Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower (bloomberg.com)
338 points by ProAm 44 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 232 comments



"Later that day, Tripp heard from the sheriff’s department in Storey County, Nev. Tesla’s security department had passed a tip to police. An anonymous caller had contacted the company to say Tripp was planning a mass shooting at the Gigafactory."

Think of how this could have played out under different circumstances. We've already had numerous "swatting" incidents where innocent bystanders were hurt or killed.

The more I see Musk doing stupid pseudo-celebrity stuff like appearing on a kiddy Youtube channel to "review memes", the more I think he's eventually going to go the swatting route one day. He's extremely thin-skinned and responds on Twitter to even the slightest perceived slight.


I can conclusively say that I will never be giving Tesla any of my money.

I can grant credit where credit is due, Tesla did show the world and the market that an electric vehicle can have appeal and doesn't have to look like a glorified golf cart.

But I'm not going to reward them for the appalling behavior of their CEO and/or people acting at his direction in other areas.


He's really gone off the deep end and I'm wondering if this isn't a little bit of mental illness.

I'm WAY less bullish on Tesla than I was a year ago.

His behavior is insane. The value of the Tesla just isn't there either and it COULD be but the over-promising and under-delivering needs to end.


Severe stress coupled with prolonged sleep deprivation will do that to you.


I imagine running multiple businesses and working crazy hours isn't helping.


Musk seems to have narcissist issue, IMO.


I don't understand how we're jumping to the conclusion that Musk is responsible for this. No one seems to be claiming the "anonymous call" was made up, as far as I can tell. For all we know Tripp made the call himself to make himself look like more a victim. It's no less plausible than suggesting Musk made the call himself, or had someone make it on his behalf.


The sheriff debunked it, and then Tesla tried to get the sheriff to hype up the event. The sheriff declined, and then Tesla (according to the sheriff) leaked it to the press.

https://twitter.com/willCIR/status/1105906726782435328


In Iowa they would have faced criminal blacklisting charges under Iowa Code 730.


No one seems to be claiming the "anonymous call" was made up, as far as I can tell.

The "call" as such wasn't made up -- apparently Tripp did make a call the company, and in a state of considerable emotional agitation.

Rather, it's the part about threatening to shoot the place up that was (according to the local Sheriff involved) basically made up (by the company, in its reporting to the press).


Read the article man. He kept pressing the police on it even though everyone involved knew it was all bullshit. The original tipster doesn't even matter at that point.


"The sheriff says that when he’d looked into the anonymous call after police confronted Tripp, the threat seemed less threatening than the company made it sound. The caller said Tripp was volatile but didn’t say he was on his way to shoot up the place. “You remember playing telephone as a kid?” Antinoro asks. “It got blown out of proportion.” He dropped the investigation when Tesla declined to make available a colleague of Tripp’s who might have called in the tip."

So basically an emotional phone call was recounted by a chain of people and blown out of proportion. Then the company felt the need to publicize it in order to get a little dirt on the shoes of the would be (and ultimately failed) whistleblower.

The sheriff sounds like a great and honest fellow, but the rest of this is just a mess. Of course, one employee running to the press with a "whistleblower" story that turns out to be misleading rubbish and doing billions of dollars in market damage isn't great. Responding to him this way isn't great.

What a mess.


I can't help but think of the "joe job"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_job


The more boring answer is that Musk's thin skin promotes a culture of pettyness, and someone at Tesla did it without direction.


Where is the proof? The Bloomberg story is as one sided as it gets. "An anonymous caller" == Elon Musk responsible?


There might not be much in the way of proof, but it's an interesting story. Tesla calls police, says Tripp has threatened to shoot up place. Police investigate, say "no threat". Tesla says, "Hey, hold a press conference about it anyway!", sheriff declines, says "Can I speak to the person who says he called in a threat?". Tesla declines to make any witnesses available (which, huh? How can a company 'decline' to make a witness available for a criminal threat), but sends out their own press release anyway.


If the person who called in the anonymous threat declines to come forward its hardly up to Tesla to disclose their identity.


Huh?

No. For one, it wasn't described as an anonymous threat. Tesla reported to the police that they'd received a threat from Tripp. The police said "can we speak to the person who received it?", and Tesla said "Uh, no".

But then expected the police to hold press conference to talk about how Tripp is a violent, dangerous menace.


> The more I see Musk doing stupid pseudo-celebrity stuff like appearing on a kiddy Youtube channel to "review memes"

False prophet, this is why celebrity cult sucks


I can't get 2 hours without seeing a meme of him, HN article etc. Been happening for 2 years.


Sounds very Google'y. Seeks out law enforcement over every little thing (they've done) like a bunch of passive-aggressive cowardly nerds. They shit, accuse, and are then magically "scared for their lives."


How much did Tripp make for providing this valuable service to society . If stomping on a quick buck making piece of shit is the elon way I'm down with it.

Not to mention that Bloomberg and his chrones want Tesla dead at any cost and are so blinded by thier ego and the fact that elon doesn't kiss the ring of the "wall Street analyst" ass clowns. I mean who even gives a shit about Twitter the guy speaks his mind , if I were interested in investing I would focus much more on value created .


Perhaps the whole point was making sure that side of the story never gets told to prevent any more reputational damage. Since Musk was personally informed that Tripp threatened to shoot people in the factory you'd expect some cooperation with the authorities. Instead the investigation was shut down when Tesla declined to make any possible witness available.

As a singular incident it wouldn't garner to much attention but Tripp's account is adding to the pile already.

Edit. Funny how all my comments received the same number of downvotes at almost the same time.


Bloomberg conveniently left out the reason why "Tripp has since changed lawyers". It's because he published on Twitter a trove of confidential internal Tesla documents. Once he did that his lawyer knew they had no case anymore. Tripp only deleted the documents after his lawyer was able to get in touch with him. This showed that he did in fact access internal Tesla systems and he did in fact exfiltrate this information. But somehow Bloomberg paints Tesla in a negative light, as they always do.

This is what's left of the fallout:

"B advised that the Tweets by Mr. Tripp yesterday were issued by him on his own accord. Mr. Tripp has clearly been impacted emotionally by what $TSLA has done to him.He is very concerned about being gagged & wants to protect the public, more than his own personal interest. ++"

https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/103013836984050073...

"It is accurate that we no longer rep M.Tripp in any matter.Nor do we have a need for any connection whatsoever with his attys in his Nev civil action.There wont be further comment on this.We still rep K.Hansen with re to his SEC submission & do have confidence in his submission"

https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/107295281670310297...

"Also Mr. Tripp's Twitter account WAS NOT suspended/removed by twitter this AM. He himself voluntarily terminated his twitter account on advice of myself, so that there will not b any more confusion re if he has published anything or not. There is enough confusion re $TSLA already"

https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/103013943327684608...


> Bloomberg conveniently left out the reason why "Tripp has since changed lawyers". It's because he published on Twitter a trove of confidential internal Tesla documents. Once he did that his lawyer knew they had no case anymore. Tripp only deleted the documents after his lawyer was able to get in touch with him. This showed that he did in fact access internal Tesla systems and he did in fact exfiltrate this information. But somehow Bloomberg paints Tesla in a negative light, as they always do.

Whistleblower complaints are for obvious reasons typically based on exfiltrated documents. There may be liability against the whistleblower for that, but generally that does not impair the merits of the case against the company (except to the extent the company can use threats of legal action over the documents to keep the whistleblower quiet). And in some cases there are specific legal safeguards for whistleblowers whose complaints are based on confidential documents, especially in the case of public companies: https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/court-rules-whistleblowers-can-...


Agreed, and these kinds of criticisms always get me eye-rolling. "On the one hand, Megacorp committed <atrocious environment/safety violations>. But on the other hand, Whistleblower stole internal documents proving them. So, you have to accept, there's wrongdoing on both sides."


A succinct description of false equivalence. Quite nice.


Reminds me of criticisms WikiLeaks


A "whistleblower" that first leaked all information to reporters, and then only claimed he was a whistleblower once Tesla figured out who it was. A "whistleblower" that a few months later publishes all of these internal documents ON TWITTER.


Maybe he recognized that giving the information to SEC or DOJ would result in them dithering and keeping the information from the public for months or years on end as is their custom when facing complaints against well-heeled and connected corporate bad actors.

Tripp believed dangerous batteries were being placed in Tesla cars being sold to the public. It seems like none have been seen in the wild -- maybe because he was wrong or maybe because his public revelations forced Tesla to change course.


Even his own lawyer thought it was wrong to publish the documents on Twitter.

> Tripp believed dangerous batteries were being placed in Tesla cars being sold to the public. It seems like none have been seen in the wild -- maybe because he was wrong or maybe because his public revelations forced Tesla to change course.

Based on his actions and his credibility problems, it is reasonable to assume he was intentionally dishonest and was pursuing a personal vendetta, rather than acting in the public interest.


Who should he have leaked it to? Where should he have published it?


> Who should he have leaked it to?

The appropriate regulatory agency rather than the media.

> Where should he have published it?

Publishing internal documents is the last resort after everything else has failed.


Whistleblower protection laws generally do not require that the "appropriate regulatory agency" be the only person to whom disclosure is made...

Publishing internal documents is the last resort after everything else has failed.

No, that's usually the first and best option once the company has been made aware of the problem and chooses not to correct it...as is what is alleged happened here. Why make vague statements that Company X ignored Problem Y when you can just provide documents proving your claims?


> Whistleblower protection laws generally do not require that the "appropriate regulatory agency" be the only person to whom disclosure is made...

Whistleblower protection laws in some cases don't even exist and even where they do you're typically not going to have a fun time if you have to use them. When it comes down to it you do what you've got to do, but going there first rather than last is not a really great idea.

> No, that's usually the first and best option once the company has been made aware of the problem and chooses not to correct it...as is what is alleged happened here. Why make vague statements that Company X ignored Problem Y when you can just provide documents proving your claims?

For one thing, documents rarely prove anything on their own (how do you even know they're not forgeries?) without the investigatory powers needed to verify the information in them. Which the government has and Twitter doesn't.


For one thing, documents rarely prove anything on their own (how do you even know they're not forgeries?) without the investigatory powers needed to verify the information in them. Which the government has and Twitter doesn't.

We don't. The government is also not the only entity that can perform forensics on purported documents. News companies do it all the time, and their are hundreds of e-forensics firms in the US and EU that could happily do it for a fee. There's also thousands of people with access to Twitter and the spare time to dig into any purported document leaks to verify them for accuracy. In fact, Twitter is a good (but not even remotely the best) way to get all the interested/competent parties aware of the documents.


Forensics on digital documents can be a lot of pseudo-science, especially when you're talking about text documents and spreadsheets. Legitimate documents can have as many anomalies as a half decent forgery.

Confirmation is having somebody to go to the place and see if the materials alleged to be there are actually there. Unless you're lucky enough for them to be clearly and unambiguously visible from public space, that means you need some kind of authorization to go in and have a look. A picture of an unknown container is not very helpful.

> In fact, Twitter is a good (but not even remotely the best) way to get all the interested/competent parties aware of the documents.

What's wrong with bringing them privately to the subset of the parties whose interest is in fixing the problem?


What is wrong with publishing internal documents as the first step exactly?


Internal documents can contain confidential business information that is of use to competitors etc. which it may be illegal or a violation of an NDA for you to expropriate and publish. Then it becomes a public exhibit of everyone attacking each other and defending themselves instead of people working to actually solve the problem.

Moreover, "a company" doesn't do stuff, its employees do. If you're the employee, the first person whose job it is to keep the company from doing dumb stuff is you. And there is a process for that. If you're the one responsible for it, you fix it. If you're not, you alert the person who is, then their boss if that doesn't work and on up the chain to the government until it gets fixed. If that process works then the problem gets solved without there being anything to create a media storm over, and if that process would have worked but you decided to skip it then you're creating a media storm over nothing.


I guess it depends on the intent of the whistle blower. Is there a Project Zero type of way to publish? Wikileaks? Why does it have to go to any gov't body first? If the information is leaked out, do the governing agencies have a responsibility to investigate based on the leaked information or only investigate the suspect for leaking? Paralysis by analysis can be applied here, so just publish and let the chips fall where they may?


The ever-impartial Wikileaks? Sure, let's jump right on that...


The ever-impartial Wikileaks? Sure, let's jump right on that...

I don't think such a site has to be that impartial. I'll just settle for not evil. It would be best if they had competitors.


They're indiscriminate, so I tend to "trust" them. They don't really care what they put out, AFAIK.


Unless it's material detrimental to the RNC after they've met with Donald Trump Jr, of course...


Very deceptive to call what Tripp posted to Twitter "a trove of confidential internal documents." There were:

- Photos of trailers parked outside the Gigafactory full of potentially hazardous battery waste.

- Photos of shoddy workplaces within the Gigafactory and precision work being done with crude implements like Dremel tools.

- VIN numbers of cars which Tripp believed had been fitted with batteries with possibly punctured cells handled by the defective GF machine.

- Some entries in the accounting system which Tripp claimed supported his argument that waste was not being accounted for correctly.

- Photos of internal emails with Tesla execs (including Musk) where he tried to raise concerns about scrap and the general chaos at the Gigafactory.


> crude implements like Dremel tools

Woa, woa, woa! You're hurting your credibility with this one!


crude in the context of the job they were being used to do. I agree Dremels can be awesome! :-)


Sometimes a job calls for duct tape.


> he did in fact access internal Tesla systems and he did in fact exfiltrate this information

Both sides can be true. He could have stolen Tesla’s data. He could have also thought he was whistleblowing while doing so. Either way, it doesn’t justify calling in a fake bomb threat.


> Either way, it doesn’t justify calling in a fake bomb threat.

Police investigated (it was a shooting incident, not a bomb threat), found no credible basis, asked to interview a witness, who Tesla declined to make available.

Why so sure he made a threat?


> Why so sure he made a threat?

Sorry, ambiguous wording. I don't allege he called in a threat. Tesla publicly stated he made violent threats. The police refused to corroborate that claim. Tesla's statement was unjustified.


"Tesla publicly stated he made violent threats. The police refused to corroborate that claim." ... because Tesla "declined" to make the witness/es who received those threats available to the police.

That's a bit more contextual.


Let's assume for a moment this story was about ExxonMobil an oil company, or any company you dislike will you still hold this opinion?

Remember whistleblowing as an act requires people to produce confidential internal documents.


If the evidence against XOM was some pictures of some trailers and complaints of the company being disorganized, then yes, I would treat them the same way.


Hah. I knew the top comment would be an Actually, In Defense of Persecuting a Whistleblower.


How do you know what happened between Tripp and his lawyer?


It was all on Twitter between them.


All anyone knows is that Tripp's lawyer asked him to take the posts down, and sometime later stopped representing him in the case. The rest is you trying to connect dots to assassinate Tripp's character.


I could only find the lawyer's twitter account but not the tweets you're referring to.


B advised that the Tweets by Mr. Tripp yesterday were issued by him on his own accord. Mr. Tripp has clearly been impacted emotionally by what $TSLA has done to him.He is very concerned about being gagged & wants to protect the public, more than his own personal interest. ++

https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/103013836984050073...

It is accurate that we no longer rep M.Tripp in any matter.Nor do we have a need for any connection whatsoever with his attys in his Nev civil action.There wont be further comment on this.We still rep K.Hansen with re to his SEC submission & do have confidence in his submission

https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/107295281670310297...

Also Mr. Tripp's Twitter account WAS NOT suspended/removed by twitter this AM. He himself voluntarily terminated his twitter account on advice of myself, so that there will not b any more confusion re if he has published anything or not. There is enough confusion re $TSLA already

https://twitter.com/StuartMeissner/status/103013943327684608...


I don't see where Meissner says he knew they "didn't have a case" as you asserted in your OP.


In general, a lawyer saying something with the form "After $client did $actions without consulting us, we recommended that $client take $actions to do damage control, and they did so. We no longer represent $client" is about as far from a good sign as you can get.

Now, he might still have a case. But I'm pretty sure the above is lawyerspeak for "client fucked up, and we don't want to deal with them anymore".


No, lawyers are now more willing to fire clients that do stuff without consulting them first. Trump has taught them it's not worth the hassle.

It says nothing about the merit's of the clients case, but usually says volumes about what a pain in the ass it is to work with a client like that.


> It says nothing about the merit's of the clients case

Even if it doesn't say anything about the actual merit of the case, it probably says something about their chances of winning. (Since the client probably won't be able to stop their self-destructive behavior)


But somehow Bloomberg paints Tesla in a negative light, as they always do.

No -- they're simply stating the obvious: that the company's unhinged and basically sociopathic response to this incident is much worse than the any "document leaking" that Tripp may have engaged in. Especially when the "leaks" involved have turned out to be apparently quite innocuous.


This is the worst kind of bootlicking. Why are you stanning for a psychopath. None of what you posted means anything regarding the article. It's meaningless sideshow to try to discredit Tripp.


This should be getting alot more attention. Even if Musk gets away with these things right now, this article raises awareness of what’s truly going on, raising the likelihood that future victims will be much more believable, similar to the way the dam eventually burst with Uber.


He gets away because people's attention span is short and they trust good PR and things that reinforce their opinions. So they will take the undeniably good stuff (SpaceX + Tesla successes), then assume everything else that's tacked onto them is also real, any other claim Musk makes on Twitter are real, and the bad press is just enemies and haters.

Also his position and money make him more or less legally untouchable even if his image would be permanently tarnished. This goes for anyone in his position whether they have his good PR or not. Money is indeed a superpower. Just ask Batman.

Edit. Funny how all my comments received the same number of downvotes at almost the same time.


I have a different position, which is that I actively tolerate quite a lot of crappy behavior from great minds doing great things. Sure, when someone breaks the law, do whatever is normal when a person breaks that law. If he violated SEC regulations, okay the SEC will do whatever the SEC does. But I don't really care on an emotional level if some investors lost some money. And there's almost no manner of wrong-think or Twitter bullying or any other obnoxious but not illegal behavior that would upset me at all.

Have you ever noticed how many of the greatest actors/actresses are a bit on the crazy side? Genius and "craziness" tend to go hand in hand. I believe we'll all be better off if we tolerate quite a bit of craziness from geniuses. Better art, better science, better world.


Elon Musk is really not a genius or a great mind. Both his companies appear to need large amounts of government mandates & subsidies and constant injections of capital to stay afloat. Teslas are neat cars but their environmental benefits are questionable and far more expensive than other methods of carbon abatement. Landing rockets is cool but the jury is out on whether it's financially better than the disposable ones used by the rest of the industry.


Hi did however manage to push his people towards achieving what they did so far with Tesla and Space X. I guess that's also a big thing? Not genius but definitely something, although I'm sure everything came at a huge cost for the people involved. You just have to ask yourself if the result justifies it.


It's true, he might ultimately be unsuccessful at getting us off ICE vehicles or to Mars. But he's surely made a better go at it than anyone else. At this point his ultimate success or failure has no bearing to me on whether it's worthwhile to just ignore dumb things he might say on Twitter or otherwise. And he is almost certainly a genius in the technical sense of high IQ.


Funny thing is, it’s actually incredibly reasonable to compare this CEO to an eccentric actor/actress. It’s about all his theatrics have amounted to: entertainment.


It's really frustrating how many people don't see through this narcissistic double-faced CEO.

close04 43 days ago [flagged]

We should really learn not to bother. I see there's a flood of downvotes/flagging on any comment presenting Musk in a bad light in any way. Evidence be damned.


It might be because your comments aren't really adding much to the conversation other than wild speculation and hyperbole.


My comments are mostly based on the information in the article and common sense. Anything in particular you have to object to the comment above? Feel free to object in a productive manner. With words and arguments should you have any, not generic accusations.

Also when I said “all my comments” I actually meant all my comments that could be downvoted. Full day. Nothing to do with the value of the comments.

Might I add the irony of you replying to my comment by speculating?

raslah 43 days ago [flagged]

A site like this is going to be full of tech proselytes who still live and breathe the devine tech CEO BS from the last decade. It’s to be expected.


HN is divided on this divisive topic just like it's divided on most other divisive topics. What's more annoying about this one is how much groundless metacommentary it gets.


I was a massive admirer of Musk (though not a vocal one) but his behaviour over the last year or two has been pretty shit.

The whole calling someone a paedophile without cause thing was the final straw.

Now I just think he's a talented narcissistic arsehole.


Yes, I think that was kind of the beginning of the end. That one event sort of puts the subsequent behavior in the proper frame. Had that never happened, one might be forgiven for overlooking this situation.


As a person who really wanted Musk to be an exception to the rule of shitty billionaires, this story really is the last nail in the coffin. Way too much moral casuistry you'd have to go through to justify or cast doubt on all of these insane stories.


TIL "casuistry". Thanks!

casuistry: n: the use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions; sophistry


I wonder if the issue is that most people are just shitty but society acts as a check. When you're above societies rules you can act and do anything you want.


Billionaires are not by any means a random sample of humanity, particularly for the self-made billionaires. They are among the most insanely ambitious or the most insanely risk-loving.

This makes them go to much greater lengths to protect their empires than most of us would, if plunked into such a position.

I think the power and fame has also changed Musk quite a lot, and perhaps something about his lifestyle and substance consumption has changed, because he is acting different than he had even three or four years ago... which was still well into the era of him being a billionaire.


That reminds me of one point: I highly respect that Elon Musk doesn't wall himself off from the mind of the internet (aka the populace). It's something you won't see other CEOs do, unless it's a PR stunt meant to achieve some positive PR statistics.


Yeah, I think a lot of people here are just naive to how much dirty dealing goes on in the world. This stuff is just more public.

Musk was never some wonderful person that should have been looked up to for his own merit. But I generally don't pick cars based on how much we like or dislike their CEO, and I suspect that most others don't either.


Possibly. I'd say there are a lot of people who are lacking in the principles / integrity department, but I also think Musk tends to stand out among his peers. He's not normal, even for that group of people.


I agree with you that he's not an exception, but at the same time I got a chronic sickness from the air pollution that's caused by oil and diesel car companies, and I know that millions of other people are dying, so I still think that other car company CEOs are even more shitty.


It's not like Tesla is novel or unique or better at electric cars.

Conventional car companies have worked on electric cars, and have their own models for decades.

Tesla's unique proposition was about building an electric supercar (and even that is not working very well, profits wise).

They'll hardly be the one's replacing the mass oil and diesel cars with electric models...


Have you ever seen a Tesla?


Yes, so?


I don’t even know what to say to the first sentence in your comment.


Just admit it? Being a "sports car" doesn't make it any better, in the same way a Ferrari is not better than a Lexus.


Tesla caused a hype around EV cars and is probably the primary cause as to why everybody is talking about EVs.

I doubt regular manufacturers would have begun releasing real EV cars without their pressure.


>Tesla caused a hype around EV cars and is probably the primary cause as to why everybody is talking about EVs

That's not a technology thing though. Just a marketing thing.


marketing matters. electric cars have been around for 100 years, but they weren't getting any measurable adoption until Tesla came around and made them seem cool. I don't like a lot about Tesla or Musk, I'm not sure they have what it takes to mature, but you can't dismiss the effect their shenanigans have had on the industry.


To Antinoro, one of the strangest parts of the situation was that after he told the company the threat was false, it asked him to put out a press release hyping it. He declined, but Tesla publicized the incident anyway.

Antinoro says he’s told his force not to bother investigating crimes at the Gigafactory unless Tesla starts cooperating. Big business, he’s decided, is its own strange world. “Standard Oil was probably as weird as Elon Musk,” he says.

Yep, this is every small town sheriff dealing with someone they believe to be a crackpot. One shouldn't play games with law enforcement.


Umm... shouldn't the sheriff be fired for this? Investigating crimes is his job, corporate recalcitrance is not an excuse for not trying to protect that corporation's employees.


Like a lot of things, its a matter of resource allocation. Asking a sheriff to do a press release that's a lie lessens the credibility of the source. Having a company ask you to use your resources to "investigating crimes at the Gigafactory" without Tesla's honest cooperation is a waste of those resources and could get someone else killed while his people chase their tails. It is an extremely reasonable judgement call on the sheriff's part, and he should be commended for not bowing to the pressure of a big company over his office's integrity and the rest of the citizens he is responsible for.


Not prioritizing the investigation of complaints filed by Tesla when they refuse to cooperate and not issuing press releases on command is commendable.

Publicly announcing that no crimes at the Gigafactory will be investigated seems like dereliction of duty and abandoning the tax paying workers of Tesla to a potentially unsafe environment.


The key part of the phrase is "unless Tesla starts cooperating". I'm sure Tesla will actually cooperate if there is an actual danger as opposed to another attempt to get the Sheriff's office to lie for them. The Sheriff is not doing anything wrong, and Tesla should have learned the whole cry wolf thing long ago.


Again, saying they won't investigate crimes reported by Tesla is very different from saying they will investigate no crimes at the Gigafactory.

You seem to think that I am saying something I am not.


I don’t understand what the story here is supposed to be. By Tripp’s own account, he did gather private information, the information did not itself prove wrongdoing, and he did leak it to the press because he wanted to make Tesla look bad.


I don’t understand what the story here is supposed to be.

Did you catch the parts about Tesla harassing Tripp in a whole bunch of outlandish and basically thuggish ways in response -- ranging from a bogus $167m lawsuit up to apparently lying to the local police about him planning a mass shooting?

That's what the story was about.


The article certainly makes those claims. But Bloomberg doesn’t seem to have any evidence of those things, beyond Tripp’s raw assertion that his friends didn’t make the call and he didn’t do what the lawsuit says. With no corroboration, why should we believe him over Tesla at this point?


> Why should we believe him over Tesla at this point?

"Funding secured."

Also, your assertion that there is no corroboration is wrong, the new whistleblower Sean Gouthro is corroborating Tripp's claims. This behavior is also well in line with Elon Musk's established pattern of paranoid behavior in surveiling employees.


Again, that's certainly the narrative the article presents. But Gouthro did not (as far as is included in the article) corroborate that the accusations in the lawsuit are false or that the shooting threat was fake. He does corroborate the story that Tesla sent PIs to tail Tripp - because Gouthro himself sent those PIs, in response to the shooting threat that Gouthro himself saw.


You are also incorrect that Tripp's original info release did not establish or indicate wrongdoing. Tesla claimed industry-leading levels of scrap expense in their financial filings. They are almost certainly capitalizing scrap as R&D expense.


What makes you think they're capitalizing scrap as R&D expenses? Just because they have a lot of it?


Gouthro or Gourthro?

Interesting, he was formerly "head of investigations" at Tesla and was involved with spying on Tripp back in August 2018:

> Police eventually reached Tripp, who said he was at a local casino with his family and would meet with officers. Police then heard from Gourthro again and informed him that they were set to speak with Tripp at an undisclosed location. Gourthro correctly guessed the meeting spot, telling police later that he knew because “little birds sing.” [1]

Now this guy is saying,

> “They had the ability to do things I didn’t even know existed,” he says. “It scared the shit out of me.” [2]

And Tesla is saying,

> A Tesla spokeswoman said in a statement that Gouthro’s allegations “are untrue and sensationalized,”

When you fire your head of investigations who was previously unconnected with the whistleblower.. and then deny that anything he says is true.. Yikes.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-01/tesla-s-p...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-13/when-elon... (this post's article)


Funding in Elon's mind could have been secured - perhaps not to what SEC's requirements of what that meant however; if I had $100B to invest in taking Tesla private, I'd certainly give it to Musk - Saudi Arabia is throwing around huge amounts as well, which I believe was his believed source of funding.


What Elon believes the requirements are and what the legal requirements are two different things.

Not to mention that Tesla failed to file an 8k form in a timely manner, and when it was finally filed it clearly showed that funding had not been 'secured' under any reasonable definition.


The idea Elon Musk "believed in his mind" that funding was secured is pure sophistry. He has done hundreds of fundraising rounds in his life and knows the various stages involved in intimate detail.

He was obsessed at the time with squeezing shorts and probably thought he could touch off a VW-style spike in the stock. Ironically, by capping the upside at $420, he presented shorts with one of the best risk-reward profiles in the stock's history, and that days intraday high has never been seen since.


So let's do an exercise. You have someone you trust someone's word, they tell you they're going to pick you up at X time and Y location. Do you trust them, why do you trust them? So now, why can't this same scenario exist for Elon and someone, say Saudi money, for securing funding - someone saying they will give you all the money he needs to take Tesla private? You're presenting no proof it was a fallacious statement from him, based on his belief of what funding secured meant. You're also presenting a very one-sided argument. Elon also yes "hates" - so arguably it makes at least equal sense, if not more, that he'd legitimately want to take Tesla off the stock market.


The police report from the "mass shooting" event included two officers accounts of comments from Tesla employees that seem to indicate Tesla had some way of intercepting Tripp's communications. I'll try to find the document on scribd again.

Edit: The police report[1] starting on page 4. I think it's also noteworthy that the person whose comments seemed to indicate Tesla was tracking Tripp's phone was Gourthro who has just filed a whistleblower tip (supposedly) corroborating Tripp's allegations.

[1] https://www.secwhistleblowerattorney.net/tesla-related-polic...


With no corroboration, why should we believe him over Tesla at this point?

Occam's Razor (and Tesla/Musks's record of erratic and vindictive behavior in other contexts) should provide ample basis for making that call.


> Occam's Razor

This seems like an objectively bad idea to me. I'm not a Tesla or Musk fan, and it seems plausible he could try to destroy a whistleblower.

Even so, "innocent until proven guilty" is the better standard. Occam's Razor is greatly influenced by our priors.


We're not on a jury deciding whether to convict Elon Musk of a crime. We're trying to determine what likely happened and who is likely telling the truth, and possibly what implications that should have for our judgment of Elon Musk's character or broader questions around Tesla as a company.


You should definitely not use Occam’s Razor to convict someone in court, true. You should probably use something besides “has a court already convicted this person” in your personal life though.


> Even so, "innocent until proven guilty" is the better standard

You're confusing this with the legal system. Normal people outside that don't have access to formal investigative powers and resources. Their only course is to use their best judgment based on what they do know.

Where greater penalties like fines and jail are involved, a corresponding greater standard of proof is required.


Occam's Razor isn't about determining criminal liability.


Because musk/tesla have a... questionable record with truth and safety, and all these guys claims were about said transparency/safety? Why do you trust musk/tesla over tripp?


One obvious answer is that Musk/Tesla have way more to lose than a random employee by lying. Any random person can lie about anything with pretty minimal downsides, even if they're caught red-handed in that lie.

A company and its CEO have way more to lose in getting caught in a lie, which puts a slight preference towards believing them in uncorroborated he-said-she-saids like this.

Also: "innocent until proven guilty" is a phrase that seems to be eroding away, which is a terrible, terrible thing. The real move here is not to believe either party until you have irrefutable evidence; there is likely some amount of wrongdoing on both sides but none of us are in a position to make judgement calls without that information.


According to the article, the call about the mass shooting came only hours after his email exchange with Musk.


No -- according to the article, while a call did take place -- the "mass shooting" aspect of it was most made up by the Tesla people.


This is, by definition, circumstantial "evidence" at best. It infers a connection between two events that have no direct evidence connecting them.


And then Tesla "declined" to make the call receiver witness available. And asked the Sheriff to put out a press conference anyway and say the threat was credible. And then put out their own press release when the Sheriff declined because it wasn't.

At some point, the progression of circumstances reduces the possibility of alternatives.


So you do understand what the story is supposed to be? What did you mean then? Confusing comment.


Rich people are evil, Musk is rich, therefore Musk is evil. That's all the evidence we need. Lock him up ;p

On a serious note though, it does annoy me that rich people these days always seem to have an excuse for everything and they have access to the best lawyers to come up with the all the right bullshit and PR needed to protect themselves.

I bet there are a lot of wealthy criminals getting away with things simply because of the way the legal system works.

If Musk did this, then he should get some jail time because it's not acceptable. Given the power imbalance, the viciousness of this act is on par with assault.


He actually, perhaps extremely naively, thought that Tesla would fix these issues if they were public. It sounded like he more or less supported Tesla and what Tesla was doing, but also felt like they were doing things that were unsafe, and did not feel like he was successful in elevating the issue internally.

But I would argue the larger part of the article is not about what Tripp did, but that Elon Musk likely committed a few crimes in response to it.


Reading the article might be a good start on your journey of understanding.


Tesla, Inc. v. Tripp Nevada District Court, Case No. 3:18-cv-00296-LRH-CBC

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/3br5tkwuj/nevada-district-...


The fact that this publishes conference telephone numbers, complete with access code and security code, and that none of these numbers changes over a period of 6 months, is somewhat worrying.


Hopefully Musk faces charges for this


In a world where high-paid Silicon Valley executives can grope women and get paid tens of millions of dollars in severance payouts for doing so, I wouldn't exactly bet on any billionaires going to jail any time soon.

I've seen far too many stories where one could reasonably say "this is definitely obviously a crime, right?" and nothing happens anyways. Money is the world's cheat code.


It's money and position together.

Elon is strategically important for the US at this point, putting him to jail would wipe out billions of dollars of the US stock market, and SpaceX may be part of the future of US defense.


I would argue that neither Tesla nor SpaceX will disappear if Elon Musk goes to jail. In fact, the argument could be made both companies would perform more reliably without him.


Musk is heavily involved in the engineering efforts at Tesla and SpaceX. Losing him would not be a good thing for these companies despite his public antics.


>Musk is heavily involved in the engineering efforts at Tesla and SpaceX.

Is there any evidence of this, outside of him personally claiming this to be the case?


https://www.quora.com/Does-Elon-Musk-do-some-very-technical-...

I'm too lazy to track down more right now. I don't know of anyone claiming (with evidence) that he doesn't.

In his biography there's interviews with people inside and out of spacex/tesla talking about it that are pretty convincing.


That thread has a quote from an interview, and then a bunch of random people saying he does.

I already know the mythology surrounding his engineering credentials. But I think perpetuating it does a real disservice to the real engineers doing work on these products. Do people really think that a bright, "well read" physics undergraduate can lead the practical engineering work on rockets and cars? I find it hard to believe.


My guess is this guy probably has more claim to "actually makes rockets" than Elon does: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/25/tom-mueller-spacex-cto-who-m...

I'm sure Elon sticks himself into tons of meetings, and hence has a lot of knowledge about what's discussed. And I don't doubt that he sets the goals for the engineers to meet, makes aesthetic and design decisions like some of the interviews suggest. But I think the guys Mueller manages are the people who actually make Falcons fly.


Do people really think that a bright, "well read" physics undergraduate can lead the practical engineering work on rockets and cars?

Most people do not. Don't blame Musk for missing that memo. :P

(By the way: the book Mindset by Carol Dweck might be an eye-opener...)


Just go to Blind. He is doing micromanaging. Also he is ,,managing by Twitter''. Whether that is good or bad is not clear, but so far he has a great track record.

Just look at the $35k Tesla that he pulled off by kicking out sales. A regular CEO wouldn't have done that. With all the chaos it has caused, Elon understands that at this point price is the most important part in the decision for buying a Tesla for lots of people, and paying sales just hinders selling.


> Just look at the $35k Tesla that he pulled off by kicking out sales. A regular CEO wouldn't have done that.

You know that's reversed right? https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/03/11/tesla-puts-brakes...


The decision to close most of the stores is (mostly) reversed, but the price drop to $35k for the Model 3 is not reversed.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1121980_tesla-will-rais...


Partially correct. _Some_ variants of model 3 will continue to be sold at 35k


I have no doubt he micromanages, but that's a long way from being "heavily involved" with the engineering of the products. In fact, it's the opposite, no?


They are almost certainly still losing money on the $35K Model 3, and released it simply to try and grab some cash to keep the lights on and maybe head off accusations of a bait-and-switch perpetrated on early reservation holders.


>Just go to Blind.

Can you do that without a tesla.com email address ?


Is he? Musk has no engineering degree, he's never been the CTO of his companies, and most of his time seems to be spent on Twitter, dealing with media, and other PR things. I haven't seen any evidence that the engineering departments at either firm would be worse off without him.


He's CTO at SpaceX.


Which doesn't mean anything really. If you have founded the company and own it, you can be CTO and delegate all the real engineering / research work.


Even Tom Mueller, propulsion engineer & co-founder of SpaceX, publicly acknowledges that Musk is heavily involved in key engineering decisions. I get that Musk gets a large amount of hate these days, but at least find something material to criticize. "He's not even an engineer" isn't just an irrelevant argument, it's also wrong. (Except in the "certified engineer" sense, which I don't think anyone is claiming).


Yeah, but is Tom Mueller, whose boss is Elon Musk, really going to publicly state anything else?


I think he’s retired now, and only participates occasionally in an advisory role...?


>publicly acknowledges that Musk is heavily involved in key engineering decisions

Is his salary in any way tied to touting Elon Musk?


You can, except he says he spends the vast majority of his time doing engineering. There are lots of videos of him with a hardhat on working in his factories. Not PR videos, either. He's the head of product development for the cars, not just the CEO.

Hate the guy for his personality all you want; I can certainly understand why. But there's no need to downplay his achievements or skills.


Except the engineering work is usually not done with a hardhat on, "working" on the factory floor... that's production. I guarantee you if you see video of Elon Musk with a hard hat on doing anything other than touring the facility[1], it is marketing.

[1]Presumably, if he's down on the factory floor looking at things, he should be wearing a hard hat, so good for him. If he's bolting together cars himself, that's probably marketing.


He walks the factory floor every day wearing a hard hat, looking for process and tech improvements that could be made. He's not physically assembling the cars obviously. The engineering and design work is done in all of the meetings he's in every day, he says.


>There are lots of videos of him with a hardhat on working in his factories

That settles it then. Is it a yellow hardhat?


He has a physics degree.


So like millions of others?

He just hit the fortune with PayPal. The other stuff (his "involvement" in engineering etc) is the classic media hagiography of powerful CEOs.


I believe this underestimates his ability to see beyond what’s possible today and set game-changing goals and direction for those engineering teams.


Set game-changing goals like promising a self-driving car without LIDAR or other technology every year for the last three? I feel like every single Elon Musk "game-changing goal" is met with severe criticism by many of the engineers working in the field and setting their heads down to get things done.


Waaaat who told you this? An ceo directly interfering with engineering is a huge nono. Do you think this guy is Tony stark? He's a up jumped Web Dev.


The movie version of Tony Stark was actually modeled on Elon Musk.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/true-story-elon-musk-robert-d...


He literally designed his rocket and built multiple million/billion dollar tech companies.


I literally do not believe you. I'm not saying he's an unsuccessful business man. Hes literally not a rocket scientist. What kind of silly nonsense is that?


He's talked rocket design specifics on many occasions and "built his own rocket" according to Vector Launch CEO Jim Cantrell [1]:

>He borrowed all of my college texts on rocket propulsion when we first started working together in 2001. We also hired as many of my colleagues in the rocket and spacecraft business that were willing to consult with him. ... I found out later that he was talking to a bunch of other people about rocket designs and collaborating on some spreadsheet level systems designs for launchers. Once our dealings with the Russians fell apart, he decided to build his own rocket and this was the genesis of SpaceX.

Additional info from Jim from a follow-up interview[2]:

>Cantrell ... loaned him some textbooks to study. The books were "Rocket Propulsion Elements," "Aerothermodynamics of Gas Turbine and Rocket Propulsion," "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics," and the "International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems." He would quote passages verbatim from these books. He became very conversant in the material. ... Musk would absorb this information and then hold his own in conversations — and he didn't hold back.

Additionally, Ashlee Vance's biography [3] describes his day-to-day as "quite involved with rocket design" at SpaceX and goes into a lot of detail about spending time on the floor assisting SpaceX scientists with their designs.

Obviously any single person at a company the size of SpaceX doesn't individually design and build a rocket by themselves, but it's generally agreed upon that Elon is knowledgeable in rocket science and contributes many ideas to the designs.

[1] https://www.quora.com/How-did-Elon-Musk-learn-enough-about-r...

[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/how-elon-musk-learned-rocket...

[3] https://www.amazon.com/Elon-Musk-SpaceX-Fantastic-Future/dp/...


So I really am not going tp be convinced here. Just cause this guy's ego is so huge that he goes and pokes his nose in places he doesn't belong doesn't make him a contributer. I don't care what his fluffer Jim says.


He absolutely did not design a rocket. He didn’t found Tesla either.


Is the bus factor really 1 though? Can the companies not survive without him? What if he gets sick or has an accident? That sounds risky.


No individual is essential.

If Musk slipped in the shower and cracked his head, life (for the companies) would go on.


The financial engineering maybe.


Can you imagine any person iterating as fast as Elon, manufacturing in US, while the company is surviving? His management is extremely dangerous to the future of his competitors. The only car companies that are growing faster than Tesla are Chinese.


Jeff Skilling probably thought the same.


Has there been any evidence of wrongdoing, and not just claims being made?


Not saying the article is or isn't true, but how credible is Bloomberg as a news outlet these days after the SuperMicro story?


Quite credible actually.

Edit (now that the above post has been edited): I agree that the lack of an unequivocal follow-up to the SuperMicro story -- that is saying neither "we admit we screwed up" or "we stand by the main points of our original story" or even "we need more time to look into this pls" -- is quite troubling.

Still, you have to look at their broader track record, compare them to other outlets in their weight class (nearly all of which, like the NYT in particular, have indulged in many more, and far greater follies). That and the fact that what they're reporting in this particular case is consistent with what we know to expect from Tesla/Musk after various other incidents.


I agree, very credible.


Without a retraction they have zero credibility.


Fine for you, but I'm not a black-or-white person.

I would say their credibility stands at "significantly compromised", which is damning enough.


I found Bunnie Huang's talk on supply chain security a reasonable picture of the issues underlying the Bloomberg story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqQhWitJ1As

With the caveat that I find Bunnie Huang credible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Huang_(hacker)


Can you TL;DR it for us, please?

Specifically - does it make Bloomberg's telling of event more or less credible?


He talks about it very briefly at the end, but basically says it doesn't pass Occam's Razor: there are better ways to implement the hack which can't just be detected with visual inspection.


I have personally downgraded them to about TechCrunch level, but I haven't noticed a lot of questioning on HN.


This should be much bigger than an SEC problem.

Spreading rumours Tripp is homicidal, or secretly surveilling texts & emails without his knowledge - both alone could be prosecuted as criminal charges. Instead the absolute worst that will happen to Musk or anyone involved is being thrown out of Tesla.

The sheriff "says he’s told his force not to bother investigating crimes at the Gigafactory unless Tesla starts cooperating."

Remember folks, if you wanna be a criminal, start a company first. That way, your crimes become the companies crimes and your jail time becomes a fine! Thats the American Way.


If you haven't seen this Twitter thread, it is a good read. Tune your credibility factor to maybe 0.6-0.8 before diving in.

https://twitter.com/atomicthumbs/status/1032939621636661248


He is not a whistleblower. Shame on Bloomberg for tainting the word. And he destryoed himself, any company would have thrown the book at any employee who did what he did.

He purposely leaked negative and false information of no material consequence to Linet Lopez, one of the top FUD reporters on Tesla at the time. Look up her articles over 2014 - 2017. Her full time job at the time was to trash the Tesla brand.

The "I'm not smart enough to sabotage assembly systems" remark was also proven false. His github and stackoverflow accounts were found and show his as a capable coder who would have had no trouble at all modifying the production systems he sabotaged.

He very quickly deleted both as soon as this came but the posts still exist today.

His trial is ongoing:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7244147/tesla-inc-v-tri...

I suspect this article will not age well. Either way it will serve its purpose as a hit piece before Model Y announcement.


In what way is what he leaked “false”? Are the Tesla documents and VINS false? Isn’t Tesla’s report to the police objectively more false?

Should we really allow Tesla to get away clean after their report to the police while Jessie Smollett faces felonies?


Stating Tesla lied about production numbers.

Stating Tesla shipped battery packs with punctured cells.

Stating he does not know how to code to sabotage assembly line.

Stating the waste rate at Gigafactory was abnormally high.

Stating he didnt try to frame a fellow employee.

The case will reveal more I'm sure, these are not hard things to prove.


In other news, the EU just issued a directive aimed at protecting whistleblowers:

https://www.dw.com/en/eu-protects-whistleblowers-with-new-di...


Tesla keeps files of employees "tattoos/identifying marks"?? Is that a real image from Tesla (first main image)?


The caption indicates it's real, and I'd imagine listing key identifying characteristics is quite standard for a security department's "don't let this disgruntled employee in" notices.


Super cool that companies just intercept texts no big deal totally cool, must have been in the terms I signed.


Elon Musk is a pathological liar who goes full evil against people who dare to question him.

Remember the British diver Unsworth. Or how tried to trigger a short squeeze by lying on Twitter multiple times. He called a respected non-profit media organization an extremist organization" after they did a piece critical of Tesla.


in 2016 he shared an article that suggested a rocket explosion was sabotage. Though he qualified that by saying it isn't true.


I read a response of his saying that sabotage wasn't ruled out, when someone first asked him about the rocket explosion before they had ruled it out. Do you have a reference/quote of him saying outright he thought it was sabotage?


There is such a tremendous amount of dislike for Elon in this thread. I just don't understand. Nobody here holds a candle to his accomplishments.


Your username checks out, at least.


Well, nobody here holds a candle to Nero either.


This article is so one sided that it feels like Bloomberg really has it out for Musk. There’s no proof that Musk did this, even though I’m open to the possibility.


I'm going to separate Musk from the other asshole billionairs, for now, because I truely think there's a higher purpose here that his companies are helping bring about. I think his heart's in the right place too. Something happens to people when they become that rich and are surrounded by sycophants. I wish he had respect for his staff and treated them well, same with Bezos but Tesla is more useful to the world than Amazon.


"I think his heart's in the right place too."

Trying to ruin someone's life is having your heart in the right place?


ahem...apart from that...I was referring to the higher-purpose of accelerating the much-needed transition to electric vehicles - it's kind of obvious that was my meaning from the context - I'm saying, yes this is shitty, but look at the bigger picture.


There's absolutely nothing that Elon Musk has done for the electric car market to excuse this kind of behavior. He could've changed the market just the same without acting this way.


ok yes I agree with you


Wait we're trusting bloomberg all of a sudden?


Is there a lesson here somewhere? Between Musk, Trump, and everything else I read, it seems like public insanity is a winning strategy.


Tripp wasn't a whistleblower.


What I don't understand is why Bloomberg is not required to publish that they have any financial interest in Tesla. Bloomberg seems to only publish negative news about Tesla, and clearly has a bias, as if they hold or represent someone that holds a large short position.

The story published by Bloomberg does not actually cite any sources, only what is already publicly known and what Tripp has personally claimed; and seems to just run entirely on emotions, not facts. The whistleblower did, indeed, blow the whistle, and this seems to be one of only two provable and externally verifiable fact in the entire story (the other one being he once worked there and was fired from there; even the internal investigation at Tesla over Tripp's actions, according to that story, just seems to be Tripp's claims to such).

There is no proof that Tesla invented the shooter story, and it is also at least as equally possible that someone outside of Tesla saw a chance to throw a spanner in the works and take advantage of the situation. It is also just as equally possible that Tripp had expressed feelings of shooting up the place, but lacked the materials, know how, or actual willpower to achieve the act, and told someone they intended to perform the act.

If law enforcement believes that Elon, or someone from his company, made false claims to suppress Tripp's speech, then charges should be pressed. A quick Google tells me no charges have been pressed, and it does not seem likely charges will ever be pressed.

I know some people just have an eternal hateboner for Elon's style as CEO and the way he personally conducts himself as a human being, but the only thing I care about is facts, not feelings. This entire story is just summed up as "whistleblower ex-employee claims Tesla called cops on possible revenge shooting after being fired for violating employment contract; Tesla released statement claiming that they believed it was a credible threat and no shooting ultimately occurred."

What I said in quotes, obviously, does not sell newspapers and is not sensational enough to even warrant a second glance from a reader.


There is no proof that Tesla invented the shooter story,

The recounting of events from the Sheriff involved clearly suggest otherwise.


The timing of the publication though. One day before Model Y announcement.


Perhaps the hope, on the part of whichever government officials I assume have been asking the media and lawyers involved to hold back this information, is that a story deeply embarrassing to Musk will discourage more dupes from putting down Model Y deposits and becoming unsecured Tesla creditors. Elon Musk ran the company to the verge of bankruptcy on customer deposits once before already.


This is absolute nonsense. Tom Randall, the Bloomberg reporter who created the Model 3 VIN tracker, is one of the most notorious pro-Tesla hacks on the beat. He pumped the NHTSA "Autopilot is 40% safer" nonsense statistic and has done nothing to correct the record after the analysis was shown to be horrendously flawed. He routinely writes articles and Twitter threads which are nothing more than regurgitations of Musk talking points.


"The shorts! The shorts!"


I don't appreciate the Bloomberg's constant push to "move markets". Especially their negative approach to TSLA.


I'm not American and so not familiar with the laws. But can someone please contradict me on the fact that money equals liberty in the USA? Or are all these things that Elon do legal when you are poor too?


I dont get the anonymous down votes. Please argument becaue I am serious. Is it because it is very clear and apparent and I ask a stupid question? Or is it because we dont want to talk about it? Confused here.


What should stockholders do when their CEO is a druggie?


Smoking a joint makes someone a druggie?


http://fortune.com/2018/08/17/elon-musk-ambien-tweeting-nyt/

https://americanaddictioncenters.org/alcoholism-treatment/mi...

>Physical Risks and Side Effects of Combining Alcohol and Ambien

>When mixed together, Ambien and alcohol can enhance each other’s intoxicating effects. The following effects may be felt: [...] Confusion, Difficulty concentrating, Impaired cognition, Impaired judgment [...]


"You have what’s coming to you for the lies you have told to the public and investors"

For a hit piece on Musk, I don't think that's the most flattering quote for the victim in this story.


Tripp's courage is actually quite remarkable and admirable, as represented by that quote in particular.


[flagged]


You're in a burning house and people are shouting at you to get out, and your response is "you sure talk about this fire a lot, I'm gonna take your advice with a grain of salt."


Except the fire is not real.


I usually like Bloomberg, it's one of my favorite news sources but this article seems way off.

They begin by talking about Martin Tripp's story (without any real details of what exactly happened), then they move to some random security guard with claims of sex and drugs in the factory, then they jump back to Tripp's story again and it takes a while for the article to get to the real point of Tripp's story which is:

> "While Gouthro was trying to address the sex, drugs, and raucous disorganization, Tripp decided to go public. He had access to Tesla’s internal production database and dug into it to figure out just how much material was being wasted. He decided to go to Lopez, who’d written about Tesla for Business Insider, emailing and texting her numbers showing wasted material and pictures of battery parts that he said could catch fire.

> Tripp hoped that when Lopez’s story came out, Tesla would be forced to make the changes he’d suggested."

So he actually leaked information. I'm not a Tesla defender but it feels like Bloomberg is trying really hard to portrait Tesla in the worst possible picture here.


> So he actually leaked information.

Well, that's what a whistleblower does, isn't it?

How would a whistleblower reveal that a company is doing questionable things without leaking information?


Take it to law enforcement.


These articles need to be written in the manner they usually are because of the juxtaposition of who Musk presents himself as and who he actually is.

Musk in practice isn't a scientist or engineer. He has never built anything in a professional setting. He has discovered nothing. He belongs to the business class. In our society we give the business class a lot of privilege, power, and general leeway. Most of it quite frankly undeserved.

It shouldn't be a surprise that yet again, without reasonable channels about who is "successful" and why, we end up with a class of people filled with lackluster individuals. Musk being the current shining example; a person who apparently isn't smart enough to stop himself from acting foolish or unethical in any setting.

He's played games with the companies finances, engaged in deplorable behavior, and is just a generally unsavory person.

SpaceX and Tesla do not need Musk. They never have. No company or society needs people like Musk. Do not let the cult of personality and his myths lend any amount of credence to his efficacy as a CEO or how impactful he actually is as a person.

Kick him out and let him fade away.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: