Elon Musk | Doer of things on X and complete loser

Yep, the good ol bastion of free speech our Elon. That's why he selectively bans outlets and accounts on twitter he doesn't agree with, while artificially bumping the traffic of accounts that spout pro Trump, often horrifically vile racial content instead. Not to mention propagating fake news himself (remember him retweeting the fake story about Keir Starmer locking away rioters in internment camps abroad?).

As for his businesses - almost all of them doing poorly. Twitter's stock price has nosedived since he took over and Tesla is also facing a similar trajectory. Real visionary.

See if he just stuck to the Tony Stark facade, kept his mouth shut, passed off the work of his companies as his own, and not indulged in race-baiting, far-right conspiracy nonsense while trying to get a convicted felon an fascist elected, then he could have carried on the facade of him being this brilliant visionary.
Twitter is a private company, so its stock price is an unknown, for the very basic fact, that is not publicly traded. It cannot really go up and down while not being traded. Sure, some accounting company might give some evaluation, but that has not much to do with anything.

Tesla stock is 1200% up over the last 5 years and 17000% up since going public. Tesla still has a market cap that is over 3 times bigger than that of the second biggest car company, Toyota.

At the contrary, as much as people might dislike Musk personally, and for very good reasons, his businesses, especially Tesla and SpaceX, are thriving.
 
Twitter is a private company, so its stock price is an unknown, for the very basic fact, that is not publicly traded. It cannot really go up and down while not being traded. Sure, some accounting company might give some evaluation, but that has not much to do with anything.
This is not accurate at all. Stocks are still priced regularly, even though they are not traded publicly. A private share price is still used for all kinds of things. For instance, investment companies that hold Twitter stock will have to report to their investors on their holdings, make filings with authorities, etc.

Just a few weeks ago, Fidelity reported that their valuation of Twitter is down 71.5% since Musk took it public.
 
To be fair, they’re a nation of folks that clap when a plane lands. Those same folks watching a rocket land must have left the room reeking of ejaculate.
I'd thought that was uniquely Indian, but you live and learn.
 
This is not accurate at all. Stocks are still priced regularly, even though they are not traded publicly. A private share price is still used for all kinds of things. For instance, investment companies that hold Twitter stock will have to report to their investors on their holdings, make filings with authorities, etc.

Just a few weeks ago, Fidelity reported that their valuation of Twitter is down 71.5% since Musk took it public.
But that is the thing, it is an evaluation, it is not real. If Twitter does an IPO tomorrow, Twitter itself will set the initial price, and then the market can go significantly up or down based on that.
 
Twitter is a private company, so its stock price is an unknown, for the very basic fact, that is not publicly traded. It cannot really go up and down while not being traded. Sure, some accounting company might give some evaluation, but that has not much to do with anything.

Tesla stock is 1200% up over the last 5 years and 17000% up since going public. Tesla still has a market cap that is over 3 times bigger than that of the second biggest car company, Toyota.

At the contrary, as much as people might dislike Musk personally, and for very good reasons, his businesses, especially Tesla and SpaceX, are thriving.
SpaceX is also private. It is a bit odd that when Musk's company is doing well you can easily say that without a stock price, but when it's struggling all evaluations are worthless and actually nothing can be known about it.
 
But that is the thing, it is an evaluation, it is not real. If Twitter does an IPO tomorrow, Twitter itself will set the initial price, and then the market can go significantly up or down based on that.
Do you think investment funds that hold a significant share of Twitter stock (or other private stocks) can just choose the value of that stock when they report to the SEC and their investors?
 
SpaceX is also private. It is a bit odd that when Musk's company is doing well you can easily say that without a stock price, but when it's struggling all evaluations are worthless and actually nothing can be known about it.
I have no idea about SpaceX financials to be fair, just that they are doing marvels technology-wise.
Do you think investment funds that hold a significant share of Twitter stock (or other private stocks) can just choose the value of that stock when they report to the SEC and their investors?
Again, it is an evaluation. Until it goes public, it is just a guess of how much it is its value.

For what is worth, if it goes public tomorrow, it will probably be lower than when Musk and co bought it, partially cause they massively overpaid for it, and partially cause it is generating less money than before (2023 saw a decline in revenue compared to 2022).
 
I presume most of them were originally NASA scientists/engineers. Perhaps if the US government hadn't scaled back investment into space exploration we may have had this tech years/decades ago.
NASA gave us the mess that was the space shuttle, partly because of the horrible politics they are always beholden to. They were never, ever going to be able to do what SpaceX has done, which is focus ruthlesslessly on slashing the cost of getting to orbit, to enable the proper industrialisation of space. it has the potential to revolutionise a lot of things.

NASA is still doing it now with their ridiculous Artemis lunar programme, the only benefit of which that I can see, will have been to help fund Starship.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea about SpaceX financials to be fair, just that they are doing marvels technology-wise.
It's a fair assessment. It just looks like you're arguing purely for the sake of it, when a thriving company requires just a cursory look over their products to determine that it's thriving, while the struggling one can't be evaluated until you go through every single private, accounting resource.
 
Again, it is an evaluation. Until it goes public, it is just a guess of how much it is its value.

For what is worth, if it goes public tomorrow, it will probably be lower than when Musk and co bought it, partially cause they massively overpaid for it, and partially cause it is generating less money than before (2023 saw a decline in revenue compared to 2022).
An "evaluation" and a "guess" is not the same. If you think a stock can only be valued by being traded publicly, you are mistaken.
 
He already has. I mean I think he’s a despicable man these days but you can’t deny the role Tesla have had in making EVs and green energy cool.
When exactly did that happen? I must have missed it completely.
 
When exactly did that happen? I must have missed it completely.
Gradually during the past 15-20 years.

But seriously come on, man. Nobody wanted an EV before Tesla showed they could drive fast and look cool.
 
Gradually during the past 15-20 years.

But seriously come on, man. Nobody wanted an EV before Tesla showed they could drive fast and look cool.
Okay, but that is making a subset of luxury vehicles look cool. He did sweet feck all for green energy (unless you count his constant twerking for increasing coal at every crisis as a contribution), is a ridiculous hater of any sort of public transportation with a history of establishing projects to stall public train projects and maybe it's different in your enviroment, but I just don't see this prevalent "coolness" getting into lower end EVs. Sure, there is value in making a rich kid toy electric, but it's just so tiny compared to what he's being praised for.
 
Gradually during the past 15-20 years.

But seriously come on, man. Nobody wanted an EV before Tesla showed they could drive fast and look cool.
Teslas look hideous. I don’t know how people have been tricked in to thinking otherwise
 
NASA gave us the mess that was the space shuttle, partly because of the horrible politics they are always beholden to. They were never, ever going to be able to do what SpaceX has done, which is focus ruthlesslessly on slashing the cost of getting to orbit, to enable the proper industrialisation of space. it has the potential to revolutionise a lot of things.

NASA is still doing it now with their ridiculous Artemis lunar programme, the only benefit of which that I can see, will have been to help fund Starship.
NASA also went to space and the moon. I'm sure it's always been a bureaucratic mess but it's was extremely capable whilst the political will was there.
 
NASA also went to space and the moon. I'm sure it's always been a bureaucratic mess but it's was extremely capable whilst the political will was there.
NASA and SpaceX have different goals and different incentives, so you'll get different outcomes. The political will hasn't been there since even before the Apollo programme ended (due to political disinterest), and even where the will is supposedly there, politics influences the outcome.

Example - Congress required that NASA refurbish and reuse its old spare (reusable) shuttle engines to then be destroyed in the Artemis programme - all at huge expense - because of the jobs and money flowing to various states. That stuff is baked in with NASA now, it's never going to change which is why companies like SpaceX are so vital, because they can decide for themselves. I don't blame NASA for its decision making given all that, but it's far from the organisation it once was.

NASA is quite brilliant at unmanned exploration, I wish they would focus on that.

(Sorry, bugbear of mine, I will stop).
 
Last edited:
Funny to watch this thread. Replies in this thread are mostly seen through European eyes, ridiculing Musk (often for good reasons).

I'll just chip in with my 2 cents, and yes, full disclosure: I'm a Tesla investor and observe Tesla-stuff every day:

Greatest innovator of maybe your lifetime - he might say stupid stuff, but does stuff that will improve the World more than anyone:
I get that he says some dumb and radical stuff on X now and then, but he's possibly the biggest entrepreneur of all time. Not many pay attention to his work as they just blindly read stuff from mainstream media and hate on him, but with Tesla's energy-department, they're in the middle of transforming the World and electrifying so many things to the benefit of the planet. The World is shifting towards solar energy as of now, and it might combat many of the climate crisis fears. In 2-4 years we might have self-driving cars thanks to Tesla and Elon Musk, and in 5-10 years home-robots might do your laundry, thanks to him and the companies he directs. Quite surprised to see there was almost no mentionings here on RedCafe too on the 10/10 event where Tesla showed their future tech. (Quite big news, but Elon's awkward ways sort of muddied it all).

Mainstream journalism:
It's mindblowing to me, how badly he's covered by mainstream media and by most people who mostly get their news about him and Tesla/SpaceX/etc from mainstream media. But you understand why: Newspapers bring the most outrageous stuff to get clicks, and filters out all the interesting things he have to bring to the table.

The X part where he e-mailed an auto-reply with "feck all journos" of course helped with journalists sometimes hating him, but it's almost every mainstream article I read about him or Tesla that is just not up to speed with facts, recent developments in tech, roadmaps, etc. You really notice when you follow news on a day-to-day basis. As a guy who've consumed news through maintream media my entire life, I'm a bit shocked about the state of mainstream media. I can totally understand why you'd want to go to X and skip mainstream media, when all most mediahouses are doing is coloured/subjective news based on the same tweets you can get from the horse's mouth anyways.

When Trump was shot, the state of journalism vs direct news on X really showed what crap state most journalism is in. Just the whole questioning and angling of whether he was really shot or not was just absurd. Danish well renowned media Politiken which was my standard of journalism has also just been non-factual in some articles about Elon Musk.

I'm not a big fan of Elon Musk's personal views when he tries to be political btw. He should basically just keep his mouth shut on most political stuff if you ask me, but he wants to make noise to make X relevant. Elon Musk says outrageous and borderline-conspiratoric stuff on X, but you just can't deny what he and his companies overall will do for us and the planet.

It just throws me off when people ridicule someone who will eventually elevate the World's standard of living (measured on GDP), while many posters themselves probably just sits on their phone doom-scrolling doing nothing at all for humanity compared to a guy like him.

He's not understood by many now, but in 10, or 20 years time you'll see the everyday impact of his current doings.
In 100 years he'll be seen as the GOAT of both innovation and someone who greatly helped save the Earth, imo. For now, he's just hated on.

 
Funny to watch this thread. Replies in this thread are mostly seen through European eyes, ridiculing Musk (often for good reasons).

I'll just chip in with my 2 cents, and yes, full disclosure: I'm a Tesla investor and observe Tesla-stuff every day:

Greatest innovator of maybe your lifetime - he might say stupid stuff, but does stuff that will improve the World more than anyone:
I get that he says some dumb and radical stuff on X now and then, but he's possibly the biggest entrepreneur of all time. Not many pay attention to his work as they just blindly read stuff from mainstream media and hate on him, but with Tesla's energy-department, they're in the middle of transforming the World and electrifying so many things to the benefit of the planet. The World is shifting towards solar energy as of now, and it might combat many of the climate crisis fears. In 2-4 years we might have self-driving cars thanks to Tesla and Elon Musk, and in 5-10 years home-robots might do your laundry, thanks to him and the companies he directs. Quite surprised to see there was almost no mentionings here on RedCafe too on the 10/10 event where Tesla showed their future tech. (Quite big news, but Elon's awkward ways sort of muddied it all).

Mainstream journalism:
It's mindblowing to me, how badly he's covered by mainstream media and by most people who mostly get their news about him and Tesla/SpaceX/etc from mainstream media. But you understand why: Newspapers bring the most outrageous stuff to get clicks, and filters out all the interesting things he have to bring to the table.

The X part where he e-mailed an auto-reply with "feck all journos" of course helped with journalists sometimes hating him, but it's almost every mainstream article I read about him or Tesla that is just not up to speed with facts, recent developments in tech, roadmaps, etc. You really notice when you follow news on a day-to-day basis. As a guy who've consumed news through maintream media my entire life, I'm a bit shocked about the state of mainstream media. I can totally understand why you'd want to go to X and skip mainstream media, when all most mediahouses are doing is coloured/subjective news based on the same tweets you can get from the horse's mouth anyways.

When Trump was shot, the state of journalism vs direct news on X really showed what crap state most journalism is in. Just the whole questioning and angling of whether he was really shot or not was just absurd. Danish well renowned media Politiken which was my standard of journalism has also just been non-factual in some articles about Elon Musk.

I'm not a big fan of Elon Musk's personal views when he tries to be political btw. He should basically just keep his mouth shut on most political stuff if you ask me, but he wants to make noise to make X relevant. Elon Musk says outrageous and borderline-conspiratoric stuff on X, but you just can't deny what he and his companies overall will do for us and the planet.

It just throws me off when people ridicule someone who will eventually elevate the World's standard of living (measured on GDP), while many posters themselves probably just sits on their phone doom-scrolling doing nothing at all for humanity compared to a guy like him.

He's not understood by many now, but in 10, or 20 years time you'll see the everyday impact of his current doings.
In 100 years he'll be seen as the GOAT of both innovation and someone who greatly helped save the Earth, imo. For now, he's just hated on.
Underrated post.

I, too, enjoy the balanced, nuanced and objective news landscape that is post-Musk Twitter when compared to the disinfo hell that is legacy mainstream media.

!!
 
Twitter is a private company, so its stock price is an unknown, for the very basic fact, that is not publicly traded. It cannot really go up and down while not being traded. Sure, some accounting company might give some evaluation, but that has not much to do with anything.

Tesla stock is 1200% up over the last 5 years and 17000% up since going public. Tesla still has a market cap that is over 3 times bigger than that of the second biggest car company, Toyota.

At the contrary, as much as people might dislike Musk personally, and for very good reasons, his businesses, especially Tesla and SpaceX, are thriving.

He's is a great venture capitalist. Nothing more.
 
He's is a great venture capitalist. Nothing more.
By all accounts, he was heavily involved in engineering in the early days of SpaceX (no idea about Tesla but never heard much to suggest that).

Nowadays, he is an internet troll whose companies he built 5-15 years ago are in autopilot and doing quite well. Considering that he is tweeting non-stop, I do not expect him to be contributing much in running those companies, let alone giving technical input.
 
Okay, but that is making a subset of luxury vehicles look cool. He did sweet feck all for green energy (unless you count his constant twerking for increasing coal at every crisis as a contribution), is a ridiculous hater of any sort of public transportation with a history of establishing projects to stall public train projects and maybe it's different in your enviroment, but I just don't see this prevalent "coolness" getting into lower end EVs. Sure, there is value in making a rich kid toy electric, but it's just so tiny compared to what he's being praised for.

You don't have to be rich to drive a Tesla. Model Y was the best sold car in 2023 in The Netherlands.

I definitely think that Tesla made EV's more popular for the middle class too.

I do agree with your overall sentiment.
 
Funny to watch this thread. Replies in this thread are mostly seen through European eyes, ridiculing Musk (often for good reasons).

I'll just chip in with my 2 cents, and yes, full disclosure: I'm a Tesla investor and observe Tesla-stuff every day:

Greatest innovator of maybe your lifetime - he might say stupid stuff, but does stuff that will improve the World more than anyone:
I get that he says some dumb and radical stuff on X now and then, but he's possibly the biggest entrepreneur of all time. Not many pay attention to his work as they just blindly read stuff from mainstream media and hate on him, but with Tesla's energy-department, they're in the middle of transforming the World and electrifying so many things to the benefit of the planet. The World is shifting towards solar energy as of now, and it might combat many of the climate crisis fears. In 2-4 years we might have self-driving cars thanks to Tesla and Elon Musk, and in 5-10 years home-robots might do your laundry, thanks to him and the companies he directs. Quite surprised to see there was almost no mentionings here on RedCafe too on the 10/10 event where Tesla showed their future tech. (Quite big news, but Elon's awkward ways sort of muddied it all).

Mainstream journalism:
It's mindblowing to me, how badly he's covered by mainstream media and by most people who mostly get their news about him and Tesla/SpaceX/etc from mainstream media. But you understand why: Newspapers bring the most outrageous stuff to get clicks, and filters out all the interesting things he have to bring to the table.

The X part where he e-mailed an auto-reply with "feck all journos" of course helped with journalists sometimes hating him, but it's almost every mainstream article I read about him or Tesla that is just not up to speed with facts, recent developments in tech, roadmaps, etc. You really notice when you follow news on a day-to-day basis. As a guy who've consumed news through maintream media my entire life, I'm a bit shocked about the state of mainstream media. I can totally understand why you'd want to go to X and skip mainstream media, when all most mediahouses are doing is coloured/subjective news based on the same tweets you can get from the horse's mouth anyways.

When Trump was shot, the state of journalism vs direct news on X really showed what crap state most journalism is in. Just the whole questioning and angling of whether he was really shot or not was just absurd. Danish well renowned media Politiken which was my standard of journalism has also just been non-factual in some articles about Elon Musk.

I'm not a big fan of Elon Musk's personal views when he tries to be political btw. He should basically just keep his mouth shut on most political stuff if you ask me, but he wants to make noise to make X relevant. Elon Musk says outrageous and borderline-conspiratoric stuff on X, but you just can't deny what he and his companies overall will do for us and the planet.

It just throws me off when people ridicule someone who will eventually elevate the World's standard of living (measured on GDP), while many posters themselves probably just sits on their phone doom-scrolling doing nothing at all for humanity compared to a guy like him.

He's not understood by many now, but in 10, or 20 years time you'll see the everyday impact of his current doings.
In 100 years he'll be seen as the GOAT of both innovation and someone who greatly helped save the Earth, imo. For now, he's just hated on.

Can Tesla (or SpaceX for that matter) invent some kind of technology that helps us prevent this trainwreck of a post?
 
By all accounts, he was heavily involved in engineering in the early days of SpaceX (no idea about Tesla but never heard much to suggest that).

Nowadays, he is an internet troll whose companies he built 5-15 years ago are in autopilot and doing quite well. Considering that he is tweeting non-stop, I do not expect him to be contributing much in running those companies, let alone giving technical input.

He still calls himself Chief Engineer at SpaceX. How much engineering he has ever done is anyone's guess. Considering it's actual rocket science I imagine not a lot.

He set up the company and hired the right people to take them to where they are now though. That's a great achievement itself. No need to claim personal credit for any and all innovations the company makes unless your a massive narcissist.
 
He still calls himself Chief Engineer at SpaceX. How much engineering he has ever done is anyone's guess. Considering it's actual rocket science I imagine not a lot.

He set up the company and hired the right people to take them to where they are now though. That's a great achievement itself. No need to claim personal credit for any and all innovations the company makes unless your a massive narcissist.
He was certainly involved in the big decisions at SpaceX in the early days, there's a lot of evidence of that on the record from SpaceX's past employees.

I wouldn't want to over state his contributions, but then I wouldn't want to dismiss them either. I don't think you get a Tesla AND a SpaceX by accident, even hiring all the right people is a skill in itself.
 
Yes Musk is innovating by making cars that require mining of rare materials in the 3rd world, being impossible to put out in a fire, a pick up that's too big for many roads and sabotaging rail connections.
I know many people thinking exactly like you, so I decided to take an hour of my time to actually try and debunk some of this, as I think it would benefit everyone if they realized some of this when buying a car or just listening to horror stories from the mainstream media.

I hope you and others who consider the abovementioned cliches true, will listen. I'd say most of you lot are sensible posters, so I'd say you and most others would find logic in these debunkings. It's still alright to hate Elon Musk for what he says on X btw. Can't disagree that much of it is just pure bullshit. I'm just here to argue that what he is doing with Tesla is simply mindboggling and will be only more clear over the next couple of years.

Everything below is with links to articles and I've been fact-checking these things. Fair enough if you can find an article that zooms in on a tiny part, but it's the sum of it all and the direction that truly matters.

Rare materials in the 3rd World - Not true
- Tesla materials for batteries are sourced from all over the World. Tesla use minerals that are not rare. They used to however, so on to my next point
- Tesla used to make batteries with 10% cobalt (Cobalt's a rare mineral mostly seen in Congo). They then went on to innovate batteries and use less than other manufacturers making them progress and switch to 5% cobalt. Then 2 years ago they moved half their productions to completely cobalt-free and they have now moved completely to a production without rare minerals.
- Tesla just made a new 4680 battery, which is re-inventing the battery as we know it - and has big impact on current production. (No one's really heard of these news, because they just read the outrageous news about Elon Musk). Tesla's 4680 battery reduces the cost of producing the battery by 30%. They spend 5 years on it, and it basically lowers the cost of using these batteries. Sadly few can understand what impact this has on a great scale with transportation. The lowered production costs ultimately makes it possible with more lower end electric products like, say a car - but also soon in the future more trucks, maybe even boats and flying or trains. All from non-rare minerals. This'll further help saving the planet with emissions on a great scale. Again: Hate Elon Musk's views all you want but this is something that will change a lot of things for the good, benefitting the planet in so many ways. Elon Musk can be an idiotic person at the same time. The two are not mutually excluding.
- In case anyone forgot: Electric cars save 1/3rd of emissions from buying a normal vehicle seen over a typical 10 year lifetime. Hybrids are roughly speaking around 2/3rd less emissions, last time I checked.

Impossible to put out in a fire - True, but extremely rare.
- Yes, you're completely right here - Battery fires are really difficult to put out and takes many hours to put out. It's around 10 times tougher to put out than a normal fire. HOWEVER: The risk of a battery catching fire is 0.0012% vs 0.1% for internal combustion cars (a factor of 83 times x less flamable compared).
- On top of that Tesla claims (unverified) to be 11 x more safe with incidents than the average (i.e 830 x less flamable). True or not the media's really blown it all completely of proportion - fear rules the narrative about electric cars - I wonder which old dinosaur of cars that benefits the narrative? ahh the dying combustion engines that runs on the same fossil fuels.

Pick up truck that's too big - Question of taste, but not a safety issue
Sure Cybertruck is huge, but in the rare event you're hit, then the Cybertruck's design also hits you lower than most popular trucks due to it's lower front, which reduces the risk of death if you're hit. Last time I checked (Admittedly Tesla-biased channels) the early stats showed that we don't really see a lot of incidents with Cybertrucks involved, but it's still early days and no stats are really out there to prove either side completely right or wrong. The Cybertruck just got Full self driving - "FSD" (unsupervised) a month ago, which'll further improve safety. On average Teslas with Tesla Autopilot (used on highways) are involved 7 times less in crashes than the average crashrate by regular vehicles on highways. Tesla's technology clearly improves their cars, and FSD (Supervised) will do that over time too, as stats already show this some extent (see the last point).

Sabotaging rail road connections? (Not sure what you mean here?)
Not sure what you mean by this, but probably an article about a guy not paying attention to his Supervised FSD (as he should) while driving in foggy conditions at 60 mph furthermore blaming (a now old version of) FSD? Considering the fact that Tesla is about to end all car-competition, if Tesla achieves full self driving/RoboTaxi on a mass scale, you can also understand why some news outlets want to smear a revolutionising technology like this. I'm not saying FSD is perfect (it isn't - yet) but there should be some evidence for stories like these/when they're faulty. The new neural approach that FSD and most AI runs on is currently evolving like crazy and we might be 2-3 years away from fully autonomous driving and a much lower death rate other manufacturers adapts this revolutionizing system (if current increments in advancement can actually tell you anything about the progress - it has yet to regret and looks to improve x 2 pr version which is released roughly every 1-2 months). It has to be said that Elon's been wrong about the self driving timeline again and again. He might be late, but he rarely fails to deliver. Over time the FSD system will eventually be not just better than human's driving but completely outdo even the best drivers.

On that note, the last point:
Full Self driving (Supervised) - Eventually there'll be little or no deaths on the road
- Currently, Tesla's Supervised Full Self Driving-system has evolved greatly. It's already either bettering average current traffic deaths or being better than a human driver. You'll only notice this if you pay attention to Tesla these months and days where FSD is doing the laps and impressing even your grandma (if she lives in the states and has eyes, that is). FSD looks to be saving lives overall already and it constantly improves those stats until it becomes a RoboTaxi where you don't even have to drive. If/when RoboTaxi is achieved, it'll reduce so many deaths if not 99% of current deaths and injuries that cribble people and the possibilities of transport will just be out of this World - What a terrible guy that Elon fella and his companies are, eh? Even if RoboTaxi is not achieved, FSD will still evolve so much that it's many times better than a human driver. Each and single traffic death is horrible, but the technology should always be measured on a greater scale against how many tragic deaths they prevent/and the lives they save compared to the regular driver.

Anyways, that was a long one, and I'll happily debate (and listen) to anyone who wants to listen to the above, but yeah - if it gets unnuanced or non-factual, shitposting, I'm out. I can't disagree with the fact that Elon Musk - the political one - says incredibly stupid stuff. He totally does, so that part is irrelevant for me to debate, we already agree. But his actual body of work and innovation is fascinating and will completely outdo all of the controversial stuff he's currently involved in. He's basically a villain and a hero at the same time.
 
I know many people thinking exactly like you, so I decided to take an hour of my time to actually try and debunk some of this, as I think it would benefit everyone if they realized some of this when buying a car or just listening to horror stories from the mainstream media.

I hope you and others who consider the abovementioned cliches true, will listen. I'd say most of you lot are sensible posters, so I'd say you and most others would find logic in these debunkings. It's still alright to hate Elon Musk for what he says on X btw. Can't disagree that much of it is just pure bullshit. I'm just here to argue that what he is doing with Tesla is simply mindboggling and will be only more clear over the next couple of years.

Everything below is with links to articles and I've been fact-checking these things. Fair enough if you can find an article that zooms in on a tiny part, but it's the sum of it all and the direction that truly matters.

Rare materials in the 3rd World - Not true
- Tesla materials for batteries are sourced from all over the World. Tesla use minerals that are not rare. They used to however, so on to my next point
- Tesla used to make batteries with 10% cobalt (Cobalt's a rare mineral mostly seen in Congo). They then went on to innovate batteries and use less than other manufacturers making them progress and switch to 5% cobalt. Then 2 years ago they moved half their productions to completely cobalt-free and they have now moved completely to a production without rare minerals.
- Tesla just made a new 4680 battery, which is re-inventing the battery as we know it - and has big impact on current production. (No one's really heard of these news, because they just read the outrageous news about Elon Musk). Tesla's 4680 battery reduces the cost of producing the battery by 30%. They spend 5 years on it, and it basically lowers the cost of using these batteries. Sadly few can understand what impact this has on a great scale with transportation. The lowered production costs ultimately makes it possible with more lower end electric products like, say a car - but also soon in the future more trucks, maybe even boats and flying or trains. All from non-rare minerals. This'll further help saving the planet with emissions on a great scale. Again: Hate Elon Musk's views all you want but this is something that will change a lot of things for the good, benefitting the planet in so many ways. Elon Musk can be an idiotic person at the same time. The two are not mutually excluding.
- In case anyone forgot: Electric cars save 1/3rd of emissions from buying a normal vehicle seen over a typical 10 year lifetime. Hybrids are roughly speaking around 2/3rd less emissions, last time I checked.

Impossible to put out in a fire - True, but extremely rare.
- Yes, you're completely right here - Battery fires are really difficult to put out and takes many hours to put out. It's around 10 times tougher to put out than a normal fire. HOWEVER: The risk of a battery catching fire is 0.0012% vs 0.1% for internal combustion cars (a factor of 83 times x less flamable compared).
- On top of that Tesla claims (unverified) to be 11 x more safe with incidents than the average (i.e 830 x less flamable). True or not the media's really blown it all completely of proportion - fear rules the narrative about electric cars - I wonder which old dinosaur of cars that benefits the narrative? ahh the dying combustion engines that runs on the same fossil fuels.

Pick up truck that's too big - Question of taste, but not a safety issue
Sure Cybertruck is huge, but in the rare event you're hit, then the Cybertruck's design also hits you lower than most popular trucks due to it's lower front, which reduces the risk of death if you're hit. Last time I checked (Admittedly Tesla-biased channels) the early stats showed that we don't really see a lot of incidents with Cybertrucks involved, but it's still early days and no stats are really out there to prove either side completely right or wrong. The Cybertruck just got Full self driving - "FSD" (unsupervised) a month ago, which'll further improve safety. On average Teslas with Tesla Autopilot (used on highways) are involved 7 times less in crashes than the average crashrate by regular vehicles on highways. Tesla's technology clearly improves their cars, and FSD (Supervised) will do that over time too, as stats already show this some extent (see the last point).

Sabotaging rail road connections? (Not sure what you mean here?)
Not sure what you mean by this, but probably an article about a guy not paying attention to his Supervised FSD (as he should) while driving in foggy conditions at 60 mph furthermore blaming (a now old version of) FSD? Considering the fact that Tesla is about to end all car-competition, if Tesla achieves full self driving/RoboTaxi on a mass scale, you can also understand why some news outlets want to smear a revolutionising technology like this. I'm not saying FSD is perfect (it isn't - yet) but there should be some evidence for stories like these/when they're faulty. The new neural approach that FSD and most AI runs on is currently evolving like crazy and we might be 2-3 years away from fully autonomous driving and a much lower death rate other manufacturers adapts this revolutionizing system (if current increments in advancement can actually tell you anything about the progress - it has yet to regret and looks to improve x 2 pr version which is released roughly every 1-2 months). It has to be said that Elon's been wrong about the self driving timeline again and again. He might be late, but he rarely fails to deliver. Over time the FSD system will eventually be not just better than human's driving but completely outdo even the best drivers.

On that note, the last point:
Full Self driving (Supervised) - Eventually there'll be little or no deaths on the road
- Currently, Tesla's Supervised Full Self Driving-system has evolved greatly. It's already either bettering average current traffic deaths or being better than a human driver. You'll only notice this if you pay attention to Tesla these months and days where FSD is doing the laps and impressing even your grandma (if she lives in the states and has eyes, that is). FSD looks to be saving lives overall already and it constantly improves those stats until it becomes a RoboTaxi where you don't even have to drive. If/when RoboTaxi is achieved, it'll reduce so many deaths if not 99% of current deaths and injuries that cribble people and the possibilities of transport will just be out of this World - What a terrible guy that Elon fella and his companies are, eh? Even if RoboTaxi is not achieved, FSD will still evolve so much that it's many times better than a human driver. Each and single traffic death is horrible, but the technology should always be measured on a greater scale against how many tragic deaths they prevent/and the lives they save compared to the regular driver.

Anyways, that was a long one, and I'll happily debate (and listen) to anyone who wants to listen to the above, but yeah - if it gets unnuanced or non-factual, shitposting, I'm out. I can't disagree with the fact that Elon Musk - the political one - says incredibly stupid stuff. He totally does, so that part is irrelevant for me to debate, we already agree. But his actual body of work and innovation is fascinating and will completely outdo all of the controversial stuff he's currently involved in. He's basically a villain and a hero at the same time.
The passage offers several arguments about Tesla's innovation and Elon Musk's leadership, which are largely based on real-world claims, but the accuracy and presentation of some points can be debated. Here's a more detailed breakdown:

  1. Tesla's Use of Rare Materials:
    • It's correct that Tesla has been working on reducing the use of rare minerals like cobalt in its batteries. Tesla's development of the 4680 battery is a major innovation, and the reduction in cobalt is part of Tesla's strategy to lower costs and environmental impact. However, it's not entirely accurate to say Tesla has completely moved away from rare materials. Lithium, nickel, and other critical minerals used in electric vehicle (EV) batteries are still considered strategically important, even if not traditionally "rare."
    • The claim that Tesla's innovations will revolutionize transportation and lead to broader use in trucks, boats, and other transport modes is aspirational but grounded in current industry trends.
  2. Battery Fires:
    • The fire risk comparison (0.0012% for EVs vs 0.1% for internal combustion cars) is based on available data and aligns with some safety studies. EV fires are rarer, but when they happen, they tend to be more challenging to extinguish. The point that media sensationalism may exaggerate these risks is reasonable, though the passage leans heavily into dismissing concerns, which may not reflect the nuance of this issue.
  3. Cybertruck Safety:
    • The argument about the Cybertruck's design hitting lower than other trucks is speculative without hard data. At this point, it's still too early to draw strong conclusions about the safety statistics of the Cybertruck, as production has only recently started, and there’s limited data on real-world performance. The statement that Tesla’s self-driving system reduces accidents is generally supported by Tesla's own data, but it’s important to note that independent studies offer more mixed conclusions about Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) performance.
  4. Sabotaging Railroads/FSD Development:
    • This section is somewhat unclear, but the passage about Tesla's FSD system evolving quickly is partly accurate. Tesla's advancements in self-driving technology are notable, but Elon Musk has repeatedly overpromised on timelines for full autonomy. While there have been significant improvements in supervised FSD, the claim that we are 2-3 years away from fully autonomous driving remains speculative. Many experts are more cautious about how long it will take to achieve true Level 5 autonomy.
  5. Environmental Impact of EVs:
    • The claim that electric cars save a third of emissions compared to combustion vehicles over 10 years is generally supported by lifecycle analysis studies. The emissions benefits vary depending on factors like the energy mix used to charge EVs (fossil fuels vs renewable energy) and the carbon footprint of battery production, but the trend toward lower emissions is clear.
  6. Conclusion:
    • The passage reflects a strong pro-Tesla and pro-Musk bias, often downplaying counterarguments or dismissing concerns raised in the media. While many of the facts are correct, the tone of the writing suggests more certainty and optimism than some areas of debate warrant. For example, claims about Tesla's environmental benefits are well-founded, but broader claims about revolutionizing transportation or achieving full autonomy within a couple of years are more speculative.
In summary, while the passage contains a mix of factual information, some parts are overly optimistic and speculative, particularly when discussing future technologies and timelines. The reader should critically assess these claims, especially in the areas where real-world data is still evolving.
 
@ROFLUTION

His hyperloop idea was to kill high speed rail in California.

His materials come from all over the world but most coming from developing countries

https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/15/...-ev-electriv-vehicle-working-conditions-congo


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/31/the-dark-side-of-congos-cobalt-rush

They've pledge to stop using cobalt but they're still using it and they kicked off the trend of doing so. Musk does not care about the environment.

Cyber trucks are too big for many a street and grossly oversized in any case.

He's been claiming self-driving would be here before 2020
 
The passage offers several arguments about Tesla's innovation and Elon Musk's leadership, which are largely based on real-world claims, but the accuracy and presentation of some points can be debated. Here's a more detailed breakdown:

  1. Tesla's Use of Rare Materials:
    • It's correct that Tesla has been working on reducing the use of rare minerals like cobalt in its batteries. Tesla's development of the 4680 battery is a major innovation, and the reduction in cobalt is part of Tesla's strategy to lower costs and environmental impact. However, it's not entirely accurate to say Tesla has completely moved away from rare materials. Lithium, nickel, and other critical minerals used in electric vehicle (EV) batteries are still considered strategically important, even if not traditionally "rare."
    • The claim that Tesla's innovations will revolutionize transportation and lead to broader use in trucks, boats, and other transport modes is aspirational but grounded in current industry trends.
  2. Battery Fires:
    • The fire risk comparison (0.0012% for EVs vs 0.1% for internal combustion cars) is based on available data and aligns with some safety studies. EV fires are rarer, but when they happen, they tend to be more challenging to extinguish. The point that media sensationalism may exaggerate these risks is reasonable, though the passage leans heavily into dismissing concerns, which may not reflect the nuance of this issue.
  3. Cybertruck Safety:
    • The argument about the Cybertruck's design hitting lower than other trucks is speculative without hard data. At this point, it's still too early to draw strong conclusions about the safety statistics of the Cybertruck, as production has only recently started, and there’s limited data on real-world performance. The statement that Tesla’s self-driving system reduces accidents is generally supported by Tesla's own data, but it’s important to note that independent studies offer more mixed conclusions about Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) performance.
  4. Sabotaging Railroads/FSD Development:
    • This section is somewhat unclear, but the passage about Tesla's FSD system evolving quickly is partly accurate. Tesla's advancements in self-driving technology are notable, but Elon Musk has repeatedly overpromised on timelines for full autonomy. While there have been significant improvements in supervised FSD, the claim that we are 2-3 years away from fully autonomous driving remains speculative. Many experts are more cautious about how long it will take to achieve true Level 5 autonomy.
  5. Environmental Impact of EVs:
    • The claim that electric cars save a third of emissions compared to combustion vehicles over 10 years is generally supported by lifecycle analysis studies. The emissions benefits vary depending on factors like the energy mix used to charge EVs (fossil fuels vs renewable energy) and the carbon footprint of battery production, but the trend toward lower emissions is clear.
  6. Conclusion:
    • The passage reflects a strong pro-Tesla and pro-Musk bias, often downplaying counterarguments or dismissing concerns raised in the media. While many of the facts are correct, the tone of the writing suggests more certainty and optimism than some areas of debate warrant. For example, claims about Tesla's environmental benefits are well-founded, but broader claims about revolutionizing transportation or achieving full autonomy within a couple of years are more speculative.
In summary, while the passage contains a mix of factual information, some parts are overly optimistic and speculative, particularly when discussing future technologies and timelines. The reader should critically assess these claims, especially in the areas where real-world data is still evolving.

Thanks Pex-GPT
 
I'm out. I can't disagree with the fact that Elon Musk - the political one - says incredibly stupid stuff. He totally does, so that part is irrelevant for me to debate, we already agree. But his actual body of work and innovation is fascinating and will completely outdo all of the controversial stuff he's currently involved in. He's basically a villain and a hero at the same time.

No, it won't.

The "controversial stuff" you are alluding to is basically doing everything he can to elect a fascist as POTUS - not to mention how misinformation from Twitter keep chipping away at Democracy. Whatever he does with Tesla or SpaceX is worthless compared to that.