Elon Musk | Doer of things on X and sad little man

[TwoSheds]

All of those salaries are scandalous but the EV company CEOs' the most. Any exec earning even fractions (or in Musk and no.2s case multiples!) of a billion while they have employees earning only tens of thousands is a stain on a civilised society. 1bn is 10,000x more than someone earning $100k and let's face it there's probably loads of employees who don't even earn that at most of those companies. Rivian only has about 3200 employees so even if their average salary was $700k(!) the CEO would still earn as much as the rest of them put together!

At least Apple is actually a massive company though. Do Rivian and Lucid even make any money?

Edit: Just checked and nope, Rivian lost billions last year and Lucid lost hundreds of millions. Without the CEOs salary Lucid might almost be profitable though!

 

[Revan]

All of those salaries are scandalous but the EV company CEOs' the most. Any exec earning even fractions (or in Musk and no.2s case multiples!) of a billion while they have employees earning only tens of thousands is a stain on a civilised society. 1bn is 10,000x more than someone earning $100k and let's face it there's probably loads of employees who don't even earn that at most of those companies. Rivian only has about 3200 employees so even if their average salary was $700k(!) the CEO would still earn as much as the rest of them put together!

At least Apple is actually a massive company though. Do Rivian and Lucid even make any money?

Edit: Just checked and nope, Rivian lost billions last year and Lucid lost hundreds of millions. Without the CEOs salary Lucid might almost be profitable though!

Lucid CEO was paid mostly in stock awards, so his salary does not affect at all Lucia’s finances.

 

[Raoul]

 

[Belisarius]

OK so one (potentially) front line physician and one epidemiologist?

My issue with this kind of argument isn't even the 'twitter files' which I had never even heard of previously or read. It's that this exact argument has been used so many times through the pandemic by people with a clear agenda, about all these supposed clinicians who have a contrary approach who've been shut down, as if they're anything other than a tiny minority.

First of all, it just categorically isn't true. I was on the front lines, a lot of my friends and colleagues were on the front line, in different countries across the world. Sure there may have been one or two people who had a different attitude to the prevailing one but they were in a tiny minority. Most people did not have issues with the general approach taken by most countries, with regards to restrictions or vaccinations.

Secondly, being on the front line certainly brings it's own perspective I agree. But public health is it's own totally distinct speciality and discipline, with its own training programme and skills. It doesn't mean they're right but just as I wouldn't go to a neurosurgeon to manage diabetes, I wouldn't be that bothered by what a neurologist has to think about a societal level public health approach to an infectious disease.

That isn't to say front line physicians don't have a huge role to play in public health campaigns (they do) but to dismiss the consensus because of a few front line physicians with a contrary opinion is quite strange to me.

This is a link to an article which describes Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a former FDA commissioner and current director of Pfizer pressing Twitter to censor a post from Dr. Brett Giroir who was also previously an FDA commissioner. The post apparently linked to an Israeli study that suggested those who had natural immunity were unlikely to need a Covid vaccine. It then said those who had not previously had Covid should get vaccinated. The post was not taken down but was restricted in ways that made it much less likely to be seen by others.

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/from-the-twitter-files-pfizer-board

Even if you disagree with the content of the post, surely you can see the danger of allowing a director of a company that sold 10s of billions of $s worth of Covid vaccines to censor the views of those who questioned the need for everyone to take their vaccine.

 

[Lemoor]

He draws a sweeping conclusion off a single retrospective study in Israel that hasn't been peer reviewed.

Gee, I wonder why this is one thing that the author of the article never bothered to address. I guess he can only respond to 2 sentences per article, 3 is just too much. If only there were bettere designed studies at this point that also checked it, but if they are not mentioned in the article I guess they can't exist.

The post apparently linked to an Israeli study that suggested those who had natural immunity were unlikely to need a Covid vaccine.

Are you talking about this post? Can you please point me to where the word 'unlikely' is used or anything meaning something similar?

 

[Belisarius]

Gee, I wonder why this is one thing that the author of the article never bothered to address. I guess he can only respond to 2 sentences per article, 3 is just too much. If only there were bettere designed studies at this point that also checked it, but if they are not mentioned in the article I guess they can't exist.

Are you talking about this post? Can you please point me to where the word 'unlikely' is used or anything meaning something similar?

I'm not interested in debating the Covid vaccine issue here. There are other threads for that. Though, if you look into it I believe the initial results in the Israeli study that he referred to have since been confirmed by other studies.

My point is on the censorship issue which is relevant here because Elon Musk's takeover of twitter has provided direct evidence of wide-spread censorship. Allowing individuals with a huge financial stake in an issue to censor those with an alternative viewpoint rather than forcing them to debate is very problematic.

 

[Oly Francis]

I'm not interested in debating the Covid vaccine issue here. There are other threads for that. Though, if you look into it I believe the initial results in the Israeli study that he referred to have since been confirmed by other studies.

My point is on the censorship issue which is relevant here because Elon Musk's takeover of twitter has provided direct evidence of wide-spread censorship. Allowing individuals with a huge financial stake in an issue to censor those with an alternative viewpoint rather than forcing them to debate is very problematic.

There's no debate on twitter, only algorithm, retweets, likes, echo chambers and bots. The mere fact that you imply "alternative" viewpoints should be treated equally shows that you're very naive regarding the way social networks work.

While I don't particularly like that powerful people get direct access to companies like that, if you take this specific tweet :
"it's now clear" no it was not, the study wasn't peer reviewed
"there's no justification for vaccine after prior infecton" it's false, several studies showed boosters were effective against early variants even for people who had prior infectons.

This tweet WAS misleading. One of my friend is a virologist with a pretty decent amount of follower, he shared a link to a legit peer reviewed study that showed booster weren't effectve against omicron. It wasn't censored or tempered with by twitter.

As for your analysis :
"if you look into it I believe the initial results in the Israeli study that he referred to have since been confirmed by other studies."
Studies about the omicron variant yes. That appeared in november of 2021. 4 months after the israeli study.

Finally, the study linked by Berenson is far, and I mean FAR from proving his point. It's a study about infection, which isn't really relevant for COVID since pretty much everybody knows that it's the severity of illness that really matters, and that wasn't at issue here, it's specifically written : "There were too few severe illnesses for the study to be able to determine if the vaccine decreased severity of illness".

 

[Pexbo]

Looks like Elon also saw some concerning tweets about Brazil’s extradition treaty.

 

[Belisarius]

There's no debate on twitter, only algorithm, retweets, likes, echo chambers and bots. The mere fact that you imply "alternative" viewpoints should be treated equally shows that you're very naive regarding the way social networks work.

While I don't particularly like that powerful people get direct access to companies like that, if you take this specific tweet :
"it's now clear" no it was not, the study wasn't peer reviewed
"there's no justification for vaccine after prior infecton" it's false, several studies showed boosters were effective against early variants even for people who had prior infectons.

This tweet WAS misleading. One of my friend is a virologist with a pretty decent amount of follower, he shared a link to a legit peer reviewed study that showed booster weren't effectve against omicron. It wasn't censored or tempered with by twitter.

As for your analysis :
"if you look into it I believe the initial results in the Israeli study that he referred to have since been confirmed by other studies."
Studies about the omicron variant yes. That appeared in november of 2021. 4 months after the israeli study.

Finally, the study linked by Berenson is far, and I mean FAR from proving his point. It's a study about infection, which isn't really relevant for COVID since pretty much everybody knows that it's the severity of illness that really matters, and that wasn't at issue here, it's specifically written : "There were too few severe illnesses for the study to be able to determine if the vaccine decreased severity of illness"

As I mentionned before, you're a great exemple of why censorship on social media is necessary.

I thought we were supposed to limit ourselves to attacking the post and not the poster.

 

[Belisarius]

There's no debate on twitter, only algorithm, retweets, likes, echo chambers and bots. The mere fact that you imply "alternative" viewpoints should be treated equally shows that you're very naive regarding the way social networks work.

While I don't particularly like that powerful people get direct access to companies like that, if you take this specific tweet :
"it's now clear" no it was not, the study wasn't peer reviewed
"there's no justification for vaccine after prior infecton" it's false, several studies showed boosters were effective against early variants even for people who had prior infectons.

This tweet WAS misleading. One of my friend is a virologist with a pretty decent amount of follower, he shared a link to a legit peer reviewed study that showed booster weren't effectve against omicron. It wasn't censored or tempered with by twitter.

As for your analysis :
"if you look into it I believe the initial results in the Israeli study that he referred to have since been confirmed by other studies."
Studies about the omicron variant yes. That appeared in november of 2021. 4 months after the israeli study.

Finally, the study linked by Berenson is far, and I mean FAR from proving his point. It's a study about infection, which isn't really relevant for COVID since pretty much everybody knows that it's the severity of illness that really matters, and that wasn't at issue here, it's specifically written : "There were too few severe illnesses for the study to be able to determine if the vaccine decreased severity of illness"

As I mentionned before, you're a great exemple of why censorship on social media is necessary.

So, it was true information that had not yet been confirmed. This is the sort of speech that should be encouraged in an uncertain situation where new information is appearing all the time.

You seem to have missed my point entirely which involves speech and not Covid. You seem happy to see the speech of others censored because they disagree with you and you imagine that will always be the case. Unfortunately, the history of humanity strongly suggests that is a naive viewpoint.

 

[Oly Francis]

I thought we were supposed to limit ourselves to attacking the post and not the poster.

You're right, the last paragraph was uncalled for. I edited my post.

 

[Oly Francis]

So, it was true information that had not yet been confirmed. This is the sort of speech that should be encouraged in an uncertain situation where new information is appearing all the time.

It's not the study that was censored, it's the tweet that made it an undisputable truth when i was not and was in fact partially wrong because it refered to early 2021 variants who were far more sensitive to vaccines and boosters. The tweet WAS misleading and was flagged as misleading.

I have no opinion about covid, i believe well conducted studies and fair analysis. And it's not at all what this tweet was doing.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

 

[calodo2003]

Just don’t see the allure of the self driving car.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Just don’t see the allure of the self driving car.

It's for people who don't want to stop scrolling Instagram for one second. More eyeballs on screen time baby

 

[Lemoor]

Just don’t see the allure of the self driving car.

Computers don't get tired, distracted, have a much better reaction time and human drivers cause a ton of deaths, damages and injuries every year.

 

[WI_Red]

Computers don't get tired, distracted, have a much better reaction time and human drivers cause a ton of deaths, damages and injuries every year.

 

[The Firestarter]

Your self driving vehicle powered by Micro$oft needs to perform a system update. You will not be able to use your vehicle during this short process, however your AC will remain on economy settings. Micro$oft cares about the environment.

Downloaded 128 of 738494484230 bytes.

 

[Bebe]

Just don’t see the allure of the self driving car.

Of all the supposedly desirable future tech, this is right at the bottom of my wishlist.

It's for people who don't want to stop scrolling Instagram for one second. More eyeballs on screen time baby

Imagine the volume of ads that will be beamed into people's cars if self driving vehicles ever actually become a thing.

 

[Lemoor]

Though, if you look into it I believe the initial results in the Israeli study that he referred to have since been confirmed by other studies.

You mean the linked israeli study that had this in the conclusions section and repeated this point multiple times? Seriously, you still don't see a problem with what is said in that tweet?

Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

 

[maximus419]

Computers don't get tired, distracted, have a much better reaction time and human drivers cause a ton of deaths, damages and injuries every year.

However software does often glitch, is vulnerable to bring hacked into and when you hand full control over to an autonomous entity who is responsible if things go wrong such as a crash killing someone?

 

[Lemoor]

However software does often glitch, is vulnerable to bring hacked into and when you hand full control over to an autonomous entity who is responsible if things go wrong such as a crash killing someone?

Obviously the driver is responsible, because the auto-pilot will turn off right before the crash.
Seriously though, I would expect those problems to be solved quicker than the problems of humans being tired or distracted.

 

[Pexbo]

 

[Adisa]

I am all for technology but I am not ready to let my car drive me.

 

[RedC]

I have to say, I do enjoy the idea of being able to get pissed and have my car bring me home, but I certainly won't be trusting Musk with my semi-conscious body.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Computers don't get tired, distracted, have a much better reaction time and human drivers cause a ton of deaths, damages and injuries every year.

Better reaction time to stuff inside the computer, not to external inputs. Computers fail all the time. Luckily they usually are not connected to two tonnes of steel and glass traveling at 70mph.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Of all the supposedly desirable future tech, this is right at the bottom of my wishlist.



Imagine the volume of ads that will be beamed into people's cars if self driving vehicles ever actually become a thing.

Exactly, just another route to getting monkeys to click buttons. This is the brave new world of radical "technology" humans have produced. Getting people to click on virtual links on portable devices. THAT'S IT!

Where are the hovercrafts? Where are the cancer vaccines? Where is the cold fusion?!

 

[B20]

I think self driving cars will be amazing.

No more having to be the sober driver. no more wasting time behind the wheel if you are a long distance commuter.

and car leasing will be vastly different in urbanised areas. no need to lease a car. you lease a pool of cars with every one else. and it comes and picks you up when you need and drops you off where you want. no need to worry about parking either. it will do it for you. you just get out at your destination and your car goes looking for a parking spot.
in fact with such car pools widespread, parking issues in the cities will be a thing of the past, since much fewer cars can service far more people.

traffic jams will be far fewer as all cars will accelerate and decelerate optimally in congestions and always choose optimal routes.

Traffic accidents will be vastly minimised.

No more hit and runs either. you may be able to get in the drivers seat drunk but it won't let you steer yourself if under the influence.

 

[crossy1686]

I think self driving cars will be amazing.

No more having to be the sober driver. no more wasting time behind the wheel if you are a long distance commuter.

and car leasing will be vastly different in urbanised areas. no need to lease a car. you lease a pool of cars with every one else. and it comes and picks you up when you need and drops you off where you want. no need to worry about parking either. it will do it for you. you just get out at your destination and your car goes looking for a parking spot.
in fact with such car pools widespread, parking issues in the cities will be a thing of the past, since much fewer cars can service far more people.

We're miles away from this unfortunately and some think it will never happen. The amount of variables on the road mean it's virtually impossible for a machine to account for them all unless there are significant leaps in development.

 

[Revan]

Just don’t see the allure of the self driving car.

Of all the supposedly desirable future tech, this is right at the bottom of my wishlist.

Around 1.3 million people are killed each year in car accidents. Having cars that drive better than humans, means far less deaths, while also people can work in them like we do in trains etc. Overall, a more enjoyable experience.

Of course, we are nowhere near reaching that stage where autonomous driving cars are reliable.

NB: for companies it is obviously high-margin profits. Essentially, have robotaxis everywhere without the need of paying drivers. It could change many things, for example, families owning one car instead of two cause the cost of using robotaxis to go to work becomes cheaper than buying a car and using it to go to work.

 

[Revan]

We're miles away from this unfortunately and some think it will never happen. The amount of variables on the road mean it's virtually impossible for a machine to account for them all unless there are significant leaps in development.

We are miles away from something, until it suddenly happens. There is now much more scepticism than 5 years ago and the current fiscal crisis will slow down the progress (less money to burn in Waymo, Cruise etc, as we saw with Argo AI shutting down), but I do not see a technical reason why it won't happen in the next 10-15 years.

I am talking about the technical part, not the legal ones. Cars will still be error-prone (albeit less than humans), but when people die, manufacturers will get sued. So, there also needs to be a robust legal framework, and I do not have any idea how that will look like.

 

[Bepi]

Around 1.3 million people are killed each year in car accidents. Having cars that drive better than humans, means far less deaths, while also people can work in them like we do in trains etc. Overall, a more enjoyable experience.

Of course, we are nowhere near reaching that stage where autonomous driving cars are reliable.

NB: for companies it is obviously high-margin profits. Essentially, have robotaxis everywhere without the need of paying drivers. It could change many things, for example, families owning one car instead of two cause the cost of using robotaxis to go to work becomes cheaper than buying a car and using it to go to work.

This leads to a question nobody seems willing to answer, in the industry: who is accountable for a self driving accident with injuries or, unfortunately, deaths? I have one startup in Italy asking me to help them design algorithms, which is a pretty stupid demand imho without a target (aka: lower the risk of accidents).

 

[Stack]

We're miles away from this unfortunately and some think it will never happen. The amount of variables on the road mean it's virtually impossible for a machine to account for them all unless there are significant leaps in development.

My work means i get to see some interesting stuff. I work as an advertising photographer and for a decade or so spent a lot of time doing car photography. Along the way a couple of the car writers i used to shoot for have ended up as friends.
4 years ago one of those car writers picked me up in a BMW demonstration 2 door, I forget the model, we were heading to a movie theatre across town to catch up with a few other friends and watch some old James Bond movies.
It was a 20km trip at rush hour on a Friday night, the trip was via motorway and some busy main roads. The entire trip was done in full autonomous mode, including arriving at the theatre car park and self parking. We even watched as the car adjusted and accomodated a large truck on the motorway forcing its way into our lane in front of us. It never missed a beat.
This was 4 years ago in a car that wasnt publicised as being able to do this.
4 years ago.

 

[Revan]

This leads to a question nobody seems willing to answer, in the industry: who is accountable for a self driving accident with injuries or, unfortunately, deaths? I have one startup in Italy asking me to help them design algorithms, which is a pretty stupid demand imho without a target (aka: lower the risk of accidents).

Right now, the drivers, of course. You are not supposed to sleep in an autonomous driving car., but should be looking in cases where it can feck up.

When we reach autonomous driving level 5, then there needs to be a legal framework that clarifies this. Because accidents will happen, and people will die.

 

[Stack]

Right now, the drivers, of course. You are not supposed to sleep in an autonomous driving car., but should be looking in cases where it can feck up.

When we reach autonomous driving level 5, then there needs to be a legal framework that clarifies this. Because accidents will happen, and people will die.

I wonder if the legal framework will look anything like the ones covering Building Elevator accidents?

 

[crossy1686]

We are miles away from something, until it suddenly happens. There is now much more scepticism than 5 years ago and the current fiscal crisis will slow down the progress (less money to burn in Waymo, Cruise etc, as we saw with Argo AI shutting down), but I do not see a technical reason why it won't happen in the next 10-15 years.

I am talking about the technical part, not the legal ones. Cars will still be error-prone (albeit less than humans), but when people die, manufacturers will get sued. So, there also needs to be a robust legal framework, and I do not have any idea how that will look like.

That’s the issue with something that’s automated like this it has to be safer than what’s currently available, and unless an automated car can accurately anticipate danger or issues before they arise then people will believe human operated cars are safer options.

 

[crossy1686]

My work means i get to see some interesting stuff. I work as an advertising photographer and for a decade or so spent a lot of time doing car photography. Along the way a couple of the car writers i used to shoot for have ended up as friends.
4 years ago one of those car writers picked me up in a BMW demonstration 2 door, I forget the model, we were heading to a movie theatre across town to catch up with a few other friends and watch some old James Bond movies.
It was a 20km trip at rush hour on a Friday night, the trip was via motorway and some busy main roads. The entire trip was done in full autonomous mode, including arriving at the theatre car park and self parking. We even watched as the car adjusted and accomodated a large truck on the motorway forcing its way into our lane in front of us. It never missed a beat.
This was 4 years ago in a car that wasnt publicised as being able to do this.
4 years ago.

The tech exists to a degree but the code isn’t there yet. They have to prove over many years that this stuff is safe and can detect a child running out in the middle of the road, or a dog, or a wheelie bin, or a piece of paper etc.

I think the best way to integrate this is to take all over cars off the road in a city centre and make it just automated taxis, that will increase customer confidence and give them real world feedback. That opens a bunch of separate potential issues however.

 

[Revan]

That’s the issue with something that’s automated like this it has to be safer than what’s currently available, and unless an automated car can accurately anticipate danger or issues before they arise then people will believe human operated cars are safer options.

I don't disagree with this. People are in the end emotional creatures, not rational ones, and everyone thinks that drive better than the average person.

Even if the cars will drive 10 times better than the average human, there will still be 130k deaths per year from them or 4600 in the US, more than 10 per day there. So a lot of people are going to be sceptical at the beginning and be scared on using self-driving cars (similar to how many people are scared on using airplanes despite them being statistically safer than any other form of travelling),

 

[Stack]

The tech exists to a degree but the code isn’t there yet. They have to prove over many years that this stuff is safe and can detect a child running out in the middle of the road, or a dog, or a wheelie bin, or a piece of paper etc.

I think the best way to integrate this is to take all over cars off the road in a city centre and make it just automated taxis, that will increase customer confidence and give them real world feedback. That opens a bunch of separate potential issues however.

The tech can already tell the difference between a child a dog and a wheelie bin.

 

[calodo2003]

We are miles away from something, until it suddenly happens. There is now much more scepticism than 5 years ago and the current fiscal crisis will slow down the progress (less money to burn in Waymo, Cruise etc, as we saw with Argo AI shutting down), but I do not see a technical reason why it won't happen in the next 10-15 years.

I am talking about the technical part, not the legal ones. Cars will still be error-prone (albeit less than humans), but when people die, manufacturers will get sued. So, there also needs to be a robust legal framework, and I do not have any idea how that will look like.

The US/ FAA just ordered a national ground stop due to a computer glitch. We don't need that happening nationwide with automated cars. Glad we are far away from such becoming more popular / mandated.