African Musk: Not a Fragrance

[broncofan]

There has definitely been a tendency in the technology area for first movers to not retain their market dominance. That seems to be happening with EVs as they become more mainstream. https://www.vox.com/recode/2022/12/2...ones-ira-biden

I guess Musk can keep Twitter going as a loss-maker for some time, possibly with help from like-minded billionaires or foreign interests who find him a useful idiot. It serves his purposes as a narcissist and right-wing troll, and it's hard to see him getting as much attention if he wasn't running Twitter.

I agree 100%. Layered on top of the problem of other companies making electric vehicles he decided he wanted to make such polarizing statements that the half of the US more likely to buy his cars find him to be repellent (and he's strongly associated with the brand even if he stepped down as ceo). Even without alternatives, this was incredibly damaging.

We've seen it with other new technologies that the trailblazers can get outcompeted by the second-generation technology. Sometimes the second generation has an improved feature. Sometimes it's more compatible with whatever other products or services it would use. The barriers to entry for other automakers are falling.

I also think you're right about twitter. A billion dollars a year in interest is a lot but both the company and its owners have deep pockets. He can abandon it if it becomes too costly (corporate bankruptcy or sell his shares if they have any value with the debt financing assumed by the buyer). I don't know what Tesla's worth but it still has real value.

[filghy2]

I agree 100%. Layered on top of the problem of other companies making electric vehicles he decided he wanted to make such polarizing statements that the half of the US more likely to buy his cars find him to be repellent (and he's strongly associated with the brand even if he stepped down as ceo). Even without alternatives, this was incredibly damaging.

The interesting question is why the same guy making such bad decisions now was successful earlier. Maybe Tesla's success had more to do with its employees, but at least he had the sense to give them the resources they needed and not interfere in destructive ways.

He seems to be a psychologically needy person who craves uncritical praise. While he was getting praise from liberals for developing EVs he was happy to play the bipartisan, which was also good business sense. But at some point ego got the better of judgement and he started to reveal his true inclinations.

Taking over Twitter was evidently the tipping point because criticism from liberals increased. The only way he could get the uncritical affirmation he needs has been to double down on appealing to the right. I think these psychological needs will have more influence on his future actions than will financial factors.

It seems to very hard for the ultra-rich to be ruined in the US, unless they they get caught in a spectacular fraud like Sam Bankman-Fried. Even if their businesses go bankrupt and the default on debts they can still walk away with massive assets and keep up the pretence of being a great success (see Trump, Donald).

[broncofan]

It seems to very hard for the ultra-rich to be ruined in the US, unless they they get caught in a spectacular fraud like Sam Bankman-Fried. Even if their businesses go bankrupt and the default on debts they can still walk away with massive assets and keep up the pretence of being a great success (see Trump, Donald).

Two differences between Bankman-Fried and Trump are the type of assets they invested in and their class of victims. Bankman-Fried (a complete fraud) owned an asset class that as you've mentioned doesn't have much in the way of intrinsic value. Assuming Trump has not been honest in loan applications, banks still have an incentive to refinance to try to get back what they can. There's also some complicity by banks, who are supposed to be sophisticated and did not perform due diligence, even though they are regulated entities and insured, meaning there's also some element of moral hazard in their decisions to loan to him. He can be prosecuted whether banks want him to or not but it's harder when the immediate victim isn't vocal about being misled. In real estate, unless you have been way too aggressive or completely incompetent, it's hard not to get a decent amount of money out of properties. But your point is right...for people who have a lot of money and decent contingency planning, it's easy to protect your assets from multiple failed ventures.

I haven't followed Musk's career but my sense is that he started with more money than 99+% of people and had a childlike, grandiose interest in new technologies. His investment in them made him an unbelievable fortune but doesn't make him a genius. His problem is he wants to be regarded as such. Yesterday Tesla released end of the year financials. The earnings grew 40% year over year, falling short of the analyst expected 50%. At the beginning of the year the stock had a pe ratio of like 100, making an investment in it a 1% yield. Even with a 50% growth rate you can't justify the investment bc in the early years the yield is very bad and by the time the yield is better bc of earnings growth, the pe drops to that of a mature company bc earnings cannot grow indefinitely (or for an infinite period faster than the market it operates in). The price is falling today but yesterday the pe was 37, which was not cheap, but not terrible if one believes in the company and thinks it will continue to grow at similar rates in the near future. Problem is I wouldn't have much confidence in management, who has behaved in ways that have damaged the company's prospects for ego-driven reasons.

[Fitzcarraldo]

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/03/elo...kmarks-ranking

[filghy2]

Latest developments on the hypocrisy (and immature thin-skinned bastardry) of the not so free speech absolutist. It seems he's fallen out with a couple of his Twitter files collaborators who took him at his word.
https://www.thebulwark.com/so-much-f...peech-warrior/

[Fitzcarraldo]

Another "successful test."
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/spac...ight-rcna79988

[Fitzcarraldo]

This one will hurt:
https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-r...051717547.html

[filghy2]

The guy certainly has an interesting approach to winning over customers - reduce the quality of the product, then ask people to pay for somewhat less of a reduction.
https://www.vox.com/recode/2022/11/4...heck-elon-musk

[Fitzcarraldo]

Free speech for the Russian, Chinese, and Iranian governments:
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/11711...thats-over-now

[Fitzcarraldo]

Some analysis of what went wrong with Starship:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...n-Musk-s-fault

HERE’S THE TL;DR VERSION OF ALL OF THE ABOVE
The no-clamps slow throttle-up meant Starship stayed on the pad for a long time, throwing up concrete, rock, and sand all directions, damaging the pad, nearby facilities, and Starship itself.
By the time it left the pad, that debris had already destroyed three of Starship’s engines and likely damaged valves and systems that would lead to additional engine failures as well as an incorrect fuel mixture.
Starship was slow to reach every point in the flight plan, suggesting that other engines were not able to throttle up to compensate for the lost engines.
At what should have been stage separation, either software errors or more smashed hardware kept the main booster firing long after it should have shut down.
The result was an uncontrolled spin that required Starship to be destroyed.