Elon Musk (No Politics)

[Psi]

It's not possible to actually know this, but I am super curious what percentage of the musk hate is rational vs irrational hate.

Like how much stems from factual bad things he has done to people, verses
 Peoples assumptions of negative motivations behind his actions.
 Or from jealousy manifesting as anger.
 Or being unable to accept what he has done in life as actually possible without there being a scam or fraud somewhere. So believing a scam/fraud exists purely because believing there isn't one seems even more preposterous to them.

This is a loaded question using the false presumption that anyone critical of Musk "hates" him which is demonstrably false and absurd.

It is also a common form of gaslighting or psychological manipulation implying anyone critical of Musk has negative motivations, jealousy or hate which is patently absurd. This is very common among the maga crowd casting anyone who disagrees as somehow evil and themselves as victims which is usually considered psychotic behavior.

You are twisting my post into something I didn't say so you can argue your point.
My post was about Musk hate and wondering where that hate comes from.
I never made a presumption that anyone critical of Musk "hates" him.
I'm not curious about people who are critical of him, there's many reasons to be critical of him.
It's only the hate that I'm curious about because it doesnt make any sense to me. I'm not sure where it comes from.

[eTobey]

Because every time Elon Musk/Telsa/SpaceX/Whatever is bought up in any other thread it seems to get derailed.

To me, it might be a fanboy vs. anti-fanboy issue. Often its not about facts, but about what religion, brand or guy you are on...

[tom66]

Point being, it wasn't unreasonable to expect a little more maturity from someone in his position.

I agree that Elon's response vas immature, and IMHO Unsworth was not better that Elon in this situation and is not a victim.

Elon posts a lot of bullshit about topics that he doesn't understand.
Like when he was talking about stealth airplanes, and how you can track them. Like yes, you can look up the sky and it's right there. Doesn't mean that the S300 radar from the 1980s will not have a hard time getting a target lock on it from 40 miles, letting that stealth plane launch a AGM-88 defeating the radar. Or how it outranges ever Gen 4 fighter. Completely misunderstanding what's the point of the stealth coating, not understanding what's the environment it's operating in.
He does these mistakes all the time. His starting point is "what could be" not "what is".

The greatest immunisation to Elon's bullshit is seeing/reading him on things you personally know about.  Him talking about software engineering was especially enlightening.

I know very little about rocket science, and so it's not as obvious when he talks about rockets.

[wraper]

Point being, it wasn't unreasonable to expect a little more maturity from someone in his position.

I agree that Elon's response vas immature, and IMHO Unsworth was not better that Elon in this situation and is not a victim.

Elon posts a lot of bullshit about topics that he doesn't understand.
Like when he was talking about stealth airplanes, and how you can track them. Like yes, you can look up the sky and it's right there. Doesn't mean that the S300 radar from the 1980s will not have a hard time getting a target lock on it from 40 miles, letting that stealth plane launch a AGM-88 defeating the radar. Or how it outranges ever Gen 4 fighter. Completely misunderstanding what's the point of the stealth coating, not understanding what's the environment it's operating in.
He does these mistakes all the time. His starting point is "what could be" not "what is".

Reading this, it's sounds more like it's you are the one who is unable to understand stealth technology rather than Elon. You certainly can detect them, stealth technology is not a panacea and only works decently in certain wavelength range. Stealth technology is essentially useless against longwave radars, for example.

letting that stealth plane launch a AGM-88 defeating the radar.

If it will reach the radar without being intercepted. And if a stealth plane flies too closely to reduce such possibility, it risks being shot down itself.

Like yes, you can look up the sky and it's right there.

You should not dismiss optical spectrum too. Optical long-range tracking is a thing.

[wraper]

In addition to my post above. I vaguely remember Elon was talking about AI controlled drones when this topic came out. The thing is, those stealth aircrafts are only worth something only while you can launch them from somewhere. In presence of huge swarms of such drones, airfields and aircraft carriers will be obliterated before they can take off. Ukrainian smuggled drone operations on airfields deep within Russian territory show it quite well.  Traditional anti-air defense is essentially useless against them too.

[Siwastaja]

The fact many people miss is that almost anyone becomes dangerous if they get too much power.

The thinking pattern of "good people" vs. "evil people" in itself is dangerous. The idea that Elon Musk "become evil" at some point is ridiculous. Really, he is just human, and behaves like most human beings: all those traits, good and bad, advantageous and dangerous, were always present. We cannot modify that by modifying Elon, and we also cannot affect that by replacing Elon with someone else, because it's all in human nature.

What we really need to do is to give enough power to creative people like Elon Musk, and at the very same time, avoid giving them too much power to become dangerous. Averaging out is a great concept, so is distribution of power. Those who think the problem is only that Elon Musk is the wrong guy are dangerous, as they are willing to replace him with someone which feels better to their taste - but still poses the same risks if they gain too much power.

[Electrodynamic]

Psi

I'm not curious about people who are critical of him, there's many reasons to be critical of him.
It's only the hate that I'm curious about because it doesnt make any sense to me. I'm not sure where it comes from.

First we need to define what we are actually talking about.
"Hate is an intense feeling of dislike or aversion towards someone or something, often accompanied by hostility or anger."

I find your "curiosity" very curious. You mean to tell me you have no clue why countless poor people who can barely feed their family might hate a entitled person born into wealth, who pays little or no taxes, receives huge tax payer subsidies and is effectively above the law?. The fact "it doesn't make any sense" to you when it's blatantly obvious to most people is in itself very telling imo.

For example, how do you think all the poor people who rely on social programs for food and health services felt when Musk and DOGE slashed and burned said programs?. I mean, a guy worth hundreds of billions of dollars couldn't mind his own damn business and took it upon himself to destroy whatever hope millions of people had left. Your not so ignorant to not understand how they might feel are you?. I mean, if he actually gave a damn maybe he could try paying taxes like everyone else for a change.

Thankfully, I was fortunate to find a good job and am pretty well off but I understand many are not. One can be well off and not try to screw everyone else over for profit imo.

[Electrodynamic]

The fact many people miss is that almost anyone becomes dangerous if they get too much power.

The thinking pattern of "good people" vs. "evil people" in itself is dangerous. The idea that Elon Musk "become evil" at some point is ridiculous. Really, he is just human, and behaves like most human beings: all those traits, good and bad, advantageous and dangerous, were always present. We cannot modify that by modifying Elon, and we also cannot affect that by replacing Elon with someone else, because it's all in human nature.

What we really need to do is to give enough power to creative people like Elon Musk, and at the very same time, avoid giving them too much power to become dangerous. Averaging out is a great concept, so is distribution of power. Those who think the problem is only that Elon Musk is the wrong guy are dangerous, as they are willing to replace him with someone which feels better to their taste - but still poses the same risks if they gain too much power.

I agree on some points and the biggest problem is that the wealthiest people pay no taxes.

For example, many rich folks like Musk and trump brag about only paying themselves $1 a year. So how could anyone survive on only $1 a year?. In fact, the company pays for all their personal expenses which is illegal in most countries. Business and personal should be separate unless your rich then apparently it doesn't matter.

https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2025/08/billionaire-tax-study/683987/
"Mark Zuckerberg, for instance, whose net worth was estimated by Forbes last year to be $181 billion, pays himself a $1 base salary at Meta."

The biggest loophole is that all profits can be reinvested into more businesses or investments with zero tax. For example, Bill Gates is the biggest land owner in America. He doesn't pay tax on profits he just keeps buying more land then writing it off and could own most of America at some point. Think about that... everyone else who pays taxes is subsidizing Bill Gates land purchases. Everyone else must make up for the taxes the rich are not paying, that's a form of subsidy.

Bill Gates also implied a civil war in the U.S. is inevitable because the wealthy want everything. They have no empathy or restraint, it's all or nothing. Which may be why all the rich are in such a big rush to buy islands and build bunkers.

[Siwastaja]

I agree on some points and the biggest problem is that the wealthiest people pay no taxes.
...
Bill Gates also implied a civil war in the U.S. is inevitable because the wealthy want everything. They have no empathy or restraint, it's all or nothing. Which may be why all the rich are in such a big rush to buy islands and build bunkers.

A few rich ones owning "everything" also seems like universal human trait. I never understood the idea of looking at the wealth of the richest as some kind of indicator of poverty of others. Why not look at how the poorer ones do, directly? I mean, in some kind of absolute terms - what is their standard of living? And here I do see trend that political beliefs which try to "distribute wealth" in a more fair and even way, end up reducing the wealth for all. Because total amount of wealth in the system is not constant at all, it varies. Rich people like Elon Musk also tend to invest and create jobs - like it or not, but it's true. They create wealth to the big low and middle class, who then, indeed, collectively pay a lot of taxes compared to those rich people.

But take the incentives to "be rich" away, and the risk of investments and jobs stopping is just huge. It rarely works in practice.

[wraper]

I agree on some points and the biggest problem is that the wealthiest people pay no taxes.

For example, many rich folks like Musk and trump brag about only paying themselves $1 a year. So how could anyone survive on only $1 a year?. In fact, the company pays for all their personal expenses which is illegal in most countries. Business and personal should be separate unless your rich then apparently it doesn't matter.

You pay no taxes when you do not receive income, who would have guessed that? When Musk sold part of his Tesla shares to buy Twitter, he paid $11 billion in taxes at like 40% tax rate. Do you really think billionaires actually have those billions as money? What they do have is ownership of something, when they sell that, they pay the tax. Anyone who thinks that taxing unrealized gains is a good thing should have their brain checked as it's a fast track to destroying economy out of spite.

[tszaboo]

Point being, it wasn't unreasonable to expect a little more maturity from someone in his position.

I agree that Elon's response vas immature, and IMHO Unsworth was not better that Elon in this situation and is not a victim.

Elon posts a lot of bullshit about topics that he doesn't understand.
Like when he was talking about stealth airplanes, and how you can track them. Like yes, you can look up the sky and it's right there. Doesn't mean that the S300 radar from the 1980s will not have a hard time getting a target lock on it from 40 miles, letting that stealth plane launch a AGM-88 defeating the radar. Or how it outranges ever Gen 4 fighter. Completely misunderstanding what's the point of the stealth coating, not understanding what's the environment it's operating in.
He does these mistakes all the time. His starting point is "what could be" not "what is".

Reading this, it's sounds more like it's you are the one who is unable to understand stealth technology rather than Elon. You certainly can detect them, stealth technology is not a panacea and only works decently in certain wavelength range. Stealth technology is essentially useless against longwave radars, for example.

letting that stealth plane launch a AGM-88 defeating the radar.

If it will reach the radar without being intercepted. And if a stealth plane flies too closely to reduce such possibility, it risks being shot down itself.

Like yes, you can look up the sky and it's right there.

You should not dismiss optical spectrum too. Optical long-range tracking is a thing.

Nope. You seem to be the one that's clueless.
Just knowing that a plane is there means nothing. You cannot launch an SAM missile if your tracking radar doesn't have a lock. Which is shortwave.
That's why I wrote "target lock".
Optical long range is ~20km. If you are lucky, the other plane is going the other way and there are no clouds.
So you have a Gen 5 fighter from Nato with 4-6 Fox 3 that can shoot at you from 160km, and on the other side you have the "long range" IR Fox 2 with 20 km range. I know which one I would rather have.

Not to mention these L-band radar systems that get taken out in the first 5 minutes in a conflict. It's big, cumbersome, difficult to move, easily visible on a satellite image, and a high priority target.

[wraper]

that can shoot at you from 160km

If it can arrive to its target without being intercepted, which is far from guaranteed. Something like ZALA Lancet is way more effective against such targets.

[brucehoult]

that can shoot at you from 160km

If it can arrive to its target without being intercepted, which is far from guaranteed. Something like ZALA Lancet is way more effective against such targets.

Ukraine has been hitting oil refineries and munitions factories and so forth up to 1500 km into Russia using freaking modified Foxbat light sport aircraft with maximum speed 200 km/h (but 160 km/h for maximum range).

No speed, no stealth. Mathias Rust was a pioneer :-)

[wraper]

^Yep, also current warfare in Ukrainian war is basically spamming your enemy with cheap FPV drones. The difficulty with attacks deep onto enemy territory is smuggling them in and remote control. Once offline AI becomes smart enough, it will largely stop being a problem.

[Electrodynamic]

I agree on some points and the biggest problem is that the wealthiest people pay no taxes.

For example, many rich folks like Musk and trump brag about only paying themselves $1 a year. So how could anyone survive on only $1 a year?. In fact, the company pays for all their personal expenses which is illegal in most countries. Business and personal should be separate unless your rich then apparently it doesn't matter.

You pay no taxes when you do not receive income, who would have guessed that? When Musk sold part of his Tesla shares to buy Twitter, he paid $11 billion in taxes at like 40% tax rate. Do you really think billionaires actually have those billions as money? What they do have is ownership of something, when they sell that, they pay the tax. Anyone who thinks that taxing unrealized gains is a good thing should have their brain checked as it's a fast track to destroying economy out of spite.

ChatGPT thinks your misguided...
"The “$11 billion” number isn’t purely from selling shares to buy Twitter — much of it is tied to option‐exercise tax."
https://www.wral.com/story/elon-musk-probably-got-a-huge-tax-break-when-he-sold-off-tesla-shares/20266595/

So the more likely scenario is that Musk did not pay $11 billion in taxes. Musk paid only $6.24 per share to exercise the options, even though each share was worth around $1,000 each. So who granted Musk the option to pay only $6.24 for a $1000 share?, Tesla did.

Musk also wrote off a $6 billion charitable donation to the Musk foundation LMAO. So it sounds like Musk only paid 4-6 billion in taxes based on Tesla stock at $1000/share which he only paid $6.24/share. In effect Tesla share holders paid for most of the tax. It's understandable, if Tesla share holders were deluded enough to want to pay Musk $56 billion and possibly $1 trillion in the future, what's a few extra billion here or there . 

Most corporations can only dream of share holders being this deluded and it's just amazing to watch.

As well one could ask what is an unrealized gain?. It sounds like pseudoscience or some kind of scam. If my stock price increased by 100% that's a gain any way we slice it. Obviously the banks recognize it as a real gain otherwise they wouldn't let anyone borrow against it. It's like supposedly rational adults playing a game of "pretend". Hey let's pretend we didn't gain all that money though even a child could understand we did.

[wraper]

^$11 billion somehow are not not $11 billion... I wrote the sum he actually has paid, not calculated it myself  .

As well one could ask what is an unrealized gain?. It sounds like pseudoscience or some kind of scam.

Sentiment of how much something is worth of at particular moment. Like share price at the stock market. Until it's not sold, it's not a real money and can become 2x cheaper the next day. Some countries are stupid enough to tax it.

[UnijunctionTransistor]

I'm curious how many people on here who dislike Musk can admit that they used to respect/like Musk but have since changed their opinion on the man.

In the early days I was a proper Tesla fanboy, I always wanted a Model S, followed the early release of the 3/Y, got a few test drives, watched most SpaceX launches, watched the keynote speeches, laughed at the socially awkward Elon (who I can 100% believe has some kind of autism) but ultimately saw a guy who seemed to be trying to pull off what others thought as impossible.

But... I think it was him buying Twitter, and before that all the COVID-conspiracy shit he was going into, and then his political stances, that just made me realise: this guy is not making the planet a better place any more.  That's purely my opinion - beyond any factual assessment there.

On the one hand I'd like to believe that he was once a "good guy" and something corrupted him. Ketamine abuse has been suggested, as has his kid (now Vivian Wilson) coming out as trans, as reasons for why he seemed to shift.

On the other hand it's been said he was always like that, he just hid it well and/or it wasn't so prominent.  It takes a certain "killer instinct" to rise to the levels Musk is at, and with that can come certain... views and psychological issues. 

So I am very much in this category of former Musk fans.  I used to respect the guy and I still think Tesla and SpaceX are doing important things and slowly changing the world (although Tesla is much less important today than it was a decade ago).  If it popped up in the news tomorrow that he had a sudden brain aneurysm or whatever... I'd not mourn the guy.  I wouldn't actively cheer for his death - that's immoral and wrong.  But I don't think he's a positive influence on the world or even his companies any more.

Exactly my sentiments and thoughts about Musk, down to the last comma and period.

But since when it has to be: Disagree with Elon = Hate the USA?? MAGA followers believe that if one disagrees with Elon, or Trump for that matter, then one is automatically an America hater. One cannot be simultaneously a proud but concerned citizen. That any criticism means treason.

I also love my country very, very much. Proud of its many achievements. And although this country has committed its fair share of mistakes, overall it has been a positive World influence. Certainly in the future the XX Century will be remembered as the American Century.

[SteveThackery]

I also love my country very, very much. Proud of its many achievements. And although this country has committed its fair share of mistakes, overall it has been a positive World influence. Certainly in the future the XX Century will be remembered as the American Century.

It certainly will. The US's technological and scientific achievements in the 20th century were outstanding. Astonishing, sometimes. Just one example: only 20 years after the end of WW2 Lockheed were cruising their SR-71 Blackbird at Mach 3.2 and 85,000 feet. That's a speed record that has never been beaten by another operational aircraft to this day (of course, research craft have exceeded that speed).

And to go from zero to a man on the moon (and crucially, returned home) in nine years is another truly astonishing feat.

I think the Brits could probably claim two centuries - the 18th and 19th centuries - as the "British centuries". As well as starting the Industrial Revolution, the British Empire was the biggest of any empire in history.

And finally, I would be tempted to declare the 16th and 17th centuries as the "Spanish centuries" due to their major push west to discover and open up the Americas and build another gigantic empire. They kicked off the Age of Discovery - a massive infection point in the history of the world.

And the 21st century? That will be seen forever as the "Chinese century", of course.

[themadhippy]

The US's technological and scientific achievements in the 20th century were outstanding.

and would be nothing if they hadn't stolen borrowed them from other country's.

[BILLPOD]

Thanks a lot, Dave.....you've created what sounds like a gaggle of old biddys discussing the Devil's attributes

[tszaboo]

that can shoot at you from 160km

If it can arrive to its target without being intercepted, which is far from guaranteed. Something like ZALA Lancet is way more effective against such targets.

What exactly are you going to use to "intercept" an AIM-120?
Have you ever seen how a BVR battle looks like? That thing goes to the edge of space, and comes down at Mach 3 on the plane. A Lancet is not even the same category of a weapon.

[coppercone2]

Thanks a lot, Dave.....you've created what sounds like a gaggle of old biddys discussing the Devil's attributes

actually dave jones with this thread created what the yucca mountain nuclear waste repository was supposed to be

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

Without this its like a deus ex video game where you come across leaky hazardous radioactive/toxic barrels in random places near high tech equipment. Elon related discussion riled people up enough that there was like a global! wave of vandalism in multiple countries, I can see how it might not be good discussion to have in threads about op-amps

[wraper]

that can shoot at you from 160km

If it can arrive to its target without being intercepted, which is far from guaranteed. Something like ZALA Lancet is way more effective against such targets.

What exactly are you going to use to "intercept" an AIM-120?
Have you ever seen how a BVR battle looks like? That thing goes to the edge of space, and comes down at Mach 3 on the plane. A Lancet is not even the same category of a weapon.

S-300 is up to Mach 9, depending on modification, S-400 is Mach 14, S500 - speed unknown but supposedly it has 600km range. AIM-120 is air-to-air missile, so cannot even target them.

A Lancet is not even the same category of a weapon.

Thanks, Captain Obvious, that's the whole point. Those missles are very expensive and totally suck compared to much cheaper weapons in real-world conditions when your enemy is not some 3rd world country that has nothing to respond to those. Guess why these days Russia uses their fighter-bomber and fighter jets almost entirely to launch UMPK glide kit (they quickly developed during this war) equipped dumb FAB bombs, not missiles.

[special_K]

I don't understand why Elon Musk has fans. He just seems like a horrible person, incapable of going more than a few days without doing something embarrassing or repulsive in public.

[tom66]

I don't understand why Elon Musk has fans. He just seems like a horrible person, incapable of going more than a few days without doing something embarrassing or repulsive in public.

I suspect many Musk fans either ignore those personality traits as a trade-off for what he is doing with FSD/AI/robotics/space, or they identify with them.