It's about autonomy, importance, reputation, etc. [..] the difference between comfortable and rich means zilch. What does matter is control over one's destiny, rather than being blown about by others' political games, and having the resources to implement one's own ideas rather than being a tool in someone else's box.
Why is that your definition of success?
"Having the resources to implement my own ideas" is daft; I very likely don't have any (new) ideas worth implementing. How many people have lived since the early days of the industrial revolution? Call it 20 billion[1]. How many genuinely useful not too niche machines have been invented and programs written, not counting the same program reinvented over and over and over. Tens of thousands? A million? There just aren't enough new things for everyone to invent.
So instead of new ideas, maybe I/we could reimplement existing ideas - do something that someone else has done, in our own way. But how is that significantly different from "being a tool in someone else's box"?
Elon Musk makes cars, he's got control over his own destiny! He's following his dream! He's not a tool in someone else's box, he's not pushed around by others political games! That's success!
Wait, he's not pushed around by others' political games? Tesla cars have to meet all kinds of regulations. Tesla the company does too, for accounting, finance, taxes, advertising, customer interaction, etc.
The cars have to have pedals and a steering wheel or no customer would be able to drive them. They have to fit on a road, and behave in common car-like ways or no customer would have use for them. They have to look like a car or no customer would recognise what they are or wouldn't want to be seen with one. They have to be petrol, diesel or battery powered because there isn't anything else they could be that fits all the lots-of-requirements.
And yet you say "It's not money that makes Elon Musk a success, it's because he has the freeodm to shape the doors his way!".
But he doesn't have the freedom to shape them his way, he has the freedom to shape them like car doors and nothing else.
A false sense of freedom is a strange definition of success.
You could find as much limited freedom while working for someone else.
You're willfully missing the point and your example illustrates it. The Tesla X has an extremely unique door design for the rear passengers. Certainly it has to conform to some requirements. Even if only to satisfy the definition of the word door. That it also has to adhere to regulations and consumer demands is irrelevant. Elon Musk had a relatively large degree of freedom, compared to many engineers at top-down car companies, in deciding how to meet those demands. You can assert that neither Elon Musk nor the engineers are entirely free. You could also observe that they exist on opposing ends of a continuum.
Why is that your definition of success?
"Having the resources to implement my own ideas" is daft; I very likely don't have any (new) ideas worth implementing. How many people have lived since the early days of the industrial revolution? Call it 20 billion[1]. How many genuinely useful not too niche machines have been invented and programs written, not counting the same program reinvented over and over and over. Tens of thousands? A million? There just aren't enough new things for everyone to invent.
So instead of new ideas, maybe I/we could reimplement existing ideas - do something that someone else has done, in our own way. But how is that significantly different from "being a tool in someone else's box"?
Elon Musk makes cars, he's got control over his own destiny! He's following his dream! He's not a tool in someone else's box, he's not pushed around by others political games! That's success!
Wait, he's not pushed around by others' political games? Tesla cars have to meet all kinds of regulations. Tesla the company does too, for accounting, finance, taxes, advertising, customer interaction, etc.
The cars have to have pedals and a steering wheel or no customer would be able to drive them. They have to fit on a road, and behave in common car-like ways or no customer would have use for them. They have to look like a car or no customer would recognise what they are or wouldn't want to be seen with one. They have to be petrol, diesel or battery powered because there isn't anything else they could be that fits all the lots-of-requirements.
And yet you say "It's not money that makes Elon Musk a success, it's because he has the freeodm to shape the doors his way!".
But he doesn't have the freedom to shape them his way, he has the freedom to shape them like car doors and nothing else.
A false sense of freedom is a strange definition of success.
You could find as much limited freedom while working for someone else.
[1] http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleH...