Happy Thanksgiving to fellow USAns. And for all of you around the globe, may autumn and winter bring gifts of hope and resilience and joy - and fresh horizons of adventure - for us all.
Here in this posting are just a few high-horizon bits to help you digest that overstuffed meal.
Are you concerned that the rich might wind up owning outer space? Here I read from a chapter of Existence that makes it pretty vivid! (And it was >ten years ago.)
I'll be posting soon about the new white paper issued by the White House re: colonizing the Moon. I understand their reasons. Consider me the Loyal Opposition on this particular matter, as I explained here... and I will post more about it soon.
== Out where we really should be active! ==
DART hit on target! See the way-cool flash as seen from ATLAS! And this zoom in closeup from DART itself. Amazing they used the same 'transmit video until smash' approach that I remember from summer 1964's Ranger probes to impact the moon. Took 7 tries to get it right.
Speaking of hits… The largest space rock to strike Mars since spaceflight began ‘rocked’ the Insight Lander’s seismometer 2500 miles away… and also revealed boulder-size ice chunks when it slammed into Mars. They were found buried closer to the warm Martian equator than any ice that has ever been detected on the planet. “Since landing on 2018, the mission has revealed new details about Mars’ crust, mantle and core and detected 1,318 marsquakes. Sadly, InSight’s mission is running out of time. Increasing amounts of dust have settled on the lander’s solar panels, only exacerbated by a continent-size dust storm detected on Mars in September, and its power levels keep dropping.”
We're a lot better at it, now... we need to be! And yes, THIS stuff... planetary protection and asteroid mining... is what we should be doing with Japan and EU, instead of going back to that useless sandbox of worthless poison dust.
== Deep space ==
And other NASA scopes captured this color snapshot of a magnificent supernova remnant.
A black hole has been "burping" out energy from a small star it was observed shredding in 2018, after two years in which it didn't eject any such material.
Another black hole that is about 10 times more massive than the Sun and is located only about 1600 light-years away is Gaia BH1, a dormant singularity in the constellation Ophiuchus. This means it is three times closer to Earth than the previous record holder.
== Life, who needs it? ==
Speculation: “it's possible that life appears regularly in the universe. But the inability of life to maintain habitable conditions on the surface of the planet makes it go extinct very fast.” At least that’s a theory re early life on Mars.
Following on that… Well dang. The hunt for habitable planets may have just gotten far more narrow: “The pressure from a class M red dwarf star’s radiation is immense, enough to blow a planet’s atmosphere away,” boding poorly for the “Goldilocks Zone” around such stars (the most common type.) This does not affect the kind of planets where most of the life in the universe likely resides - Europa style ice worlds, which might orbit almost every star out there. Alas, very unlikely to build civilizations with starships or radio.
== The best place for humans off-Earth? ==
Veteran space engineers Joe Carroll and Al Globus point out that that the best place for the earliest human space settlements is in equatorial low earth orbit or "ELEO". Going to the moon, Mars, or beyond takes roughly an order of magnitude more launch mass. So, until you can reliably harvest >90% of your mass from non-earthly material, it is cheaper to expand in ELEO than anywhere else. Also, you don't need heavy radiation shielding in ELEO.
The earliest tests will involve large slow-spinning dumbbell shapes, because they provide any desired range of artificial gravity with lower annoying artifacts than feasible with any other shape or facility mass. But I think the argument is likely to remains true for other design approaches as well.
There is another key factor. Expanding settlements with Moon, Mars, asteroid, or comet materials involves distinctly different mining and refining technologies, and unique other constraints like long lunar nights, launch windows to each NEO, etc. Mastering each site will require mastering and reliably maintaining site-specific capabilities. But every site will require one common capability: reliably delivering usable air, water, food, and other supplies to support the settlers. This is almost certainly best done mostly by recycling onboard waste flows. And that (plus occasional launches) are the ONLY key capabilities required for settling ELEO. If you start there, you can "close the life-support loop" at whatever rate you want, because you can get supplies from earth >90% cheaper than anywhere else, and without launch constraints or latencies.
I strongly suspect that any serious plan to settle the moon, Mars, or beyond will end up redirecting the plans to start in ELEO first, because it lets you crawl and walk before needing to run or fly. And it is likely to kill far fewer people unnecessarily, even though it adds "unnecessary" steps in a long-term plan for serious human expansion beyond earth.
There is yet another factor that may become dominant in any commercial scenario: large-scale orbital tourism and even retirement-in-space should be >90% cheaper in ELEO than further out, That may drive viable early investments. ELEO is clearly the "minimum viable product."
… and along those lines… Orbital Assembly inc. is planning the first free-flying, habitable, privately operated facility in orbit for both work and play. With artificial gravity, OA is leading the space tourism market with a safe and comfortable destination in orbit. Several of the required technologies were first developed at NASA’s Innovative & Advanced Concepts program – (NIAC)
And yes, I will post about Greg Bear, soon. It's just too painful a bummer for Thanksgivingtime.
Peace & joy to all.
78 comments:
The passing of Greg Bear must have hit you harder than most, given yourself and Gregory Benford made up the trio colloquially known as the Killer-Bs.
I'm a few years younger than Greg, and I know I'm feeling the weight of my mortality as the looming long darkness that comes after my death comes ever closer.
I shall stop before I become more maudlin.
FOUNDATION captured the essence of the non-romanticist, non-religious form of immortality. It's why fans are giving David Goyer such a short leash with the storyline. We get the need for continuity across a millennium, but Asimov et al accomplished that with robots and ideals, not ghosts.
"...surrounded by people whose job was, essentially, to manipulate him into making good decisions."
This sounds like Winston Churchill, except that Churchill was smart enough to realize it.
"...I know I'm feeling the weight of my mortality as the looming long darkness that comes after my death comes ever closer."
This year I hit the base for Sumerian math. 'Twould be better if the Black Camel brought chocolate, but so it goes.
Pappenheimer
Ashley:
I know I'm feeling the weight of my mortality as the looming long darkness that comes after my death comes ever closer.
Pappenheimer:
This year I hit the base for Sumerian math. 'Twould be better if the Black Camel brought chocolate, but so it goes.
I suppose I am an outlier. Having just passed 60 a few years back, I feel a huge weight of responsibility lifted off of me. I don't mean that I want to die, or that I am trying to die, but if I were to find out that my days are numbered in (say) triple digits, I'd be ok with it in a way that I wouldn't have been at a younger age.
I say triple digits because I'm not sure how I'd feel if the number were actually smaller than that. Back in college, there was a time when I really did want to die, and then I had a dream in which I was diagnosed as terminal by a doctor, and I changed my mind and railed against the dying of the light. That change of mind was legitimate and lasted beyond the dream. So I'm not certain that wouldn't happen again.
gregory,
That description fits many, many CEO's and the culture that grows around them. Leaders do quite a lot to shape the way the company functions including things we don't like.
pappenheimer,
Sumerian base. I like that.
I hit that this year too and finally did begin to think about how I was getting older.
Larry,
My close brush with the guy who speaks in all caps was in late 2013. I would have been the first of my parent's kids. Once they dealt with my anemia, though, my mind rallied.
Now I've managed to outlive my parents and two of my siblings. One left. Can't say I'm happy about that, but I did get to work on tasks related to what my wife and son will inherit when I finally do go. That's a good thing at least.
Ashley thanks for your kind thoughts.
GB: I cannot see any reason to credit the grumbles of an ex SpaceX intern higher than the senior engineers there with whom I have directly spoken. Seriously?
Sciadta: My complaints about Goyer’s FOUNDATION are not the things he added, which I generally quite liked. But the mysticism, magic powers and ignoring the logic of psychohistory. Naturally, I wish he had consulted me, since I probably know that cosmology better than anyone.
Unknown: "...surrounded by people whose job was, essentially, to manipulate him into making good decisions."
---->"This sounds like Winston Churchill, except that Churchill was smart enough to realize it.
Of all the wonders of George Marshall, what he did to the US Army officer corps was among the topaccomplishments. Until Twitter, I’d have demanded that Elon be credited for this, since it is the simplest hypothesis. I do wish I could still be as sure.
Dr. Brin: I wish he [Goyer] had consulted me
If Goyer does get the 8 seasons he's asking for, the story will need to go much deeper and further than the original trilogy. By necessity, the consultation arena will widen. The mysticism cop-out may come back to bite him (scattered non-Asimovian loose ends to fuss with). Constraints are vital to progress.
While you were digesting your Thanksgiving feasts (I hope the turkey pardons you ;-), George Monbiot was tucking into a steak in Sweden.
The reason this is newsworthy is that the steak was 3D constructed from plants, and near indistinguishable from the real thing.
Having been studying artificial food manufacture for his recent book 'Regenesis', what particularly impressed Monbiot was the recreation of texture, which he believed to be the least developed aspect of the industry.
It's OK to say 'eww!'. This stuff is still very new, and we're hard wired to treat any novel foodstuff with caution.
Which suggests that if you thought climate denialists were fanatical...
Re Elon Musk
The key fact is that Elon Musk has succeeded several times
All of the other "wunderkind" have ridden one idea to success
Musk has ridden FOUR - PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX and StarLink
With several hopefuls still in the stables
One could be "luck" (and skill) - FOUR ......
Twitter is a different type of problem - an existing business that Musk intends changing dramatically as opposed to a "start-up"
That does call for a different skillset - the ability to keep a business running along "the wrong path" until you can change it
George Marshal could have done that
Elon looks as if he is floundering - can he pull a rabbit out of the hat before the hat burns to a crisp?
duncan cairncross:
Twitter is a different type of problem - an existing business that Musk intends changing dramatically as opposed to a "start-up"
That does call for a different skillset - the ability to keep a business running along "the wrong path" until you can change it
George Marshal could have done that
Elon looks as if he is floundering - can he pull a rabbit out of the hat before the hat burns to a crisp?
Whenever someone who is a rock star in one venue thinks that means he can be one in any venue, it reminds me of when Michael Jordon tried to become a professional baseball player.
FOUR might be FIVE if you include a mundane business that put up 2 million solar roofs.
I still think he never really wanted Twitter. It was a stock maneuver and lawyers told him "either go through with it or face real bad consequences." Hence a rather... ad hoc ... approach.
Larry,
...Michael Jordan tried to become a professional baseball player.
Heh. Yah. Movie star too, right?
He still had his record of success with basketball after flopping in other arenas, though. I'm seeing people trying to deny Musk's successes.
It's as if some here think that annoying personality traits means success isn't success. One must do it the RIGHT way for it to be a success. Pfft!
------
Twitter is still there. So far so good said the guy falling off the tall building? Could be. Time will tell.
Two things I think are dead wrong in how people interpret this all are as follows.
1. Some think he wants to burn $44B. Bunch of horse puckey.
2. Some think he wants to f@#k over the world. More horse burrito stuffings.
He might wind up doing one or both, but not out of intent. This is the guy who thinks we have to get busy colonizing other worlds... and he's just the guy to do it. Ego? Sure. Destroyer of worlds? Nah. Not intentionally.
"Of all the wonders of George Marshall, what he did to the US Army officer corps was among the top accomplishments."
Marshall purged the US officer Corp's (army, navy and the national guard - divisions like North Carolina's 30th infantry was rated by the Germans as the best division in the American army) of a lot of deadwood between the world wars. He destroyed careers and put 100s of generals and admirals out to pasture making room for young officers who understood modern mechanized/aerial warfare. Officers like: Ike, Patton, Bradley, Hap Arnold, Nimitz and Halsey.
The Versailles Treaty (which limited the size of the German Wehrmacht to a mere 100,000) did the same thing to the German army, eliminating old imperial German deadwood to make way for young officers who understood blitzkrieg/ Officers like Rommel, Guderian, von Manstein, Milch, Raeder, and Donitz.
Turns out that Stalin's purges did the same thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnWNnI6YlQQ
His methods were more brutal but not as bloody as many people suppose (most of the purged Red Army officers were later rehabilitated). The main charge against Stalin's purges of the Red Army is that he eliminated a cadre of experienced officers. But as TIK asks in his video, what kind of experience? Cossack cavalry maneuvers and trench warfare? These young officers independently developed armored warfare theories every bit as good as the Germans
What made the Red Army ineffective, especially in the first year of Barbarossa, was the commissar system where a paranoid Stalin placed party commissars at every command level who could countermand the orders of the professional military officers, The results were disastrous.
The British (who invented combined arms "blitzkrieg") rested on their laurels - as winners often do. As a result, the first few years of the war defeats were used to purge incompetent officers. Especially disasters that led to Dunkirk, the first campaigns against Rommel's Afrika Corps, and the early humiliating defeats against the Japanese in Malaya, Singapore and Burma.
The only major power that failed to purge deadwood from its officer corps between the wars was France whose military performance worse than the British and who had no invulnerable island that they could hold out in. Which is still something of a mystery since on paper, France should have defeated the Germans in 1940 (French tanks were better than the Germans). Many historians blame the Maginot Line, but it actually made a lot of sense for furnace to protect as much of tis frontier with e heavily fortified line to compensate for the demographic blood letting of trench warfare. They simply put too many troop in it at the expense of an an armored reserve.
Imagine an alternate history where young officers like Leclerc and DeGaule were allowed to rise to command levels instead of idiots like Weygand and who possessed and armored reserve to counter German panzers.
AD,
You’re correct about Elon. In school, someone once wrote an end-of-the-year piece for the Vox Populi student paper. In it the author wrote that “ego is everything.”
We weren’t prepared to accept it—but it was entirely valid. Was von Braun motivated by ego? At the very least, partly. Armstrong didn’t become the first Moon walker by being humble.
And false humility is worse than egotism.
Alfred Differ:
He might wind up doing one or both, but not out of intent.
Another favorite witticism from comics, this time Neil Gaiman's Sandman:
"Intent and outcome are rarely coincident."
Destroyer of worlds? Nah. Not intentionally.
Ok, again with the comics lines. From Jon Sable, Freelance:
"Doesn't seem to matter much, though."
(You had to be there)
I guess I'm agreeing with you in that I doubt Musk is intentionally trying to destroy Twitter or democracy. I think it's more like conventional actions aren't helping the company's profitability, so let's try something out of the box. Any thing out of any box. "What we're doing now isn't working. A change--any change--can't be any worse." Some people voted for Trump in 2016 for similar reasons. Some people voted for Hitler in 1932 for similar reasons.
The lesson learned from history is that, yes, it can be much worse. And where I...well, sorry but the word is "differ"...with you is that I'm not confident that his lack of intent softens the outcome. If he destroys Twitter, I don't have a dog in the fight, and in some ways I could enjoy watching that as much as I enjoy watching cryptocurrency implode. But if he empowers Twitter to help destroy democracy, then as Vito Corleone put it, "That, I do not forgive."
We can find a way to outmaneuver him if he empowers Twitter to help destroy democracy. He will overreach himself someday; self-seekers always do—and then they are replaced by someone else.
Just a note DP that Nimitz & Halsey were promoted by Ernest King who was likelise all his career ‘destined’ to be Navy Chief, by being so blatantly smarter than anyone else. Marshall was blatantly more GROWNUP than anyone else. A trait I esteem even higher. King was abit of a jerk. But he, too, promoted capable men.
The other nation that did not purge its military dead wood was Japan.
===
Ukraine quick notes:
#1: Winter is when Putin will most regret having driven Sweden and Finland into NATO. Mountains of their top winter gear is pouring into Ukraine.
#2 Look closely (if curious) at some of the war maps. Especially those issued daily by this savvy YouTyber who lives in Ukrains. Note something interesting: that many front lines till now settled along strings of linear lakes – common in the region along its many rivers. That gave both sides narrower fronts. But these lakes will freeze over, soon, becoming no obstacle at all. My amateur guess is that a broader front will favor Ukraine and their higher supply of motivated infantry. Though some might argue it is tank season.
#3 Winter fogs used to mean no helicopters fly; nowadays it may be exactly the time when they do.
#4 If I really knew, I would not tell you! But since I DON'T know, I can speculate that there are hundreds, even thousands of NATO operatives and contractors in Ukraine, not just training Ukrainians to operate new defense equipment, but studying how NATO gear performs in combat. VPutin is using up his best missiles hurling them into a perfect test zone for live-fire analysis and tweaked improvement of every system. Data you could not buy at any price. When Vlad threatens to use hypersonics, some of these folks will mutter under their breath (knowing it's wrong, but--) murmuring "Please?"
#5 Again, there is just one way out of this mess. D\mand a commission of 1000 random RF citizens - & 3000 others (incl neutrals)- to go see for themselves whether Ukrainians are ‘satanist nazis’ or will ever consent to be Russians, or to look into war crimes and claims by all sides. Of course Vlad will refuse and his refusal will in itself be exploitable. There will be no disguising it successfully without that fact penetrating the fog blurring RF citizens.
Musk is afflicted with the variant of Dunning-Kruger syndrome common to very wealthy people, the assumption that since they are good at making money, they must be good at everything.
Hi Don Gisselbeck
Musk has already shown that he was very good at building FOUR completely different industries - four completely different problem sets
I think the jury is still out on number 5 - the Home Solar one
Twitter may well be his iceberg -
IMHO with his (and his team's) knowledge of AI and self driving he WILL be able to build a "fair" platform as his World Town Meeting
The question is not IF he can manage that - but if he can manage it before the existing business disintegrates
Which means that he’ll become overconfident, and tangle himself up in his own web.
I'm with Thunderfoot on the subject of the great god Elon.
https://youtu.be/YrwkNp_AOjQ
Larry,
But if he empowers Twitter to help destroy democracy...
Heh. Well... with all the attention he's getting for the platform right now, I doubt he can do more damage than those who think he might being doing damage. Our social T-cells are hyperactive right now so he won't be able to sneeze without someone pointing out how he's trying to infect the world.
I'm not going to try to convince our T-cells they are incorrect. They are doing their job and I'll pay attention even if I don't agree with them for now, but they might regret it if I decide I like what I'm seeing.
Hi Don
So you agree with some plonker who has achieved NOTHING in his life - over somebody who has already achieved a colossal amount??
Pardon me if I disagree
Alfred
I simply do not see that as an option - I don't see any way that Twitter could be used to "help destroy democracy" - if its seen as biased then half of the population will ignore it
Musk could
Keep things as dubious as they are - unlikely
Crash and burn Twitter - likely
Fix things so that some sort of AI does the moderation - I see that as the most likely "aim" - not sure if he can pull it off - in time
I also believe that there are "tools" that Twitter could have used rather than "bans"
A variable "posting delay" strikes me as a tool that could be used instead of a ban
It’s good that such as Trump and Marjorie Greene were reinstated at Twitter: now we can monitor them more closely.
Know thine enemy is the first commandment.
Duncan,
I mostly agree... now that our social T-cells are looking at the impact social media has on the information we use to make political decisions. With our immune system active, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in Hell that Twitter and the other sites will get away with much.
I DO think there is still a strong chance the T-cells will think that cause X is in play when it's really cause Y. Provocateurs can do much more sophisticated things that plant and rant.
------
Bans ARE excessive, but I'll freely admit I wanted the orange man banned off Twitter as much as our 'far left' did. He's not President now, though, and I'd rather he left a trail of evidence he can't delete next time he wants to incite people to commit crimes. I'm not inclined to try to stop him from doing that as I'm reasonably happy with what's been happening to Jan 6 insurrectionists. If more people want to go to jail for him, I'd like to know who they are... on a platform where he can't delete the evidence.
David, I thought the post was interesting, though (as I pointed out) I have no idea of its provenance - though I have heard similar things elsewhere (that are also unconfirmed).
Alfred Differ said...
That description fits many, many CEO's and the culture that grows around them. Leaders do quite a lot to shape the way the company functions including things we don't like.
duncan cairncross said...
The key fact is that Elon Musk has succeeded several times
[...]
Twitter is a different type of problem - an existing business that Musk intends changing dramatically as opposed to a "start-up"
That does call for a different skillset - the ability to keep a business running along "the wrong path" until you can change it
[...]
Elon looks as if he is floundering - can he pull a rabbit out of the hat before the hat burns to a crisp?
It seems to me that both of these quotes are examples of talking out of both sides of one's mouth.
That is, if Musk is more or less the same as "many, many CEO's", then he is not some unique genius worthy of a cult of personality (that he tries himself to cultivate). He seems to have invested his wealth wisely, which is a good thing, but not unique.
Also, if he does not understand the difference between Twitter and SpaceX (for example), then this should lead to serious questions about his ability to make the right calls.
None of this takes away from the fact that he has been a good (and lucky) investor. But it should, I think make one question the personality cult that has arisen around him (and that he promotes).
Gregory,
Worthy of a cult of personality?!
I've never claimed that, so be careful with your strawman.
You are very welcome to believe that you understand him best. I don't think you do, though, AND I don't think you understand how I see him. You are making too many assumptions that require broad brushes.
Get it through your head. I'm not a fanboy. Neither am I a detractor. He is what he is whether you grok or not.
Elon will go the way of all the rest. Remember how Edison drove Tesla away: Elon will do the same with certain people.
duncan cairncross:
I don't see any way that Twitter could be used to "help destroy democracy" - if its seen as biased then half of the population will ignore it
It's the other half I'm worried about. The ones who take orders to storm the Capitol, or spread Q-Anon theories about Democrats eating babies, or make celebrities out of mass shooters.
Alfred Differ:
Our social T-cells are hyperactive right now so he won't be able to sneeze without someone pointing out how he's trying to infect the world.
I don't think Elon is trying to destroy democracy. I can take him at his word that he wants Twitter to be a town square type "place" where everyone can speak and everyone's voice is heard. I just don't think reality works that way. The loudest and most belligerent will command the space, making it into an environment which decent people avoid because they'd need a drink and a shower after visiting.
"But it should, I think make one question the personality cult that has arisen around him (and that he promotes)."
There is such a 'cult'... but it is nowhere near as reflexive, automatic and volcanically vehement as the cult of Musk-hating,
STill, the "town Square" and "free Speech" thing utterly misunderstands how free speech delivers its value, by the use of facts and fair argument to DESTROY LIES and DELUSIONS... after which, what remains are policy disagreements that can be negotiated.
Just celebrating tantrum spews will not work or give us any benefit.
Dr Brin:
STill, the "town Square" and "free Speech" thing utterly misunderstands how free speech delivers its value, by the use of facts and fair argument to DESTROY LIES and DELUSIONS...
I'm concerned that the FOXite bubble is impervious to facts. They have their own set of core beliefs with enough reinforcement from within that they essentially destroy truth and accurate perception AS "lies and delusions."
Yes, but they also lie and delude themselves; many ruin themselves. In politics: Nixon, Agnew, Oliver North, Sununu, etc, on to Trump. All sorts of people in business ruin themselves...
With a little help from us.
Dr. Brin: "But these lakes will freeze over, soon, becoming no obstacle at all."
What slowed down Hitler's advance against Moscow in Operation Typhoon was the mud of the fall rasputitsa.
Once the ground froze, his panzers made much faster progress.
Once the mud freezes, the Ukrainians will do the same.
Conduct a left hook to retake Mariupal on the Sea of Azov, complete the destruction of the Azov bridge supplying occupied Crimea, sink what is left of the Russian Black Sea fleet with drones - and you have effectively cut off and trap over 100,000 Russian troops without hope of food, ammunition resupply or reinforcement.
A Stalingrad in reverse.
"Some plonker" is an ad hom. Which of Thunderfoot's points have you refuted?
Hi Don
Life is too short to listen to plonkers who have never done anything useful pontificate
If you have a transcript of the plonker saying anything useful then I will read it
Heave retch:
https://amp.tmz.com/2022/11/26/elon-musk-support-ron-desantis-2024-president/
I have just realised why Gregory and I differ
He sees Musk as "an investor"
I see Musk as somebody who has led teams that have achieved BIG things
The difference between "an investor" and a "successful leader" is night and day
Alfred Differ said...
Worthy of a cult of personality?!
I've never claimed that, so be careful with your strawman.
Ok, that term may be hyperbolic.
You are very welcome to believe that you understand him best. I don't think you do, though, AND I don't think you understand how I see him. You are making too many assumptions that require broad brushes.
I don't know that I "understand" Musk much at all. I can only look at what he has accomplished (note that what he has accomplished is not necesarily equivalent to what the companies he owns have accomplished) and reason from there about his abilities.
Get it through your head. I'm not a fanboy. Neither am I a detractor. He is what he is whether you grok or not.
The problem, in my view, is that, for someone who is not a fan, you seem to spend a great deal of effort defending him from even mild criticism
"He is what he is" is true no matter what, and is a completely emtpy response.
duncan cairncross said...
I have just realised why Gregory and I differ
He sees Musk as "an investor"
I see Musk as somebody who has led teams that have achieved BIG things
The difference between "an investor" and a "successful leader" is night and day
Almost.
I think that Musk is a succesful investor. He has made some very good calls that have worked out very well for him.
He has been a "leader", but I think that the evidence that he is a "successful leader" has always been limited and is now seemingly tilting toward the negative.
His executive leadership has always been in question, going back at least as far as PayPal. In his other companies, there have been many reports of at least questionable behaviour and decisions, but the companies have so far been succesful, and apart from which he is (on paper) extraordinarily wealthy. As long as the line goes up, other things can be largely ignored.
Now with Twitter his "leadership" is fully on display, and it does not seem particularly impressive.
Of more importance than Musk's personal psychology is the potential of his creations' progeny. If it follows the 'exploding seed pod' paths of Fairchild*, it could launch us towards the stars. 'Pioneer' is the greatest kind of (North) American. In a sense, the most American kind of American.
* Bell Labs - Fairchild - Intel, National Semiconductor, AMD, LSI, etc, etc
And VC spinoffs that funded Sun, Google, AOL, Genentech, Amazon, and many others.
A movement that valued history, optimism, and the transistor vastly more than money, comfort, and yachts.
The transcript, as with many YouTube videos, is at the link.
Gregory
You question Musk's leadership "style"
I applaud the actual RESULTS
duncan cairncross:
I applaud the actual RESULTS
Well, the jury is still out on that regarding Twitter. That's kind of what we're all arguing about.
Me personally, I'm probably in my own lane on this one. I'm not emotionally invested in Elon Musk one way or another. I have negative feelings about Twitter, both before and after Musk's takeover. I do think he's going about making it worse than it was, but that's the extent of my feelings about him.
Hi Larry
I tend to agree with you
Tesla and SpaceX and StarLink and PayPal - I see as BIG positives
Twitter.... Nahhh - its a distraction at best
GB seems utterly fixated on repeating a comforting mantra that Elon Musk had nothing to do with Tesla or Specex or STarlink successes except as a savvy investor. He has absolutely no basis for that assertion. I know engineers who actually, actually... and actually work for those companies and have worked with him and who would challenge GB to a duel. I mean almost literally.
I have said that before and GB simply pauses, then goes back to his mantra. I hope the delusion is very comforting.
Still... I will pass along an interesting insight.
I have to wonder if my pal Joe was the only person to notice that Elon Musk made nearly all of his money while living in California, and after he moved to Texas, he has started losing it. It coincides with when I became no longer able to get through to communicate my strange, off-axis observations (maybe wisdom?)
Maybe his problem is who he hangs out with. Texas billionaires may not think like Silicon Valley billionaires, who mostly understand that they are part of a larger ecology.
Alas, I think much of the problem is caused by guys like GB, who have done the SMART thing by railing venom at an Aspergers/spectrum guy. Yeah, that works. Not. He was never a Trumpite... until the left started screeching at him. Good tactics. Great tactics.
Musk making and losing money
The main thing that is changing that is simply the value of Tesla stock
Tesla stock is changing hands with a P/E ratio of 53
That would be a high number (20 is good) for a company that had stopped growing
Tesla is growing at 50% per year - and the market for EVs is close to 20 times its current level
IMHO (and I have shares) Tesla will be worth well over 10 times as much in the next five years
Once Tesla shares start to rise again all of Musk's "losses" will evaporate
Alan,
Elon will go the way of all the rest…
That's a fair possibility. I've met people who get wrapped up in their egos and can't accept counsel or criticism. It happens. However, it doesn't diminish what they accomplish along the way.
Remember that the vast majority of the value innovators create (~83%) winds up in the hands of those making use of the innovations. The actual innovators are doing good to squeeze about 2% from the fruit before the copycats in the market will displace them and squeeze about 15%. If the innovation is vast, then 2% is quite a lot of money to be in the hands of one person, but most of the value winds up in the hands of those who use the innovation.
Larry,
I just don't think reality works that way.
You might be right. The problem he says he wants to solve might be unsolvable.
What if it isn't, though?
What kind of person does it take to take on the impossible?
What harm befalls us in letting them try?
I've got some friends who were working on the re-useable rocket problem. We all knew in our bones that cheap access to space required we not throw away our flight hardware each time we flew. I know a LOT of people who were working on it… and struggling NOT with the hardware but with the financial matters that make a company survive long enough to pay its engineers. The impossible problem as perceived by people outside our clade was building re-usable rockets. The impossible problem for those of us on the inside was financing and politics.
What Musk has done with SpaceX is bring his own money and attract more while running the whole thing in a way that divided our political opponents. Engineers interested in the re-usable rocket problem weren't hard to find. Keeping their mortgages and rent covered was harder. Keeping the opposition divided until his team had proven to be the only realistic way forward was (from my perspective as a trench warfare vet) f@#king awesome.
Isn't that the kind of person you want tackling impossible problems… just in case they aren't impossible?
Gregory,
"He is what he is" is true no matter what, and is a completely empty response.
No, but I do get why it seems that way. You can't hear my vocal stressing on certain words, so my bad.
What I'm pointing out is that the map is not the terrain. The man is who he is (terrain)… not what detractors or fanboys think he is (map).
———
The problem, in my view, is that, for someone who is not a fan, you seem to spend a great deal of effort defending him from even mild criticism
Fair point. I can see how I come across that way. So… let me broaden the topic slightly and show you why I react in a way that only looks like I'm coming to his defense.
There are many (including some here and some of my relatives) who think billionaires should not exist. They argue for policy that would tax them punitively and won't admit that it IS punitive. They argue that getting to that level of wealth is a reliable proxy for immoral and possibly criminal behavior justifying us taking their ill-gotten gains.
Obviously, I disagree.
I have no issue with acting against people we can prove are guilty of a criminal offense, but I flatly refuse to accept the proxy linking wealth and amoral (let alone immoral) behavior.
I have no issue with social consequences landing upon people who do not demonstrate they people of good character, but I flatly refuse to accept that governmental powers can be used against them short of criminal convictions.
———
I imagine a community of millions of people whose character ranges all over the ethical map. Good, bad, and everything in between. In a community large enough, there will be a lot of people guilty of being less than virtuous. Do we go after them all with criminal charges? No… and it would be stupid to try. They'd have a few too many friends who would willingly hide them making enforcement worse than difficult. Enforcement would become a matter of arbitrariness. Those with few friends (money gets involved here) would feel the brunt of our ire. We saw this with Prohibition. We've seen it again with our Drug War. We've seen this SOOOO many times I'd think the lesson should be seared into our souls.
We distinguish between criminal and 'less than virtuous' behaviors not just because the world isn't black and white. One big reason we do so is because the Rule of Law cannot survive when we criminalize 'poor character choices'.
So… pick any particular billionaire and who me their CRIMINAL behavior before I'll tolerate use of governmental power against them. If you ONLY want to rant about them being a person of poor character, I'll likely tune out and leave you be. Maybe. If I'm in a good mood and pick up the role of loyal opposition and poke holes in your arguments, but only if you like that kind of thing.
What I see going on lately with Musk is people ranting about some of the weaker portions of his character. I can name the vices if you like, but their zeal seems to depend on the fact that he has a lot of money AND there are a lot of people attacking him. The bandwagon effect demonstrates to me that his detractors are cowards. Focusing on a rich guy without bringing charges tells me they are would-be thieves. Cowardly thieves piss me off in a way that courageous thieves do not.
As Elon is endorsing DeSantis, there might be some guilt by association.
It cannot be ruled out:
https://www.americanbridgepac.org/round-up-ron-desantis-accepts-money-from-alleged-mob-family-oan-ceo/
Y'all can beat DeSantis. Just put up someone who isn't too far from the center.
Alfred Differ:
What harm befalls us in letting them try?
In this case, that's not a hypothetical. We've already seen some harm that Musk is enabling again. Trump and his ilk using the platform to instigate real-world threats and violence.
Isn't that the kind of person you want tackling impossible problems… just in case they aren't impossible?
Sure, but my point is that there is a potential cost. The answer to "What do we have to lose by trying?" isn't negligible. The way he's going about solving the impossible problem can do damage.
Y'all can beat DeSantis. Just put up someone who isn't too far from the center.
You mean like Joe Biden?
Whoever the Democrats run will be tarred as the most woke progressive in history, or at least in thrall to that faction.
Sure there’re countless rabble who attack Elon because he’s rich and they are envious. Yet if he would endorse someone such as DeSantis, why should he be trusted? Perhaps Elon himself is envious. Or maybe he’s an ally of Barzini.
We don’t want to be jealous of his cannoli; but we keep a friend close and an enemy closer—to see what they’ve got under their nails.
Gas prices are back down, though not to record lows, but well into normal pre-COVID territory. If that had happened a week or so earlier than it did, Democrats would probably still hold he House majority and have a bigger margin in the Senate.
I understand the James Carville idea that people tend to vote their pocketbook issues. What I don't get is how those voters are so easily played by Republicans into voting for the very party that exacerbates those pocketbook issues. At least since 2009 (if not well before), Republicans, Republican-friendly corporations, and Republican-friendly foreign countries have made a winning strategy out of making inflation, unemployment, oil prices, whatever worse before an election so that voters will blame the party nominally "in power" and vote them out. They're betting on the gullibility of the American voting public, and it seems to be a winning bet.
Regarding DeSantis...
They are going to run someone. Right?
Who do you want that someone to be?
Don't say Trump. Last time that happened... I agreed on grounds that he could be defeated easily due to the scandals that surround him. My oh my was I ever wrong! They don't give a damn about that anymore. They've found something much more important to them and will vote for the Antichrist if necessary.
Who do you want them to run against what I assume will be a competent, mere mortal adult?
------
Please also recall that candidates who announce in year three of the cycle often reach burnout way too early to win. So... don't limit your preferences. Who do you want them to run?
ah man. My grammar sucks this morning. Spell checker is catching the obvious nonsense, but I've got double negatives where they don't belong and no software to know what I mean to say. Sigh. 8/
------
I want y'all to consider this a test of your belief in the value of Transparency. That's what's at stake here.
Alfred Differ:
"We've already seen some harm that Musk is enabling again."
No. You've seen the harm Trump enabled and now you are hypersensitized to it. You haven't seen the harm Musk might enabled, but fear he will enable harm.
A distinction without a difference. We've seen the harm that Trump caused by utilizing the Twitter platform. He was blocked from doing so for a while, and now Musk is giving him his platform back. If I drop a hammer on a planet with a positive gravity, I don't need to see the hammer fall to know that it has in fact fallen.
You are hypersensitized enough to argue there are no good Republicans.
That slogan is hyperbole, but it makes a legitimate point, which is that even good Republicans tend to vote in ways which empower bad Republicans. Susan Collins might be a good Republican in her feelings, but she empowers Mitch McConnell with every vote that matters.
I'll grudgingly admit that Adam Kinzinger is a good Republican. And the exception proves the rule. He hardly counts as a "Republican" any more, given how the Party treats him.
Transparency benefits us here. Tell me you won't be able to see and hear the cockroaches better with Musk letting them speak. Hmm?
You're essentially arguing that Hitler weaponizing the microphone was mitigated because non-deplorable Germans could also hear him and therefore know what he's all about. I don't buy it. In my opinion, the harm done by Trump's voice having greater reach is more than the good done by us being allowed to overhear.
Who do you want them to run?
In a way, that's a trick question, because I don't want any Republican to win the presidency. That was not always the case. I preferred Gore to Bush, but at the time, I didn't think Bush would be an existential threat to the country. And I actually wanted Ford to win against Carter, though for the silliest of reasons. It's today's Republican Party which I can't support giving any lever of power to ever.
So in a way, "Who I want them to run" is someone who will lose the election. Although as we saw with Trump, it's difficult and potentially dangerous to play that many levels of chess ahead of time.
To give you a legitimate answer as to a Republican I could stand to possibly win--well, I answered above. Adam Kinzinger. He's probably the only one.
Alfred Differ again:
I want y'all to consider this a test of your belief in the value of Transparency. That's what's at stake here.
You're equating amplification with transparency. To me, transparency means wider visibility to stuff that happens. Enabling more stuff to happen is a different thing (though not the opposite thing). The fact that the more stuff that happens is also more visible doesn't keep the more stuff from being harmful.
A decade ago, very many Republicans said Romney was not only “RINO”, but also “Mormon”. The LDS is to them an apostate church, or somesuch. So now, I’ll discuss religion with Republicans—but not politics.
Utah came close to departing from Trumpism... but a slim majority voted to stay with that madness,
THere are 'good Republicans'... though good + smart + honest fact foks who spent their lives as GOP voters are leaving in droves.
Likewise billionaires. those with loyalty to the enlightenment that made them... aren't well organized. I believe that profit and gain are legitimate parts of the regulated markets' incentive structure... though each billin should be HARDER than the previous one, not easier.
Again, nothing could be stupider than lefty shriekers turning Elon into the carricature they had unfairly hurled at him.
Larry,
Hitler weaponized the microphone among people who had little experience with weaponized microphones. Trump weaponized Twitter among people who didn't comprehend the threat.
Are you telling me people still don't get the threat?
If so, I don't buy it. Our immune system is active right now. Y'all are twitching at shadows that look vaguely Republican.
Musk is far more Libertarian than Republican, but like any of us he can be driven to one side since our side obviously won't win anything significant. I usually get driven toward the Democrats because I can't stand some of the social conservative stances Republicans take, but when y'all try to silence your opposition I question my choice.
------
The trick Trump used on Twitter won't go undetected if he tries again. Too many of you are sensitized for that to happen. IF y'all choose to ACT, that detection will turn into a counter-attack of the form Hitler didn't face from the inside.
I get that you don't want a Republican winning anything, but it behooves you all to consider a future where that happens in order to take steps to mitigate the damage. You WILL lose an election. Someday your opposition WILL be in power. That's the way this nation works. Plan for it while planning to beat them anyway.
------
For the sake of argument... what's so bad with Romney? He's relatively sane and doesn't appear inclined to burn the nation to the ground in order to improve his personal wealth.
Alfred Differ:
Are you telling me people still don't get the threat?
No, but too many fellow Americans are part of the threat.
Robert Meuller and now Merrick Garland are aware of the threat, as are everyone in congress, but too many don't care to make the kind of waves it would take to counter it, or else are actively in on the problem.
For the sake of argument... what's so bad with Romney?
Ok, Romney isn't that bad either. But he's kind of Susan Collins-ish in that he'd only vote against Trump when his vote didn't change the outcome. He'd always vote with Trump when the vote mattered.
I'm most torn about Liz Cheney. I admire her principled stand concerning 1/6, but I'm not comfortable with her running policy.
Re Musk and billionaires interfering in US politics
Here (NZ) and a lot of European countries there are strict limits to the amount of interference the rich can do in politics
In the USA there are no limits and at least Musk is "interfering" in the full light of day - not by using dark money and all of those other hidden methods
We know what Musk is doing!
The other Billionaires are interfering just as much (or more) but doing it from hiding
Alfred
what's so bad with Romney? He's relatively sane and doesn't appear inclined to burn the nation to the ground in order to improve his personal wealth.
But that is EXACTLY what Romney has done many many times in the past - as a "Vulture" Capitalist he would buy functioning companies - rape their pension funds and sell off the bloodless husk
He has "History" doing exactly that
I have nogood words for Mitt Romney. He could have led Utah and many others out of the madness. He is little better than George F. Will.
What terrifies the world oligarchy is that if the GOP and SCourt lose their power to block reforms, the power of money in US politics will plummet.
Alfred Differ redux:
No. You've seen the harm Trump enabled and now you are hypersensitized to it. You haven't seen the harm Musk might enabled, but fear he will enable harm.
Look, since I have no way of stopping him anyway, I'm willing to give Musk the benefit of the doubt that he might not turn Twitter into a hellscape which decent people shun and whose only value is as a staging area for domestic terrorists.
But if he does, I'm reserving the right to blare, "I TOLD YOU SO!" from the rooftops. :)
Alfred
The pension fund problem is an American thing
In the rest of the world the Company can add money to the "sock" but cannot remove money or use the money in any way
Heh!
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2022/Items/Nov29-3.html
When the news breaks, we fix it.
I'm less concerned about more trolls coming back to twitter and more concerned about fragmentation of the positive content providers that use twitter.
Sure twitter can be a firehose of information with low signal to noise ratio. A curated follower lists, filtering and block lists help reduce the volume, and a high volume of text only tweets are easy to scroll thru and process for relevant information. What are my proxy-activist individuals/organizations up to? What are subject matter experts (those whose reputation I would give high scores to) saying? How do I find new, relevant voices to listen to? How to a keep track of my favorite authors?
I could do all that easily with twitter. Now, it isn't as easy. With these people choosing to leave twitter, it now takes me much longer to keep informed. They are now on multiple platforms. Or on platforms that are harder to scan/consume in quantity.
duncan cairncross said...
You question Musk's leadership "style"
I applaud the actual RESULTS
But whether those are the "results" of his "leadership" is the thing that is in question.
It is always difficult to tell how much of a company's success (or failure) is the result of a given leader and how much is the result of other factors (other officers and/or employees, or even just luck). It is really only when a leader changes that one can really judge. Even then there are almost always other factors at play, but if you can see that "X took over from Y and things got much better (or worse)", then that is something one can judge.
In the case of Tesla and SpaceX, that has not happened. We can see that they have been successful, but we have no way of knowing whether they would have been more (or less) successful with different leadership. Paypal seems to have done at least as well without Musk's leadership as with it. And Twitter seems to be doing shockingly worse under his his leadership.
David Brin said...
GB seems utterly fixated on repeating a comforting mantra that Elon Musk had nothing to do with Tesla or Specex or STarlink successes except as a savvy investor. He has absolutely no basis for that assertion. I know engineers who actually, actually... and actually work for those companies and have worked with him and who would challenge GB to a duel. I mean almost literally.
As for basis, see my previous response to Duncan. I'm sure there are people who like working for Musk - or at least like working for his companies. I haven't said he has had nothing to do with the success of his companies. From what I know - both public and personal sources - it is not clear that the success of those companies is primarily due to Musk's leadership. As I have pointed out, there are plenty of reasons to question whether his leadership was decisive. And, again, his leadership currently on display does not impress.
And that is about as 'venom'ous as I have been in this discussion, I think. (Whether there are others who are more venomous is something I don't know.)
Alfred Differ said...
What I'm pointing out is that the map is not the terrain. The man is who he is (terrain)… not what detractors or fanboys think he is (map).
This is something that is trivially true, and uninteresting.
Gregory
The problem, in my view, is that, for someone who is not a fan, you seem to spend a great deal of effort defending him from even mild criticism
Fair point. I can see how I come across that way. So… let me broaden the topic slightly and show you why I react in a way that only looks like I'm coming to his defense. [...]
All of which is possibly interesting, but so far as I can see has no relation whatsoever to anything that I have said in this discussion. So if you want to talk about that, then it makes sense to deal with it in a separate discussion, and not bring it up in relation to Musk fanbois.
I am, done with arguing with GB about Mush, after this: "but we have no way of knowing whether they would have been more (or less) successful with different leadership..."
STunning utter malarkey that ignores every single thing that I have said about first hand conversations with a fair number of engineers and other employees at those firms, who have spoken to me personally about appreciating working for a boss who gets down into the technical details, listens, and clears paths forward for those with good ideas. GB is utterly uninterested in any contradiction to his comfy narrative.
Instead, we have "fan-boy" and "venomous" and repeated attempts (despite our own balance) to portray us as zealots, when he is the one obdurately supporting a hate without any evidence... a cult that has counter-productively driven a mostly apolitical libertarian into Trump-town.
Please, shove the 'fanbois' crap back up your ass, where it came from. I will not engage you over this again.
@David Smelser,
Are you doing some sort of ironic performance with the multiple postings?
Smelser is byshenk?
Earlier on this thread someone said, of Elon Musk, that "he is what he is". Someone else replied that this means nothing.
In my Algebra classes, whenever I cover dependent systems, I derive 0=0, then I ask the students, "Is this true?" When one of the students says "yes", then I ask "What does this say about X?" The answer, of course, is "nothing".
This reminds me of the John Prine song, "Dear Abby":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJVFY_LX9Ik
"Bewildered, Bewildered, you have no complaint
You are what you are, and you ain't what you ain't."
I am also reminded of Ayn Rand, who made "A is A" into an ideological shibboleth. Well, at least that's true, though pointless. Also, it does fit this plea by Piet Hein:
"It may be observed, in a general way
That life would be better, distinctly
If more of the people with nothing to say
Were able to say it succinctly."
Hey, whoever was mentioning the Simpsons episode where tv newscaster Kent Brockman "welcomes our insect overlords," by coincidence I just saw that one. It's the episode where Homer goes up in a space shuttle and accidentally breaks open the ant farm which is being transported. It's one of the ants floating really close to the camera which Kent mistakes for a giant insectoid alien.
Also, James Taylor balks at finishing the line about, "Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground."
onward
onward
As best I can find, Tesla has only installed a few thousand 'Solar Roof's. Electrek reported in 2022 that Tesla was doing 23 installs / week, and was pausing installations. Tesla started mass market deployments of the product in 2020.
Tesla bought SolarCity in 2016. SolarCity does mainly ordinary solar panel installations, and Tesla uses combined figures to make it seem like the 'Solar Roof' product is more successful. The Tesla 'Solar Roof' costs several times more per watt that ordinary solar panels, and doesn't make economic sense.
Post a Comment