I do not deny climate change, I simply think it originates from a man-made theory with the purpose of raising awareness about it so as to take actions to prevent it from causing long term harm to mankind.
Elon Musk | Doer of things on X and sad little man
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
I do not deny climate change, I simply think it originates from a man-made theory with the purpose of raising awareness about it so as to take actions to prevent it from causing long term harm to mankind.
The idea that Musk does anything for the benefit of humanity is laughable. He does things for his own benefit, financially and also to feed his voracious egomaniacal psychosis. If he can use our tax dollar to do it all the better.
I disagree, he started Tesla and Neuralink and SpaceX in part for the betterment of human condition, which is in part why it has been so successful.
A lot of people bought Teslas on the premise that it is better for the environment, for instance.
His drive hails in part from believing that these companies' mission will improve humanity.
It originates from the undisputable fact of us spewing millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over the last 200 years. Scientific theories explain this in testable and repeatable ways.
Wikipedia said:
Not at all equated with a TV detectives seeing a dead body wearing a blue fedora and pronouncing "I have a theory". Two totally different things even if the letters are the same. Entering any discussion of such things and start quibbling about things "only" being a theory puts you straight into the anti-scientific lunatic denialists corner. If you aren't then stop it.
He didn’t start those companies.
Rubbish. He doesn't give a toss about humanity. He wants to be hailed as a hero. All ego, no care for anyone else.
Even if he did, his involvement in them is nothing to do with humanity and is all to do with his own ego.
Exactly. He’s a billionaire. He couldn’t care less about the future of humanity.
Many billionaires have philanthropic activities that actually benefit mankind, think Bill Gates Foundation or Buffett's Giving Pledge.
He released Tesla patents for others to use, effectively fast-tracking the electric car revolution. When is Poland coming up with a better alternative?
And none of them are doing it out of the goodness of their heart. It's either about tax breaks or imposing their ideology on others.
Someone take this fool to Delhi
Give me a theory that’s not man-made.
99% of people are already signed up to a giving pledge by paying a significant % of their income into the societal pot via taxation.
Billionaires dishing out a % their tax avoided excesses to whomever they personally deem worthy, rather than contributing it to the societal pot like everyone else, is a the sort of neo-feudalism that a lot of ultra rich and very bad people are working towards.
Surely someone commenting on another’s comments or even what it makes them think of that person, is them exercising their own free speech? Unless you are saying they shouldn’t do that, which would be you being the one frowning on someone else’s free speech because you find it insulting as you sayWow! Resorting to insults?
Now I understand why Elon advocates free speech on X, it certainly is frowned upon on this forum
You have drunk the Musk coolaid.
Musk did/does that for 3 reasons. 1) good publicity for his ego and business, 2) patents either reveal something well known that can be recreated without infringing the patent so are largely irrelevant, or 3) reveal a trade secret, or at least that trade secret exists, which loses the patent holder a significant edge, for very little or no actual protection or worse.
This is why Musk and others who operate in rapidly moving tech areas don't value patents highly but are very eager and litigious when it comes to protecting trade secrets.
If he wanted to advance the whole EV area he would patent more but give his trade secrets away for free. Don't hold your breath waiting.
Last edited:
Even if you actually believed all this shit about his companies I fail to see how anyone could see his actions the last few years and not absolutely despise him and think he’s a twat regardless.
They do, but they still need cars for many other aspects of their lives. Train and bus services outside cities are poor in loads of countries, even Japan in some places, where public transport is generally expert.
They were. As long as each of them was the lonely village idiot rightfully laughed at and ignored by the rest of the village.
Not any more, especially with the internet, social media and even regular media both-siding everything from flat earth to war crimes. Hell, I've seen that there are shows where scientists and flat earthers meet to have a "civil discussion" on the topic. That's a criminal waste of time and resources.
Yeah, exactly. There are two separate issues here. I can understand people who argue the toss about whether a company like Tesla has done any kind of good for the world. What I will never understand is how anyone can’t/won’t see that the man himself is an insufferable prick.
Flat Earthers are a vanishingly small part of the population, they just shout louder than most people - and they're easy to notice, since they're so utterly absurd. Though sadly there are fewer of them than there were just a few years ago. I say sadly, because they've mostly gone to QAnon or other much more dangerous conspiracy movements.
Here's a great video on the movement:
But nobody barring a few loons believe the silliness and it doesn't really do any harm. Climate deniers are far more common and far far more harmful.
How do you propose to have rural bus services at the frequency required to replace personal transport? You can't run them profitably so you have to subsidise, which makes them unviable at scale. Rail faces the same hurdle.
Rail in general requires massive subsidies. Either directly like the $100 billion or so European and Chinese governments pump into it, or indirectly by allowing the operators to own and develop the land around the stations e.g your Japan example. A Japan which has the 5th highest vehicle ownership in the world btw.
You can do it in and between major cities but it will never replace personal transport elsewhere.
Generally speaking suburbs are terrible for this sort of thing as they create more distance between everything. Buses are viable to people living out of cities but most sensible advocates of public transit know there's a need for some level of private car ownership.
That said, not everything should prioritise cars as not everyone can drive. You could probably subsidise public transit if you're not repairing roads and taking care of that infrastructure so often.
As for Japan it has the 12th highest population but one of the richest countries in the world with a highly developed road system yet they still invest in their public transit and don't give their streets to cars (you can hardly park on Japanese streets), I imagine Japanese people have a car strictly for when it's necessary.
2024 and some still can't see this bloke for who he is.
A really really simple math analysis should suffice to show that no, individual cars for everyone isn't a solution for transport issues.
In fact, as ludicrous as it sounds, even sending a good chunk of population to Mars or wherever would comparatively be a better solution.
In fact, as ludicrous as it sounds, even sending a good chunk of population to Mars or wherever would comparatively be a better solution.
Or they do and don't care/actively support him.
Japan has a huge car culture. They incentivise public transport with things like having employers pay for commuter travel. But cars are every bit as integral a part of life as they are in Europe.
The long term solution is most likely to be something along the lines of Musk's Robotaxi. It may not even be electric but autonomous zero emission personal transport is definitely the way things are heading. Airlines set the blueprint with the hub and spoke model.
Are you allergic to actually answering the question instead of making your own?
What's a major city? I lived in a city with 70k inhabitants without a car, and at no point did I feel like I was missing out on anything. And to get to another town of 25k, which I frequently had to travel to, I took a fastcraft. Granted you'd probably want a car if you lived in that town, unless you lived in the city centre. And this is not a densely populated part of the world.
Besides, I never said to replace cars entirely. The goal is for cars to not be necessary for most travel, and that's completely plausible for a majority of people.
Do you realize that you're criticizing mass public transportation for its frequency in rural areas and then immediately proposing this? Don't you see any problems with this particular solution, particularly in rural areas?
Robotaxis are good in theory but will be bad in practice. If you're getting a taxi and 5 minutes before someone puked in it, who is cleaning it? If you ride through a dangerous neighborhood and stop, what do you do if someone robs you?
To be fair, some sort of transport that can get people door to door away from urban areas will always be needed. And if that can be shared then that’s the most environmental friendly option. It’s already happening in cities with car share companies like GoCar. And my own experience of them has always been ok, despite potential robotaxi issues such as the last punter throwing up in it.
And will the AI also convince pretty girls to undress like in some of the movies I've seen online?
Ah yes, the famous free speech he advocates which essentially is the acceptance and promotion of racist, bigoted and other filthy views whilst silencing dissenting or critical ones.Wow! Resorting to insults?
Now I understand why Elon advocates free speech on X, it certainly is frowned upon on this forum
Unless manned taxis are also a very good mass transport solution, Robotaxis won't be either. And obviously they aren't.
And hey, there are videos on that too.
And hey, there are videos on that too.
Yes but they won't harass women on the pretense they're good in the kitchen
Only watched half the first one but there’s some fairly wild stuff in there. Like the way driving through rough areas means you’ll get stopped, broken into and mugged. And that couldn’t possibly happen with cars?
The broader point is silly too. Even in his absolute worst case scenario, where these become expensive options that are only used by wealthy middle class people to commute around wealthier parts of the city, so what? These wealthy people are the ones buying brand new oversized status symbols every few years, at enormous cost to the planet. If this initiative puts a decent sized dent in all those new car sales that’s a good thing, right?
Without knowing where you live it's hard to comment.
But I am not making the point that people can't transition to public mass transit. I'm saying that in order for it to be plausible the subsidies required to run them would be astronomical.
I don't think they'll be taxis in the current meaning of the word but more a shared ownership arrangement where you pay a subscription and get access to the nearest car whenever you need it. Think more Zipcar than Black Cab.
They will also have the effect of speeding up journeys and increasing productivity when in the UK we have been slowing down through traffic, overzealous speed limits etc.