by renewable energy, and preserving life outside of Earth), they all affect a great portion of humanity, and have a very large affect.
Affect like how? As of today they're useless, except for Tesla who's motivating car automakers to go towards autonomous cars - but they had the tech before.
Tesla's energy storage enables people to use solar energy at night, without the process being a big hassle. If it gets cheap enough, it will make solar power competitive with fossil power in most scenarios. Currently, the battery installations are a cost-competitive alternative to fossil ways of covering peak load. Calling it useless is probably a stretch.
Ditto with Tesla's cars; they aren't a drop-in replacement for gasoline cars in all scenarios but I've heard more than one Tesla owner say that they will never buy a gas-powered car again. So obviously that implies greater utility for the person in question than any current gas-powered car.
"During the first quarter of 2016, Tesla delivered over 25 MWh of energy storage to customers on four continents. Over 2,500 Powerwalls and nearly 100 Powerpacks were delivered in North America, Asia, Europe, and Africa.[33]"
Yes, likely you'd need to get all-new batteries every 10 years[1] or so. (And likely recycle the old ones.)
The good news is that batteries are getting about 8% more efficient every year (price per kwh) [2]. So 10 years from now batteries will be 1.08^10 = ~2.15x as efficient [3].
So when you replace them, they'll cost half as much for the same amount of energy storage (and probably half the space too). It's basically Moore's law for batteries except slower.
He is quite correct that societies can go backwards. There are many scenarios in which we would have 'the tech' and then end up abandoning and losing it. One simple example would be if one corporation profited more by wrecking 'the tech' of another and blocking its adoption, than the other could profit by furthering it. When it all comes down to money you get those suboptimal outcomes, and in the end somebody cashed in epically, but things were not made.
I'm pleased Elon gets this, but it's a chilling thought. We don't have to have MORE stuff, internets, communications etc. just because of Moore's Law, just because it's possible. We can also have progressively less because it's in someone's interest for it to be less.
I find this false. Tesla is mainly a electric car company, not an autonomous car company. Other companies have the same class of capabilities in the market, it's just that Tesla has the good will of the people. I like Tesla, but calling it an autonomous car company is ridiculous.
I suppose I should have wrote "will affect". If we end up colonizing Mars, or even getting one person to land on Mars, I think Space X will have been involved in creating competition in the aerospace industry at the least.
My point was that his ideas are ones that have potential for huge amounts of change. Whether or not we will see that change is another matter.
What about all the people working in marketing, software patent lawyers, drug dealers? You want them to quit their jobs?
---
Let me make my point in a less obtuse way. Most people make decisions about their careers based on opportunity and maximising profit. No one becomes a footballer to make the world a better place. This would all be fine as long as the capitalist market rewarded choices that make the world a better place. Obviously it does not and it's not the fault of a footballer that we as a civilisation choose to channel our available resources their way and not towards frivolous play like space exploration.
If anyone ever figures out a way to make the free market choose the greater good they will win all the Nobel prizes forever (we won't need Nobel prizes after that).
Believe it or not, there are different motivations people have for choosing their careers. Some become footballers because they want to rake in as much money as Beckham, others because they enjoy football so much that they decide that's what they want to do all the time. I'm pretty sure most people don't have just one overriding motivation for what they do, but an amalgam of different factors. Your statement about maximizing profit as a primary motivator is less of a factual statement and more of a revelation about your own motivations.
Most of the world population doesn't have the kind of opportunities you do. You are probably at the top 5% of the 7 billion population. Chances are you can choose between a 100k job and a 120k job that you find unsavory and maybe you choose the lower paid one. Most of the population has different choices to make. You are the one projecting your privelaged position onto the rest of the world.
Just what the hell does anyone even mean by "make the world a better place"?!
I am willing to bet that if we held a forum to settle what a "better world" means, we'd have to adjourn it with no resolution. The questions of better world for whom, and on what terms, by what definition, what expense and, oh yeah, who pays the bill and why would never find one conclusion.
What you really mean to say is that Capitalist market rewarded choices does make the world a better place according to your definition of it. But don't lay claim to speak for the world when for many Capitalism market rewards are making the world a better place.
This is why I distrust those that want to direct us toward a magical, "better world" and and do so by decrying voluntary exchanges between people as counter to their vision.
I think you're wrong about one thing. You see, you always think of the greater good as you define it. However, watching a football star is the desire of many, and they pay money for it, so the football star is in fact doing it for the greater good by entertaining many. Capitalism moves in the direction of where the money is - and the money is in things people want. So capitalism is a most efficient machine to produce things for the greater good. Any other definition of 'greater good', i.e. yours, would have to be forced on them by the force of law and ultimately, threats and violence.
"No one becomes a footballer to make the world a better place."
Maybe not, but Messi increases the happiness delta a lot for many, many people. I think the world is a much better place with him as a footballer than an accountant or something.
Are you sure the net happiness from football was really raised by Messi or did he simply shift it to his county and teams he plays for? If you take away his great play doesn't it just make other players stick out more, and fans would derive happiness from other players?
He raises the net happiness. He does things no one else does and is a joy to watch. It's like saying if a great musician never lived people would just listen to different music. Sure, but there would be a certain joy and pleasure people never would have experienced, and never realized they were missing.
Tesla make a lot of people happy but there must be accountants at Jaguar, BMW etc. who have not enjoyed losing sales to the California start up. However there are many happy Tesla customers and only a small handful of motor company accountants. Obviously there are sales staff too plus suits in the oil companies who have been pained by Tesla, but still the balance is a net happy one. Compare with Tony Blair, makes his business cronies happy but inflicts more misery.
Footballers do have a connection with their fans and it is their admiration that is sought far more than money. So they are very much in it to bring happiness to the world, to put on the show. I don't see them working for free though.
Only one other player stands out as much. It seems silly to say that either should have been an accountant, because if he were, then the same arguments would apply to the other.
That strategy is similar to our current best strategy for bringing peace by killing more people than the enemy. It's proven to work but it is very wasteful on both sides.
Segmenting a market is often suboptimal. See how Intel is "segmenting" their CPU market by hard locking features in "consumer" CPUs. This effectively means they are not available unless you pay big big money.
Why is that suboptimal? It certainly is suboptimal for consumers in the short run, since it helps Intel increase producer surplus. How that producer surplus is used to create better technology has a pretty important role in determining whether it's optimal in the longer run.
I actually don't think that most people make decisions about their careers based on maximizing profit at all. In fact, I think very few people would choose a soul-sucking job running against their values just because it pays more.
The argument isn't about soul-sucking jobs, but about jobs that don't contribute to society. I'm sure there are people out there who enjoy cold-calling and scamming people.
But to address your argument: you missed the "opportunity" bit. If you're a well-off, well educated person you can choose to do whatever you feel like and I'm sure some people do without worrying about money (perhaps they have lots already). Most people will chose the best paying job that is available to them. Sorry, but reality is on my side on this one. Go visit a factory if you want to see if people want self-realisation or money to survive. Again: please remember the "opportunity" part. If you tell a factory worker he can earn 4$ an hour assembling landmines or 2$ an hour assembling asthma inhalers I will eat my hat if they don't go with the money (and I wouldn't blame them for this).
HN's privilege is showing pretty badly here in these comments. Seem to be completely oblivious to the oppressive squalor that most the world lives in, only thinking about which high-paying cushy job they should take to "change the world."
Well you know, we were talking about Elon Musk after all. So that kinda assumes, that we're not talking about jobs for survival kind of situation. Even if it is the vast majority of population.
Speaking from my own experience, I've known quite a few people working in factories that didn't want "desk jobs" or to be "paper pushers", even if those jobs paid more. And some even had the turned down promotion offers to prove it.
I didn't miss the opportunity bit. It seems your logic there is backwards: It's precisely if I can choose to do whatever I feel like that I have opportunity, and precisely those people you agree may have other goals than maximizing profit.
Sure, if you have no money and have an "opportunity" to flip burgers, most people would take that job even if they were vegans. That's survival, but I don't think that says much about what they would choose to do.
A better example I think is when people decide to go back to school because they've realized they only get shitty jobs without education. In that situation, they could choose to do whatever. Do most people find a list of best-paying jobs and pick the one at the top to decide what they should study? I think they do not.
Really you chose your career only from a profit motive? What are you, a sales person?
I certainly did not chose my profession from a profit motive and neither did most of the people I know. We did what we did because that is what we like or enjoy. Of course practical issues of making a living wage factors in.
I make a high salary now, but that is rather by accident. I just happened to be good in STEM subjects and enjoy math and programming. I didn't pursue it because it was an optimal economic decision.
I can fully relate to Elon Musk. When I try to pick a programming job e.g. I factor in many things such as salary, colleagues, location etc, but actually how useful the product seems is a major factor for me. I am generally willing to sacrifice salary to do something which I feel helps humanity more. E.g. I'd day a pay cut to develop a medical application over a horse betting application.
Of course money isn't irrelevant. If there is just too little money in medical software then I'd suck it up and sell my soul to betting, big oil or whatever ;-)
I think quite a few of the respondents are missing the point because you said that most people choose to "maximise profit" which has a negative connotation. (Or apparently so, in their minds)
I read your comment as saying that most people choose a job based on maximising utility; one component of which is financial reward; and that top-class sports is one industry in which there is generally a consensus that "people are paid too much" - i.e. that there is a distortion; that perhaps their love of playing and the positives they contribute to society are already well priced in to their wages.
Also, it seems entirely reasonable to me that any market distortion implies an opportunity cost - that aggregate happiness; over time, would be greater; if we spent a little less on footballers and a little more on e.g. imho; carbon capture!
You even explicitly state that it would be extremely judgemental to blame individuals - i.e. footballers - for maximising their individual happiness at the expense of human society as a whole; and that instead this should be blamed on a market or political failure.
Now this is an insult to number of jobs which are chosen by skilled enough to get better paid jobs but they won't. Examples - doctors & nurses, most people in disaster orgs like Red Cross, Doctors without Frontiers etc. and I am sure many other types of jobs out there (corporate vs creative job, anybody?)
Perhaps drug dealers (and their suppliers) can implement testing, QA and proper labeling.
I'm not totally sure about software patent lawyers. But, deep down, my gut says that if software patent law wasn't to crappy, perhaps the occupation would be perceived in a better light. Maybe they could push for reform from the inside?
On the whole, I think every industry can do some introspection on how they can affect more people for the betterment of society. It would do us all some good.
Let me make my point in a less obtuse way. Most people make decisions about their careers based on opportunity and maximising profit. No one becomes a footballer to make the world a better place. This would all be fine as long as the capitalist market rewarded choices that make the world a better place. Obviously it does not and it's not the fault of a footballer that we as a civilisation choose to channel our available resources their way and not towards frivolous play like space exploration.
If anyone ever figures out a way to make the free market choose the greater good they will win all the Nobel prizes forever (we won't need Nobel prizes after that).
Free markets are the problem, not the solution. You're not going to get much strategic planetary intelligence out of a system designed to maximise short-term profit. The absolute best you can hope for is the occasional individual like Musk who takes a longer view.
Politics - which includes economics - is a much bigger challenge than AI.
We've completely transformed our understanding of science and technology, but our political and economic thinking would be recognisable to a Roman senator and a medieval banker.
Politics and economics are still waiting for a Copernican revolution. Our survival prospects as a species are limited until that revolution happens.
Hmm that doesn't seem to make sense. Free markets (which include the vast majority of countries on the planet) enable people to create wealth. Maybe some sort of mix of a planet-wide initiative and the normal free markets we have would make sense. Calling free markets "the problem" doesn't really do anything for anybody.
Free markets are an optimal pachinko machine for distributing capital, that needs no oversight or central direction.
It doesn't generate its own pachinko balls, that's utterly orthogonal. Free market capitalism is what you DO with a population that has disposable income. You can't feed the bottom of it into the top, it doesn't even work that way.
It's not even optimal for reaching the highest developments of ideas and inventions, because local maximums will starve out the newer ideas that need to grow and become competitive. It does nothing about network effects and tends towards monopoly.
But it's a fantastic distribution mechanism for the wealth of existing populations: no overseer required! Within some known limitations it works very nicely.
> An hour spent watching a football game is an hour less committing crime or doing other unsavory acts.
Not for the vast, vast majority of people watching football. Most people aren't engaging in crime or "unsavory acts" whenever they have to entertain themselves.
I think mass entertainment is definitely for the greater good, but not because it reduces crime in any appreciable fashion.
Also stops some people from doing good things - they'd be bored, so they'd either go after politics (yup, either big or local), actual art (ok), maybe make something as in crafts (probably best outcome).
Thank you for clarifying. I do agree that it is expected to optimize ones career for maximum income.
Even so, an individual can often choose to push for the greater good within the confines of free market forces.
A footballer can use their image to promote organizations that do good. A SaaS owner can help their customers become more secure and efficient. Lawyers can push for better oversight and reform.
Maybe we can't all be Elon, but we can all try to improve our surroundings.
Maybe I'm too young and naive, but I think it can be done.
I'm wary of the specific claim about sports (or better, I do almost completely disagree with it).
But if you look at the worst offenders, you'll see that the professions that take the most profit normally also take the most power. And in yielding that power, they have a big share on the blame of making their negative utility profession lucrative.
The equation should have per-subject weights to modulate the "how many people" part. For instance, if my app helps Mr. Musk be 10% more productive, that's more impactful than helping Mr. Smith be 10% more productive.
I assume the equation he's talking about already propagates the value to the "leaves", where if the app is boosting a person's productivity, and that person's productivity increases value for a group of people, then it's that final group of people's increased value that is counted toward the original total. And there could be more than 2 layers before you quantify the value without recursing any deeper, of course.
Assuming that a 10% increase in productivity causes a 10% increase in the impact on people (either in quality or quantity), 10% of Mr. Musk's impact may be greater in absolute terms than 10% of Mr. Smith's.
One may debate whether 10% productivity = 10% impact, but if that increase is attributed back to you, there's no need to artificially manipulate the equation.
absurd hero worship. I like Elon Musk just fine, but you're fawning over him. How do you propose we nominate "great persons" for your "equation" anyway?
I would add another multiplicative factor: the probability that you have success in what you are trying to achieve, if that probability is near zero you effort will be in vain.
I ask as someone who is vaguely familiar with Taleb's ideas but didn't read the book:
That is a really fascinating point, especially considering this is literally a case where you are "betting your (future) life" on the low probability outcome event.
I mean, what is your hedge in that case? Does Taleb talk about that too?
Taleb investment advice: put almost all of your savings in super stable investments, like treasuries. Use the rest to bet on unicorn startups, or highly leveraged options (as long as those options have a limited downside and an unlimited upside!). I'm not quite sure how to apply this to one's career.
I guess a hedge in that case would be to try to arrange things so they come out OK if you miss the goal. Like if you want to be president aim for the fail case being a successful lesser politician. Not sure what Taleb says.
I would be far more interested in how to build a successful business. Everyone asks Elon about his big ideas, but how do you turn those big ideas into reality, specifically? I have never seen anyone ask him those questions. I thoroughly enjoyed the interview with Jessica Livingston because that was the primary topic. A missed opportunity in my opinion. I hope the rest of the interviews are more about the nuts and bolts of how to build a successful business.
EDIT
Ask him about the early days at PayPal. What are the lessons he learned that he applied to Tesla and SpaceX? What worked for PayPal but not the other companies and why?
>What worked for PayPal but not the other companies and why?
Amusingly if you read chapter 1 of Founders at Work quite a big part of what worked at PayPal may have been firing Elon Musk. Max Levchin largely built PayPal tech wise using Unix and then it was merged with Musk's X.com and Musk became CEO and wanted to switch everything to Windows.
>Levchin: The three of us are pretty good friends now. At the time, already I had hated the guy's guts for forcing me to do Windows, and then, in the end, I was like,"You gotta go, man."My whole argument to him was, "We can't switch to Windows now. This fraud thing is most important to the company. You can't allow any additional changes. It's one of these things where you want to change one big thing at a time, and the fraud is a pretty big thing. So introducing a new platform or doing anything major—you just don't want to do it right now." That was sort of the trigger for a fairly substantial conflict that resulted in him leaving and Peter coming back and me taking over fraud.
> Amusingly if you read chapter 1 of Founders at Work quite a big part of what worked at PayPal may have been firing Elon Musk. Max Levchin largely built PayPal tech wise using Unix and then it was merged with Musk's X.com and Musk became CEO and wanted to switch everything to Windows.
I encourage you to read "Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future." Musk talked about PayPal and the Windows switch in detail in Appendix 2:
“As for the technology change, that’s not really well understood. On the face of it, it doesn’t sound like it makes much sense for us to be writing our front-end code in Microsoft C++ instead of Linux. But the reason is that the programming tools for Microsoft and a PC are actually extremely powerful. They’re developed for the gaming industry. I mean, this is going to sound like heresy in a sort of Silicon Valley context, but you can program faster, you can get functionality faster in the PC C++ world. All of the games for the Xbox are written in Microsoft C++. The same goes for games on the PC. They’re incredibly sophisticated, hard things to do, and these great tools have been developed thanks to the gaming industry. There were more smart programmers in the gaming industry than anywhere else. I’m not sure the general public understands this. It was also 2000, and there were not the huge software libraries for Linux that you would find today. Microsoft had huge support libraries. So you could get a DLL that could do anything, but you couldn’t get—you couldn’t get Linux libraries that could do anything.
“Two of the guys that left PayPal went off to Blizzard and helped created World of Warcraft. When you look at the complexity of something like that living on PCs and Microsoft C++, it’s pretty incredible. It blows away any website.
“In retrospect, I should have delayed the brand transition, and I should have spent a lot more time with Max getting him comfortable on the technology. I mean, it was a little difficult because like the Linux system Max had created was called Max Code. So Max has had quite a strong affinity for Max Code. This was a bunch of libraries that Max and his friends had done. But it just made it quite hard to develop new features. And if you look at PayPal today, I mean, part of the reason they haven’t developed any new features is because it’s quite difficult to maintain the old system.
“Ultimately, I didn’t disagree with the board’s decision in the PayPal case, in the sense that with the information that the board had I would have made maybe the same decision. I probably would have, whereas in the case of Zip2 I would not have. I thought they just simply made a terrible decision based on information they had. I don’t think the X.com board made a terrible decision based on the information they had. But it did make me want to be careful about who invested in my companies in the future.
“I’ve thought about trying to get PayPal back. I’ve just been too strung out with other things. Almost no one understands how PayPal actually worked or why it took off when other payment systems before and after it didn’t. Most of the people at PayPal don’t understand this. The reason it worked was because the cost of transactions in PayPal was lower than any other system. And the reason the cost of transactions was lower is because we were able to do an increasing percentage of our transactions as ACH, or automated clearinghouse, electronic transactions, and most importantly, internal transactions. Internal transactions were essentially fraud-free and cost us nothing. An ACH transaction costs, I don’t know, like twenty cents or something. But it was slow, so that was the bad thing. It’s dependent on the bank’s batch processing time. And then the credit card transaction was fast, but expensive in terms of the credit card processing fees and very prone to fraud. That’s the problem Square is having now.
“Square is doing the wrong version of PayPal. The critical thing is to achieve internal transactions. ...
The way I see it PayPal essentially helped an established incumbent monopoly (US credit card companies) with issues at the time maintain and extend its global relevance, lock down domination of cross-border consumer payments, meaningfully extend US intelligence sector surveillance, and continue to fuck the little guy. Only Europe and China are building a resistance now, 15 years later. That you have 5 or 10 rich people coming out of that little cash-cow who feel like publicly playing god with humanity's future or that they deserve some kind of respect for the 'achievement' is pathetic. Any number of people could have built that better, or with morals. If they had any sense they'd be ashamed at what they've done, and how it has seemingly irrevocably crumbled in to bigcorp screw-the-customer service mode. Besides, we all know the real e-vehicle revolution has already happened, right here in China.
That would be the cynical (and probably realistic) interpretation, however because both the European (most of Europe, nearby countries) and Chinese network (nodes across much of the world, particularly Asia) are relatively internationally distributed (and thereby subject to multiple bureaucracies) they are somewhat less prone to centralized interference/monitoring. Further, neither region has as bad a record as the US in using financial systems for aggressive political gain.
There are numerous reports from NGOs about the social impact of the credit card system and some reports from European Parliament detailing the use of financial systems for US surveillance, most recently around the fiasco resulting in SWIFT2 (aka SWIFT1 with a different name and more servers). A key recent instance of the political use of financial systems is the blocking of Iran from SWIFT, well documented to have been campaigned by Israel via the US defence establishment. They eventually convinced Europe to sign off on it too... amusingly India just said "we'll stop using cash for oil and ship them gold instead". Also http://www.scribd.com/doc/215642587/Finance-and-the-Future-B... (my talk from HAR2009)
The problem is that even with a highly intelligent and driven person like Musk there also is a definite role played by luck and circumstances. Therefore it's highly unlikely to be able to garner some actionable insights from past successes other than the most general ones.
Which ironically means that such people are not uniquely prepared to guide our future. Maybe we could pick selfless but intelligent people as our leaders. Any benefit that this "experience" gives to Mr. Musk is overwhelmed by his penchant for flashy, greedy narcissism. Exhibit: the hyperloop.
Unfortunately, it only covers about Musk till his Paypal days. From Chapter 5 about SpaceX, he just has a guest appearance in the story, which mostly goes to describe the factories, the deals etc.
I really expected the book to hold what Elon thought during Tesla's low times. His motivation that kept him going in SpaceX even after subsequent crashes etc.
I have all the respect in the world for what Mr. Musk has accomplished, but it has come at an amazing cost to the people around him.
He is worshiped from afar but reviled by many the closer you get to his inner circle. Go read "Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future."
The question I always ask myself with the people who move mountains is what cost did that progress come at? What would someone's spouse, kids, friends, etc. say about the person?
"I admit that mathematical science is a good thing. But excessive devotion to it is a bad thing.
If we evolved a race of Isaac Newtons, that would not be progress. For the price Newton had to pay for being a supreme intellect was that he was incapable of friendship, love, fatherhood, and many other desirable things. As a man he was a failure; as a monster he was superb." -- Aldus Huxley
In Mark Manson's new book[0] he talks about how humans can excel at very few things, often barely one, and that "being a good person" for lack of a better phrase counts as one. It seems obvious in hindsight, but struck me because I hadn't thought of it that way before.
(The book is incredible, by the way. I've already read it twice, just like Derek Sivers. Recommend it highly.)
I haven't read the book, but this doesn't seem to fit with what's known about general intelligence, nor the examples of polymaths from the renaissance period.
I suspect the causes are societal, from the constraints placed on our time and freedom to explore and become well rounded.
I don't like the implication that you have to choose between excellence/"supreme intellect" and niceness. It excuses all sorts of assholes who believe that about themselves. What's wrong with being someone like Terry Tao?
Counterpoint from the philosopher George Bernard Shaw:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
While I understand and agree with the point you're making, I think it's also important to acknowledge we're all different, we're all good at different things and we all eventually fulfill some purpose.
Some of us are great at spending time with our wives and taking the kids to soccer practice. We fill our lives with family and friends, and get immense joy from that. We're so busy, likely, we'll never do anything "noteworthy" or wind up in the Guinness Book of Records. (Note: I'm not in any way implying that's a bad thing, I'm simply stating it as likely true)
Others in this world maybe are not so good socially, or maybe do spend "too much" time at work, and do burn out those around them. They do, however, achieve greatness that genuinely moves the entire human race forward.
It just so happens that second kind of person is around one in a few hundred million, so there really aren't so many around.
I believe the humanity moves on its way naturally anyway, those trying desperately to move mountains are simply wasting their lives here on Earth. A balanced way is a key to everything.
Humanity moves on its way naturally because it is made up of individuals. If none of those individuals did anything useful or never "moved mountains", humanity would never move forward or progress.
Why is that question so important to you? A lot of people are drains on everyone around them and they don't move mountains. If the quest is valuable enough to society, it far outweighs the costs to a single man's relationships.
As a rationalization for why you yourself would not want to live that way, that's fair enough. Neither would I.
Precisely, I won't name names but there are a few "drains" on family that I know that didn't start spaceX or tesla, yet they are not utilitarian positive contributors, I'd say.
People that worship another person generally aren't well informed. For example, people look at Elon Musk like he's a pop culture icon -- I see people talking about him on my news feed all the time, yet these people aren't even technical. It's just a way for someone to identify to some type of group. Oh look what Elon's doing, he's so great. My reaction is, why are you sharing press articles about this person? Does it make you feel better about yourself?
People share in an effort to communicate to the world something about themselves. The feel better part will come from their friends and family knowing about what makes them tick and strangers the might be able to recognize a kindred spirit and in turn extend their network of people they enjoy hanging out with.
let me know if you need me to break down other basic human instincts for you :-)
People talk about Elon because he has interesting ideas, does interesting things, and inspires a lot of other people. If many young people (or even old people), watch this interview, it seriously has the potential to make the world a slightly better place, if at least some of them try to put his ideas into practice.
Does it make you feel better about yourself to shit on someone who's excited about electric cars and space travel even if they're not particularly technical?
That's for their spouse, kids, friends, etc to say. I'll judge business people by their businesses, musicians by their music, and so on and so forth. If I meet them personally, then I might make personal judgments, but I've no interest in the tabloid side of tech news.
This is true throughout history. Publicly selfless heroes (Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Elon Musk) often have to "sacrifice" (is it conscious?) their private selves, to be able to be the incarnation of what their work is.
It bothers a lot of people, personally I am fine with it and would make the same decision. I think it's a personality thing.
Elon Musk is worth $12B. He's a businessman. He lives in a giant mansion. Ghandi owned like 5 things. I'm not knocking Musk, but this is a strange interpretation of a very successful capitalist.
Make no mistake, the lifelong servitude of Mandela and Gandhi is so far beyond the work of a businessman, however groundbreaking and amazing Musk is, that it's a societal disgrace to humanity to reference them as equals. I write this as someone who respects and admires Musk as much as anyone in this forum, if not more.
There are any number of people who are far more toxic to those around them without having accomplished any significant progress in the process, so Elon Musk is a poor choice of target for that criticism.
I don't understand why you would be concerned and not elated by his effect on society. Tech has been stuck for 40 years in most major industries, and in a time when it seems impossible to overcome the entrenched incumbents of those industries, here comes a person who shows us that it is in fact possible. Now people have hope that our future will be decided not by frail, unmoving conglomerates, but instead by nimble and innovative start ups. There are going to be more science ventures thanks to that.
I want to respond to you, because you seem to view Musk as obviously great. And you know, how could someone not like him? I can tell you there's something about him that rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's because his only big success is Paypal, which you can argue was him being in the right place at the right time. All his other ventures, while more grandiose, have not yet been super successful. So I don't feel like he deserves a lot of the hero-worship he gets. And certain things, rockets exploding and his Tesla autopilot causing fatalities, make it seem like his companies are cutting corners and not actually great companies.
Elon definitely is not a fluke like you imply. He is not the best eng but it is his relentless work ethic (read: no other timesink in his life at all) that puts him above the others. Have you ever worked more than 100hrs a week? I don't even think I've managed it once but Elon does it every week. To admire elon, you must first understand what that means.
You say he has only had one successful venture but before Paypal he sold his company Zip2 to Compaq for some 300M. Then he started x.com, which only later merged with Peter and max's company. Elons x.com brought more than 50% of the staff. This means that he was a huge component in Paypals success no way you cut it.
We have established that he is no fluke, now lets examine your criticisms of Tesla and SpaceX and why you should not have them at all. Tesla is not perfect but there is absolutely, 100%, no other way to have sustainable transport than electric cars. Even if Tesla used child labour with huge workplace accident rates, you should still support them, because no matter how you cut it, we will destroy our atmosphere permanently without huge electric car adoption. Nevermind all of the other parts of the power industry that are hugely polluting.
On to SpaceX. They are saving taxpayers millions of dollars every year by allowing governments to cut satellite launch costs by 4x over Boeing or Lockheed.
In short:
Elon is not a fluke and has super human work ethic
Tesla is our one shot at everyone not dying en masse by the time I'm in 40s (head in the sand if it soothes you but thats the case)
SpaceX saves millions of taxpayer dollars every year.
> Even if Tesla used child labour with huge workplace accident rates, you should still support them, because no matter how you cut it, we will destroy our atmosphere permanently without huge electric car adoption. Nevermind all of the other parts of the power industry that are hugely polluting.
You should be advocating for international cooperation and government action, not a company that creates electric sports cars.
That is totally a reasonable thing to suggest, and examining it brings to light the importance of Tesla.
Government is like Thor's hammer. If you can wield it, you wield tremendous power.
Think of mega corps as Thor, wielding the hammer. This is how government works: A mega corp pays for politics to happen in a certain way, and thus change happens at huge scale through taxpayer money.
However, you may not wield the hammer if you are not Thor, because it's too heavy. Analogously, lobbying is too expensive for small players, and to be a politician advocating risky things without a huge payout is career suicide.
Advocating governmental change is a nice thought, but how government actually works is by having enough cash. Be a huge mega-corp and then paying lobbyists that pay people inside of government.
Or, you could simply grow a company and do your best to be completely independent of government while stile abiding by their rules and operating under fair laws. That's what Tesla is doing.
At this point, your baseless bias against Tesla should be clear to yourself. If you can take this revelation with humility, that you have been advocating against the exact thing that humanity truly needs, I declare you in the top 98% of people for emotional self-control. It is not an easy thing to accept that you're wrong, but I've spelt it out.
And we need your help, stranger, because time is running out super fast and there are millions out there making the same misjudgment that you have here, but some of them are a genuine threat to Tesla's fate.
It is a race against the clock to get everyone behind this guy.
Because the message of "only superhumans who work 80 hour weeks can accomplish great things" is not the kind of effect I want on society. We have enough of that as it is. We need less of it, not more.
Does it not concern you that tech has been stuck for 40 years? That space has been stuck for however many years? Despite all this hard work everywhere? I'd rather resolve those problems at the core than address the symptoms or possibly worsen them by betting everything on one person and hope they will bring us salvation.
>"only superhumans who work 80 hour weeks can accomplish great things" is not the kind of effect I want on society. We have enough of that as it is. We need less of it, not more.
I don't think you know what you're talking about here. Let me explain why 80 hours a week is a good thing.
At large, people lead lives of quiet struggle against forces they do not understand. They continue this because they are in a local minimum of daily energy expenditure, and like simulated anealling, you stay stuck unless you keep putting in more energy. Women return to husbands that beat them because that's their local minimum, even though they have the option of returning to the dating pool, moving out, creating a new social circle: These tasks are putting energy into their lives so that they might arrive at a new minimum with a value much lower than the previous minimum. You could say that they are better off for it, thanks to the energy put in.
She puts in more energy, then she ends up closer to the global minimum.
This can be applied to society. If people are relaxed as they are today, they are probably in a local minimum and not the global minimum. But in some form, analogously, the wife beating continues, and we simply rationalize it like you have shown here, and we continue.
I am 22. I assume you're in your 30s/40s. We have no future, my friend, and it's thanks to collective 'shrugging it off' decade after decade since WW2. I won't accept that, and you should not either. You are making up silly excuses to protect yourself from the truth which is 'Wow, America really does need this man, and he truly is doing great things'.
Because Musk is not perfect. What makes him great is also what makes him terrible. And people seem to want to ignore the first part and focus on the second part around here.
Well okay, but there are more constructive ways to put it than the comment I responded to. How about something like, 'while celebrating Musk's achievements, we shouldn't forget that not everything a great man does is worth emulating, e.g. let's not copy the working conditions of SpaceX.'
Perhaps not. Mr Downey's performance is not achieved by raw personal magnetism alone, but requires a substantial crew to deliver the fully polished product. The cost of creating Tony Stark runs at roughly $100m per hour. I doubt even the astronomical budgets of astronautical agencies could absorb that.
As for Mr Musk's personal style, I found this interview quite captivating. All the more so for his lack of bluster and posturing.
I agree he isn't that good at delivery but he feels very authentic and that does it for me more than the total fakery I see at e.g. Apple now. I say this because I am a big Apple fan I liked Steve Jobs presentations, but it hurts my ears when everybody at Apple try to sound like Steve Jobs throwing out "Best ever", "Only Apple can do this", "This is the best X we ever built" etc.
Elon Musk never says rubbish like this which feels totally markety. When Elon Musk rants about something it feels more like a geek who is really excited about something, rather than slick market speak.
>Elon Musk never says rubbish like this which feels totally markety. When Elon Musk rants about something it feels more like a geek who is really excited about something..
Maybe, that is how you market to geeks..Know your target audience and all that...Looks like it is working!
IMO bad amateur acting often involves people reciting lines in a weird stilted way instead of just talking normally. I don't know how to act like someone else, but I can act like myself at least.
It's quite possible, that Page, and Bezos don't see much value in collaborating with the press. Maybe that seems like a non productive use of time to them. For example, look how much Zuck is in the press.
They don't need it because they have sustainable businesses regardless of the press, so they don't do it. Musk wouldn't have a business without constant coverage and a strong brand (brand equity helps him cut deals no one else could).
I get your premise, however Blue Origin is sustainable for as long as Bezos deems it so, regardless of having a business under it. He has $67 billion in wealth he can liquidate to burn on anything he chooses; he's regularly selling off large blocks of his Amazon stake now. Burning $500 million per year will not matter in any meaningful sense to him, stacked against something he has decided is critically important. He's likely to be worth more than $100 billion over time and he's 52 years old - $500 million times 30 years is something he can afford if need be.
> Be useful, that's fine, no need to alter the world drastically.
More specifically: if you make a minor improvement that affects a lot of people (improve video streaming) it is just as good as a major improvement that drastically affects a few people (curing an extremely rare disease). It's the area under the curve that matters. The best would obviously be a large effect over a large number of people, but minor improvements can be very useful.
The easiest way that probably anyone on HN (who can fizzbuzz) can help is with data management. So much stuff is still done by hand that could be easily scripted.
Researchers in our institute were amazed how easy it is to use e.g. google forms to gather data in a reasonable format. Once you get data in a reasonable format you can help them with transforming it/joining it with other sources/cleaning them up. ETLs and data integration are often completely foreign concepts to them.
And that's researchers, you might still start calling them quite computer-competent after you talk to the people in the clinic. All the research is for nothing if it's not brought to "bedside" to benefit the patients in a clinical setting, outside all trials. For that you need to make sure genomics pipelines are automated and reproducible and only clinically relevant information gets to the oncologists (or other doctors) deciding on treatment. This is still not quite there even in the best places.
I think most of the really world-changing stuff will just be hard work on relatively easy problems. It's hard to get excited about these (compared to the latest neural networks or distributed high performance systems) but they need to get done
I'm not sure you would. I mean, I'm sure you could somehow, but at this point so much of what needs to be done is basic research, and really can be done well in that context. There aren't many things that are ready to leave the context of a research lab and into commercialization. We've got some notable disasters with Theranos, and even the YC funded Taxa (glowing plant - that was a farce from the get-go, but they're doing some potentially interesting stuff now).
As far as education, it's not something you can learn by yourself, it just isn't. Most of the methods in a biological wet lab are very far from standardized and need a great deal of troubleshooting. Most post-docs in a new lab spend a couple months just trying to get basic stuff working that they've done dozens of times before. It's hard. You need people around you with experience and perspective, and doctorate programs are likely the only place you're going to get that kind of training.
I think there are a lot of people that want to approach biology with a CS mindset, especially the people interested in synthetic biology, but that rarely bears fruit. It could get to that place eventually, but there's a lot of ground to cover. In that sense I agree with Elon that, despite the huge impact genetic engineering could have, it's not the next thing because we're not ready yet. There's still too much that's fundamental to biological problems that we simply don't understand, and solving things in one species usually doesn't translate very far across taxa.
> Most of the methods in a biological wet lab are very far from standardized and need a great deal of troubleshooting. Most post-docs in a new lab spend a couple months just trying to get basic stuff working that they've done dozens of times before.
Having had experience with syn bio in grad school and trying to reconcile the empirical (biology) and first principles (CS/math) approaches, I've been thinking a lot lately about how to streamline the troubleshooting process for picking up and optimizing wet lab methods. I'd love to chat - my email's in my profile.
This is why Theranos was such an effective scam: the current culture of "innovation" is so heavily based in software, an unconstrained space where a creative wunderkind can make great advances, it thinks all problems can be solved through sheer thinking outside the box, "disruption," and dreaming big. Those are all good things to try, but I don't think it's a coincidence Silicon Valley-based big-dreaming startups aren't doing nearly as well as big, boring research labs with heavy understanding of the science and measured goals.
You probably couldn't. But if you refer to two things Musk said - a) genetics is important, and b) PhD is not the best way to be useful - I think he didn't mean it to be taken together. He spent some time talking about how being useful means "area under the curve" - do a big thing for small number of people, or do a small thing for a large number of people. Most people can aim for either of the two, and in both cases PhD is probably not the most efficient use of your time.
Genetic research uses computational techniques today. However, most academics who understand genetics well are crappy programmers. My source for this is a friend who is a tenure-track professor of evolutionary biology at a major university, with publications based on computational analyses of genomes. In pulling those publications together, he inevitably had to spend a lot of time time reviewing and cleaning up the terrible code of his co-authors, checking for correctness. "And I'm not even good at coding," he said. "That's how bad this stuff was!"
So, I think there must be a role for strong developers to partner with strong genetic researchers to make the best use of computers for research. That role might not exist now--you might have the opportunity to go create it. But it does seem sorely needed.
I'm not sure if you would consider this meaningful, but if you have software development skills, either developing applications that can be used to solve problems in genetics, or that save the time of those working on solving those problems.
So, I can't answer about solving big problems, but I did genetic engineering research in grad school on bacteria. One could very easily conduct serious genetic engineering in one's bedroom for less that $500 or so. Of course this is fairly basic stuff, but still, you'd be amazed what is possible with very little equipment.
For example, there is a yearly competition called iGEM, which is synthetic biology competition for undergrads. Some of the stuff they do with limited resources is quite impressive.
You can definitely contribute. If you're a software engineer, then you could join a research lab as a scientific programmer. Good labs are well-funded in these areas and will have funding to cover salary for a programmer to implement data analysis pipelines, polish research software and make it publicly available etc.
Alternatively if you're a software engineer or a product designer, or many other roles, then you could join a company working on commercializing genetic medicine. They're are lots and those companies are definitely not just looking for people with PhDs.
Once in a place like that, you'd be able to chat further with people about your career direction.
Moreover.. Musk said he didn't anticipate being involved in all 5 things he thought about in college, including genetics. What is he working on that's genetics related?? Did he just misspeak?
Consider computational biology. There are lots of problems which hinge on understanding the impact of genetics on populations and variations in genetics and that effect. As there are already sources of genetic data sets and infrastructure to generate those data sets, genetic research becomes more of a data science problem than a medical problem.
This is the part I somewhat disagree. I've seen lots of strong computational biologists make the leap into generic data science, but I've seen way too many CS/data science types struggle. They take the data at face value, not recognizing the fact that biological data has flaws. A sound understanding of biology/chemistry helps a lot with identifying those flaws and generally with designing experiments/research.
Admittedly that's a bit of a generalization and I am sure there are a decent number of exceptions but consistent with my experience.
That is mostly because those "types" as you call them didn't take math courses or slept through them, or don't use the math tools in everyday work - because it's not needed.
In other words, they're not Computer Scientists. They are Computer Programmers instead. (or maybe Computer System Engineers)
I believe that the comment you are responding to was speaking to the asymmetry that people with experience in computational biology have an easier time moving to general data science problems than do people with experience in general data science working on computational biology problems.
I agree that the asymmetry exists: there is a tremendous baseline of scientific knowledge and experience that is needed to make significant contributions to the field. I personally have worked with people with backgrounds in programming or CS on medical problems, and it has been frustrating because they lack what I would term "scientific common sense". I would personally prefer, and would be able to make more progress with, working with (for example) anyone who has completed a sequence of education sufficient for pre-med requirements and has some programming experience over a "full stack data engineer". Even if someone with a programming or CS background were inclined to pick up the textbooks and amass the baseline scientific knowledge (I'm sure they exist, although I haven't met them yet), they'd still lack the years of laboratory work and experience of applying this knowledge.
My original comment was apparently poorly worded because it was interpreted by the responders differently than I intended, but delightfully, it resulted in very thoughtful comments. I am very skeptical that one can make even small contributions to genetics without the experience of years of specialized work. There are ancillary problems that could be done by someone with a programming or CS background, e.g., a better LIMS system, or perhaps protocol management, but I don't see those tasks as leading to later making meaningful contributions to the field of genetics. The MD or PhD isn't required, but all the work done leading up to it is, and so as I see it those prepared to make the contributions are most likely going to have gotten the degree on the way.
Indeed, the main problem in genetics are not related to handling data, but require major experimentation, even at cellular level, not to mention higher ones.
Not much CS can help with right now - the most useful tools (mass fuzzy searches and molecular simulations) are already there.
Having watched a good number of Elon Musk interviews, I wish more interviewers would ask more direct questions. Asking Elon general questions usually results in fairly similar responses to what you have heard before or read in his biography.
He has always said the chances of SpaceX succeeding was very slim - but at what point(after any particular technical achievement) he realized the this might work out.
Wasn't Falcon 1 a test bed for Falcon 9? I remember one when Tom Mueller called Elon Musk to say the a full length Merlin burn was completed without melting the engine. That was a big milestone.
I am pretty sure there have multiple of this yahoo moments successively - that made him believe that SpaceX will be able to succeed.
I've heard from interviewers that he's notoriously difficult to interview. He doesnt trust reporters and usually has certain questions they cant ask him.
I like the things that Elon Musk has done and tried, but what irritates me are all the sycophants in the media who think he's a genius wizard rather than a smart entrepreneur and don't take some of his claims with a grain of salt.
Are any of his claims even original? It's not like needing to spread humans to other planets is original, yet it seems like everyone's worshiping him over such statements as though it's a new idea.
I think it was interesting his comment about how he really isn't working like a CEO: "Yeah. I think a lot of people think I'm kind of a business person or something, which is fine. Business is fine. But really it's like at SpaceX, Gwynne Shotwell is Chief Operating Officer. She manages legal, finance, sales, and general business activity. And then my time is almost entirely with the engineering team, working on improving the Falcon 9 and our Dragon spacecraft and developing the Mars Colonial architecture."
This seems very similar to Steve Jobs who said he became CEO so that nobody could tell him what he could or couldn't work on. But like Elon Musk he seemed most interested in creating things and not really running the business.
I think this is a clue to successful business. If you got leaders like that you retain focus on good products rather than getting caught up in optimizing financials without a strong focus on actually building quality stuff people want or need.
It always saddens me when I see a slew of Debbie Downer comments from the HN crowd.
"Yes, he ushered in the electric car revolution, but the production carbon footprint is still huge!"
"Yes, he's building rockets, but he took a bunch of government money!"
"Yes, he's paving the way to Mars, but what has he done for world hunger?"
And it not just with Musk, but really with anyone who has been successful. I would have thought that the technologists were above such petty envy. We're here to improve humanity's lot, aren't we?
There are rational, non-envy-based reasons to object to all the hero-worship. For example, all the things "he" did above were actually done by big teams of people working together, but Elon gets all the credit. He deserves credit, but not all of it.
And let's not forget the millions of people who worked to generate wealth that could be transferred via, and taxed by, PayPal, accruing the fortune with which to start all these projects in the first place. If I didn't "know better" I'd be tempted to conclude that the luck of being in the right place at the right time with a good idea, is the main difference between Elon and the rest, or at least that any intrinsic differences are not as great as you might think. Heck I'm a "visionary" too, just add one billion dollars and tons of free time and see what I come up with! (Campaign coming soon to Kickstarter, LOL)
Man is at once animal and rational, and sometimes the rational side reacts against our own animalistic urge to designate an alpha ape and worship only that one ape. Many of us got into technology as a way of breaking down this same kind of bullshit hierarchy that you can find in so many other places & domains of human life. Technology was supposed to be the great equalizer. In some cases it has worked that way but in others it has only amplified the disequilibrium. It seems we can't escape our inner ape.
Therefore is it "technologists" to whom you should be appealing here for greater reverence? Maybe it's not your technological side, but your ape side, that wants to be more reverent.
But that's the nature of network effects. Jaron Lanier's spoken eloquently about that, and Elon Musk exemplifies it. Whether he likes it or not, he is the figurehead and the focal point. Because he's willing to be that, it builds on itself. Because he's in a valuation-driven growth-only economy on which his businesses depend, it's in his interest to serve as this focal point, and because 'visionary' is an appealing story, the feedback loop gets set up and whirls into motion.
I think he is so much of a nerd that it doesn't change him all that much. I like him better for that, but it's true he doesn't deserve the amount of credit he's given, simply because that's unrealistic.
But, if he CEASES to be 'that guy' and 'the visionary sole leader and innovator', it's less of an appealing story, and his businesses would suffer. He is surfing on a wave of attention which sustains the valuations of his companies, and using the valuation to invest in gigantic projects that may do a lot of good. Surf on, say I.
He didn't "do" those things, but he did put practically all his money where his mouth was to make them happen, with extremely uncertain payoff.
He could have invested his money, maybe funded some low-cost web startups, but instead he did what he thought was needed, financial risk being secondary. I think that's what makes him stand out.
PayPal (really X.com) was founded based on: "17% of the world's economy is lost to the financial industry. Wtf, they are just numbers in a database, can't we do better?"
I dunno what the percent is now, or whether PayPal decreased it significantly (or increased it even), but the difference is Elon's ability to look at problems, reduce them to fundamentals, decide if they can be improved upon or not, then working toward moving reality in that direction.
So, if the 'PayPal tax' is unacceptable to you, the "visionary" thing to do would be, figure out what the root causes of that tax are, figure out why they are unnecessary and how much correcting them will move the needle. Any significant progress in this area would be worth well more than a billion dollars, and you'd have no problem raising that capital. Make it happen!
According to your logic, Elon's been "in the right place at the right time" how many times? That you think that's due to luck, when it's clear he's a polymath with great design talent and work ethic, says more about him as a psychological Rorschach than anything else, I think.
He does trigger conservative-minded people pretty hard, which I imagine is partly due to how Tesla got politicized during Obama's first term.
I don't know how serious you are about the billion dollars thing (or what exactly your point may be), but I'd bet a billion dollars you wouldn't be anywhere as effective as Elon is with that money. The idea that any two people are going to be equivalently effective given $X is silly. There are just as many orders of difference in effectiveness with money as there are in any other endeavor.
Of course, but I don't see a problem with celebrating what Elon is doing. I think your comment would be more relevant for the libertarian argument that CEOs need to be paid bucketloads of money, or the idea that rich people deserve all their riches because they did it all by themselves. I don't really think Elon is a guy that thinks he built everything himself. I have more an issue with conservative politicians who will not acknowledge that great organizations and businesses are team efforts and that all member of society should be appreciated, not just those on the top.
Elon like many great leaders before him is accomplish great things because he recognizes talent and allow talented people to do what they are good at. Too many talented people are held down by their leaders.
Of course if Elon was placed in Somalia he would have accomplished nothing. The talents and infrastructure he needs to do great things would not have been there. It is American society which has given him the opportunities he has exploited.
I read something a couple of decades ago that's helped me avoid, occasionally, the mindset that causes me to be a curmudgeon: someone else's success is not my problem.
Thats not to say that any particular criticism is unjustified. Just that tearing down someone for its own sake is not good for anyone - rock throwers included.
If only society in general would adopt that perspective. Unfortunately there seems to be a growing sentiment that someone else's success was somehow at their expense and therefore they are owed something by the successful.
I'd argue that a lot of this a reaction to the standard media celebrity. Everywhere there are puff pieces trumpeting minor successes and pathetic daily trivialities of b-grade celebrities. And when it isn't this, younlater learn how success was achieved in a negative way or of terrible behaviour by the previously championed individual. Having a high level of cynicism helps keep one sane and avoid the hype. You are rarely disappointed.
> It always saddens me when I see a slew of Debbie Downer comments from the HN crowd.
My observation over the last few years has been a steady decline in the quality of comments on HN, and a steady increase in the number of Debbie Downer comments.
No matter what someone is doing - there will always, always be a comment about how whatever they are trying to achieve is stupid and they should instead be doing x, y, z.
Nah, in fact I'd say it's the opposite. There are more middle if the road comments and meta complaining. The HN crowd is notoriously hard on everyone - especially so if there are technical questions involved -and it has been that way forever.
I think that's just the medium, nothing unique to HN. Any sort of online forum where people post comments is going to be overwhelmingly biased towards negative comments- either people going on about how much they hate whatever the subject is (be it Elon Musk or Python or whatever), or people being contrarian about some aspect of the article, or people being negative or contrarian about other posters.
People are just much more likely to comment if they hate something than if they love something. Also if they disagree with something than if they agree. Comments in any online forum are not a uniform sampling of the views of the readers.
HN's saving grace is that many of the articles linked to are on subjects that are just obscure enough to avoid being overwhelmed by "this sucks/this rules" sorts of bikeshedding comments. Also most of the topics are complicated or obscure enough as to make them difficult targets for kneejerk nitpickery.
Last time I checked, not only were the number of EVs produced and sold in the US minuscule, but the derivative was negative. I don't recall the precise year, probably 2013-2014, but fewer cars were sold in the second than the first.
I can't locate the post presently, and don't know how trends have progressed. The statistic surprised me when I found it.
Where exactly do you live? A quick search indicates that Tesla is outselling Ford in Norway. If you live in Norway, then astazangasta is correct and you're looking at a symptom of income inequality. Norway is rather wealthy even by Western standards.
Tesla has done a great job of dressing up a status symbol as an environmentally friendly choice. (Or vice versa.)
If you look at the poorer citizens in your country, you'll likely find no Teslas, and few electric cars in general.
Yes it's Norway, and no, while poorer people (like me) don't drive Teslas - they drive Leafs or e-Golfs, so I maintain it has nothing to do with inequality. Nobody buy Fords because they don't have a viable EV offering on the market. Norwegians aren't really wealthier than say Danes, who have very different outcome of EV market so far due to very different policies.
Nobody I know here bought a petrol car last two years; one got a plug-in hybrid. Tesla is hardly a status symbol here, it attracts customers both from the middle and luxury segments. People who in the past would consider Audi A5 or Volvo X70 would go for Tesla. The economics for electric cars are simply much better.
"Poor" is relative since apparently workers in Norway earn more per capita than any other nation. A quick search indicates you guys earn something like 55% more than workers in France or Britain. So you could feel pretty poor relative to your neighbors and still bring in significantly more than the average in even affluent countries.
A quick search also indicates that your gas is 25% more expensive than France or Britain, and more importantly that your electric car incentives are so absurd that your politicians are beginning to roll them back. No taxes, no tolls, no ferry charges, no parking fees, free use of bus lanes. Electric cars there are cheaper than equivalent gas powered cars, because the taxes are ~50% of the cost. Yeah, with incentives like that, I'd probably own an electric car, too. I'm not sure this counts as an electric car revolution so much as a government handout, though. If the government subsidized 50% of the price of Fords, you'd probably see their sales skyrocket but no one would really call that a revolution.
Tesla is definitely a status symbol, though. The fact that Audi drivers moved to Tesla didn't dispute that because Audi is also a status symbol. Volvo to a lesser extent.
Average income here is way below Bay Area however, and it has less EV per capita than Norway. Perhaps you chose a poor metric.
Parking is not free, although some municipalities subsidize rebates for EV spots in select garages. Urban dwellers (majority of EV market) nearly never take ferries. Incentives were clearly temporary from the beginning, you are hardly breaking any news to me here. The price of car is not subsidized, a Tesla here costs more dollar-to-dollar than it does in California before rebates.
Sure there are (also temporary) import tax incentives, but it's about the only way a government can encourage adoption of clean tech in chicken and egg infrastructure situation. There has to be some upside for being the first guy in the town who can't fill at gas station. As soon as it gains momentum, the incentives will be rolled back. It is however already clear that EV adoption in Norway is a success.
Also you have to be really really broke to see an ordinary German sedan as a status symbol, certainly not anywhere in Western Europe.
> Average income here is way below Bay Area however, and it has less EV per capita than Norway. Perhaps you chose a poor metric.
I'm not sure I did pick a poor metric. Income in the Bay Area is pretty uneven. You see a lot of Teslas at the Google campus, but relatively few at Wal-Mart. Salaries at tech companies are six figure but minimum wage is just above $10/hr.
> Parking is not free, although some municipalities subsidize rebates for EV spots in select garages. Urban dwellers (majority of EV market) nearly never take ferries. Incentives were clearly temporary from the beginning, you are hardly breaking any news to me here.
The article I read indicated that they were, but maybe not. Obviously the tax exemption is the big factor.
> The price of car is not subsidized, a Tesla here costs more dollar-to-dollar than it does in California before rebates.
That's not a realistic claim if the government is waving taxes that would otherwise amount to half the total cost of the car.
It's not very interesting to compare the absolute Tesla cost there and in California. What's interesting to compare is the Tesla cost there vs California relative to other options. A Tesla Model S in California costs about as much as a BMW M3. It looks like in Norway the effective cost of a Model S is closer to a basic Model 3.
> Sure there are (also temporary) import tax incentives, but it's about the only way a government can encourage adoption of clean tech in chicken and egg infrastructure situation. There has to be some upside for being the first guy in the town who can't fill at gas station. As soon as it gains momentum, the incentives will be rolled back. It is however already clear that EV adoption in Norway is a success.
I'm not opposed to tax incentives. My point is just that the "revolution" here is being driven by massive government subsidies. A 50% subsidy will make almost anything a success.
> Also you have to be really really broke to see an ordinary German sedan as a status symbol, certainly not anywhere in Western Europe.
I think this says something about your financial situation that you think the only way to see an Audi as a status symbol is if you're "really broke". I don't know about Norway, but most cars sold in Europe are not Audis or BMWs. Fiat outsells BMW and Audi. So does GM. So does Ford. And Peugot. And Renault. Volkwagon beats Audi and BMW combined. BMW and Audi are not "ordinary German sedans". They are luxury cars purchased by a minority of the population. They are absolutely status symbols.
> Salaries at tech companies are six figure but minimum wage is just above $10/hr.
Guess what, same here. An engineer at Statoil makes a lot more than a janitor. Minimum wage here is higher and there's a more elaborate safety net, still living at that end is very uncomfortable. Again I don't see any takeaway from this.
> That's not a realistic claim if the government is waving taxes that would otherwise amount to half the total cost of the car.
This is a realistic claim because the government does not subsidize a vehicle with own money as it is often presented here, but withholds extra taxation. No taxpayer money harmed. Tax discounts are not unprecedented, e.g. tax code here has elaborate cases for families with children, people with disabilities etc. Two people doing identical job can be paying very different amount of tax. Different categories of imported food can have taxes differing by magnitude, and so on.
> What's interesting to compare is the Tesla cost there vs California relative to other options.
I don't think anyone had illusions that Tesla isn't economic in Norway relative to other options. That's why people buy it and I mentioned it before.
The end result is people here drive tons of Teslas and other EVs, and the market has changed for good. When tax incentives removed, people will still drive them, as they are simply better rides overall with simpler maintenance routine.
I don't see in any way why has Tesla miscalculated the market as initially stated. I see tons of their cars on the roads every day, so it arrived here. It is hilarious my benign remark was treated as some classist rub.
> I don't know about Norway, but most cars sold in Europe are not Audis or BMWs.
Look, I'm not sure how it's in the States, but a BMW or Audi won't get you laid in Europe. Kids won't drop their candy and men won't think of your "status". Cabbies drive Merc E class here (not just in Norway). Pakistani immigrants drive German sedans. Everyone knows they are more expensive but not out of range of a middle income family on a financing - just a matter of your priorities. Porsche Cayenne is "luxury", Maibach is, but A5 and the likes, made in hundreds thousands each year is not. Tesla is cool in its own high tech way, but salon trim doesn't give a luxury vibe either.
> Guess what, same here. An engineer at Statoil makes a lot more than a janitor. Minimum wage here is higher and there's a more elaborate safety net, still living at that end is very uncomfortable. Again I don't see any takeaway from this.
Point being that poor people don't buy Teslas. That's why inequality of income in the Bay is relevant. Wealthy engineers are buying Teslas because they can afford it. Most of the population cannot. Your government subsidies make Teslas affordable to a larger chunk of the population, but wealth is still a significant factor. Subsidies just happen to be a bigger one.
> This is a realistic claim because the government does not subsidize a vehicle with own money as it is often presented here, but withholds extra taxation.
These two scenarios are effectively the same:
1. Car costs X and taxes are Y. Government waives Y in taxes.
2. Car costs X and taxes are Y. Government provides discount of Y against cost of car.
Whether the government waives taxes or literally helps you pay the car is irrelevant. The net effect on the government's finances (and the customer's finances) is the same.
Again, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. But it is absolutely a massive subsidy.
> The end result is people here drive tons of Teslas and other EVs, and the market has changed for good. When tax incentives removed, people will still drive them, as they are simply better rides overall with simpler maintenance routine.
Maybe. I bet if the incentives disappeared tomorrow a lot of people would stop buying them, especially if the price hasn't dropped on its own. Hopefully incentives like Norways are helping to push down cost permanently by increasing the volume, though.
> I don't see in any way why has Tesla miscalculated the market as initially stated. I see tons of their cars on the roads every day, so it arrived here. It is hilarious my benign remark was treated as some classist rub.
I don't think anyone actually asserted that Tesla had miscalculated the market, only that there hasn't been a revolution yet. Good for Norway for achieving a local one at least.
> Look, I'm not sure how it's in the States, but a BMW or Audi won't get you laid in Europe. Kids won't drop their candy and men won't think of your "status". Cabbies drive Merc E class here (not just in Norway). Pakistani immigrants drive German sedans. Everyone knows they are more expensive but not out of range of a middle income family on a financing - just a matter of your priorities. Porsche Cayenne is "luxury", Maibach is, but A5 and the likes, made in hundreds thousands each year is not. Tesla is cool in its own high tech way, but salon trim doesn't give a luxury vibe either.
Cars in general don't get you laid anywhere. That doesn't mean that they aren't status symbols. Most status symbols aren't actually out of reach of the average middle class family. Smart marketing is to price these things such that they are affordable but also a decent stretch. That keeps them reasonably exclusive while also providing access to a massive market of consumers. This is no different in the US. Middle class families can afford BMWs, but most of them don't.
You're welcome to think that expensive cars aren't status symbols if you like, though.
True, but here they wouldn't buy cars at all, just use bus. The income extremes don't matter as much if we stick to the cars that are actually on the roads. If we restrict to what lower vs higher middle class buys, calling that 'income inequality' in original sense of the problem is a joke. The gap is not huge and social mobility there is relatively easy (in Norway).
> The net effect on the government's finances (and the customer's finances) is the same.
There are other fiscal effects as well, even if not explicit in annual budgeting. E.g. my town is mostly surrounded by mountains and every winter it has an exhaust cushion over it. Which triggers crises among the asthmatics, so the municipality has to introduce date driving for prolonged periods. E.g. drive with odd number licence plate on odd days and even on even. This has both direct costs and productivity losses.
The whole idea to push for electric was to reduce externalized costs of car pollution on population and the nature. Mind you it's not the first such an effort: in the 1990s, the government here (and in some other countries) promoted diesels vs petrol cars for lower emissions. That is until they learned about particle emissions of diesels.
And how it was done? Correct, import tax rebates on diesel vehicles. Except you never ever hear anyone saying "diesel revolution has not arrived" or "diesel has to be subsidised by government to compete".
> You're welcome to think that expensive cars aren't status symbols if you like, though.
Maybe I misunderstand the concept then, point is these cars are bloody ordinary in Europe. When I singled out A5 I meant it's being bought by people who previously would consider different class vehicles, as Tesla was meant to compete with 7-seaters and top of the line sedans.
Exactly. He sucks up airtime for quieter, likely superior approaches in other or the same areas. It's anger not envy. What's the point of Wired interviewing Elon Musk for the 10,000th time? There are so many people doing so much good stuff out there. Finding them isn't hard. They are on the internet too.
> What's the point of Wired interviewing Elon Musk for the 10,000th time?
Ad money, like with all publishing. If they actually cared about providing useful content to people, they'd seek out those quieter ones and interview them too. Don't blame Elon for the market actors that want to earn money off his fanbase. Blame those market actors instead.
To be fair though, Tesla cars are an expensive luxury brand and have no real revolutionary potential at the moment. The revolution is to make affordable electric cars and the infrastructure to build them, and there are serious doubts about how much Tesla can scale to that. It's similar to electric bicycles, in that there are some masterfully engineered, high tech ones out there...at the cost of a decent used motorcycle, and trying to scale it ends up being clunky, heavy, and still more expensive than the bike you put it on.
When he actually improves humanity's lot instead of producing boutique goods for rich people, then maybe we'll see more praise.
> Tesla cars are an expensive luxury brand and have no real revolutionary potential at the moment. The revolution is to make affordable electric cars and the infrastructure to build them
So...their plan being to bootstrap the large-scale manufacturing of affordable vehicles with a smaller number of more expensive sales, you're saying that Tesla simultaneously is and isn't revolutionary at the same time?
But Tesla's goal is exactly that: to make electric cars affordable and create the necessary infrastructure for them. And he does that by starting with the market segment where it's easiest to get started: high margin sports cars and luxury cars, and working his way down from there.
It'll be a while before his electric cars can really compete with cheap cars, but I'm sure he'll get there. He's making good progress.
I don't think he will. You can't work your way down from that, you have to design the product with the end market in mind. My bet is that electric cars simply are impossible to make at a $20k price point approaching anywhere near Tesla quality, in the same way you won't be able to make a decent electric bike for $300.
Probably the same way Ferrari is, no point to make wide acceptance of that brand.
Why wouldn't he be able to work down from that? It seems to be working quite well. The Model 3 costs $35k, which, while by no means cheap, is a lot more affordable than the Roadster and the S.
There's a lot of R&D going into this, and it's just easier to bootstrap a car company out of nothing while building expensive, high-margin luxury cars than when building competitive mass market cars. The mass market will come, but before it gets to that, costs have to go down more, and infrastructure for electric cars has to become ubiquitous.
Pretty much every company relies on government subsidies of some form or another. (Cheap transportation infrastructure and a workforce partially or entirely educated via the public school system are two of the larger subsidies governments provide.) Taxpayers generally don't have a problem with that when those subsidies are a net benefit to society.
Yeah, but this is taken to the extreme. I mean, Tesla isn't currently profitable and they are relying on subsidies to just stay afloat. We're talking billions of dollars of government cash flowing into Tesla/SpaceX to keep them from going bankrupt. You can't tell me it's the same for other car companies because it's simply not true.
I've read that GM received a taxpayer funded cash infusion of around $49 billion around 2009-10. I've also read that after the Treasury sold it's last shares of GM the final loss to taxpayers was somewhere in the $9.5-$10 billion range. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Tesla's subsidies have ever reached that level. I believe Tesla is staying afloat largely due to investor capital, or am I incorrect?
Disclosure: I work at SpaceX as a technician so I may be biased.
- Fiat Chrysler Automobiles — $2.06 Billion in subsidies
Took 10 seconds of Googling to find that.
Plus Tesla is actually innovating on a massive scale and pulling the world into a more sustainable, quieter future. I too hate subsidies but as long as the US Governemnt is going to keep up corporate welfare it may as well be towards the actual innovators building a better future than the laggards trying their best to maintain the status quo so they can extract maximum profits.
People who like to think of themselves as ambitious and effective sometimes get a wee bit jealous when presented with someone who really hit it big, I think.
Definitely. You've got bankers robbing the public for trillions, and wars of questionable effectiveness costing five trillion over the last decade or so, and then you've got Elon taking very large personal risks in technology that could potentially have great positive impact on humanity, and yet he gets the same level of hate in the press.
