52-80

Im not litigating things from page 300. Im citing direct claims made in this thread in the last 4 pages since ive revisited it. Are you able to follow that or do you need direct links?

Nice to have our own schoolmarm in the room. Have you asked for immamacs assistance to help police my posting?

The sheer fact that he is atop multiple successful companies in widely different disciplines had to be attributed to *some* superlative. Whether its smarts, motivation, tenacity, including cunning and luck, and all combinations thereof, its open to arguments of pedantry. But if people reduce it to simply “he asks people to do stuff” or “hes good at marketing (but akin like ptbarnum)”, thats really dumb. If its easy, you do it: ask people to do stuff. Apple is a good tangent because people do argue whether Cook is a good executive or an overpriced beancounter stalling the company. (Read the Apple thread). Ill pull an argumentum ad stockium on this one: if hes horrible, why do the owners keep paying him? Punters opinion have literally zero value. Shareholders opinion puts their money at stake: whos more informed?

I snipped off the section about how you feel about his personal character. Thats a subjective opinion people should share with their pets because theres no debate value, but we can talk about the business history because I think you’re trying to be honest with it. 1. The founders’ hobby and nominal profession and work experience doesnt trumps Musks’ for relevance to the business. They didnt have experience in vehicle or industrial manufacturing, they were tech founders like Musk was. Musk owned a sports cars (McLaren F1), and also expressed interest in commercializing AC Propulsions car. Thats how he got turned onto Tesla in the first place: ACP referred him to Eberhard. 2. Funding is not unique but uh its pretty essential to survival? Moreover this wasn’t a minority stake, like a VC punt on an investment. He bought majority ownership right out of the gate. Not 3 years in a coup or 7 years later when you suggest the company was “rolling”. 3.The fact that the company is 250 months old is not the point. The point is musk headed the ship for 97% of those months as chair/owner/ceo, and the 2 cofounders were completely removed 200 months ago. 4. A plan is a plan until its completed. Do you think theres some hurdle between the plan and achieving it? Through…say….the global financial crisis of 2007? I get your main thesis that “#1 had the idea”. But the totality of the idea as you described is “make cheaper and cheaper cars” — is that their groundbreaking unique idea? did that map out to the actual 3 and y? and is the incantation of “lets make it cheap” more valuable than overseeing bringing the actual manufacturing online through to 1M of cars? 5. Argument wasnt ascribing the Roadster to Musk. Argument was the Roadster is pretty immaterial to what Tesla is today. Thats why its total sale of 2500 was brought up. It had nonvalue in showing that electrics could be cool. Theres lots of electric cars today from dead companies. (Fisker was cool). The car that brought Tesla to prominence was the S. That was penned by a Musk hire (Franz) and engineered by a Musk hire (Rawlinson). The S kept the lights on until the Model 3 made money. 6. The blueprint doesnt guarantee execution. Even after Tesla made EV palatable and prove the business model, subsequent EVs companied died or are dying. Vinfast? Fisker? Faraday? Lucid? Ties back to #4. 7. The low-information guys in this thread also picked up on this great “government fund” thing as a gotcha. I think you know, that loan was given to other car companies (like Nissan and Ford) and in even larger sizes. Tesla paid back the loan in full, before term, whereas the other companies loans might still be outstanding. I love it when they mention the govt money as an indictment! 8. Nope, I didnt trickmath you while claiming that there was reluctance for public investment in the (9-7)=2 years after founding. I meant the 9 years after IPO, 16 years after founding. And in the IPO filing (S-1), they would have laid out details plans and visions and risks. This post-dated all the sales of the Roadsters. It covered the Model S blowing up the internet with drag racing videos. It covered 9 years of public financials giving insights into financials and trends. And yet the investing public, by way of flat stock valuation, did not signal they believed in the future of the company. That is the reason i claim it wasnt *obvious* that the company was rolling or thriving, which contrasts to your claiming that that was inevitable as far back as 2010. It doesnt jive at all.

sorry booboo did i hurt your feelings too? what is your framework/criteria of who gets to take credit for what? because everybody here makes their conclusion first, and then contort their rationale to fit. in the same thread, people who insist he makes zero contribution to the products/company, will simultaneously mock the cybertruck to deride the man. so which is it — he is or isnt responsible? their arguments have no integrity. the top executive is responsible for vision, objectives, hiring, financing, etc, pushing the company in a direction of their choosing by tipping the scale on any major decisions. they do this to different degrees, but all of it is instrumental. jobs didnt write the firmware for the ipod. bezos didnt pack shipping boxes or wire their server racks, so the fact that they arent chartered engineers doesnt mean they werent instrumental in their tech companies. anyone suggesting that musk, not just as a hired employee, but as the largest individual owner of his company (larger than bezos’ ownership of amazon), gets credit for success by just “asking people to do stuff” reveals (a) they know nothing about business, and should save their arguments for reddit during their starbucks shiftbreak or (b) theyre being willfully obtuse, which is a lie not to other people, but to themselves. if your personal suggestion is that all he does is come up with drugged up ideas….how much credit accrues also then risking capital to fund it, and convincing people to go along with it, and pushing them to execute it (its wild right?) the world is not short of certified engineers, people with crazy ideas, people with business connections, and billionaires. wheres all their versions of teslas and spacex?

Page 445 has a glib response of 'billionaire defended' following a back and forth on the history of a company, arguing merits of contribution in business building, but nothing about ethical merit of being a billionaire itself. Do your reading. My position is when I disagree with nivek, celery man, and other people, i believe some/most of the time they are arguing in earnest. Whereas you exist merely as a dingleberry on the very anus of this website, never to be taken seriously, but only to be mocked.

Many people now dislike him/them and are disinclined to buy his/their products. Many people also now like him and more inclined to buy his/their products. Net-net, it's much better for business to have him stayed silent and let products compete on their merits. That's not controversial, and also not been the argument. The argument was a very reductive marginalization of his impact to a company he stewarded through 99.5% of its life as person #4, in favor of guys #1-2. It's like giving Dana Bible credit for Sark's team. And then the very juvenile and populist rhetoric of why 'billionaire bad', when we've merely been discussing the prior topic. People should admit when they cant argue the facts in the conversation, that their issue is with the conversation about facts itself. (Which is kinda weird because why would you click into this topic...)

used to work with a brazilian colleague that looks like elsa pataky, and an irish one that looks like natalie dormer. very 🥴

That only works if you assume the breakfast order is less frequent than any other lunch or dinner dish, where the restaurant is structured to only cranking out burgers and breasts. Surely they have some duds on the menu that equally mess up the flow. And then some dishes themselves have eggs in it, so it's not the eggs themselves that's the problem. I think they simply don't expect people to order breakfast.

socks that slip and bunch up. i got these muji "right angle socks" that are supposed to be the antidote to that, they're constructed with big heel cup woven at 90* to fit perfectly in theory, except theyre the slippiest socks ive worn. trash.

"Don't defend the water cycle bro. Wet streets causes rain." Hurr durr.

You realize the fundamental error in your understanding of causal relationship right? Companies grow to be large and generate wealth for its owners *because* customers have an affinity for its products and investors have an affinity for its business.

NFL career 2:1 TD ratio, threw 4000 yards last year, beat the defending conf champs in playoffs, made the probowl, and has near 110 rating this season. Like with the Murray midget, I hate them, but I recognize that they can play ball…

What part is cherry picked? The fact that Musk was the 4th person in Tesla, joining the now-250 months old company 6 months after it was founded, and as the majority owner and actual chair, had authority over the company? When you say the company was “established” -- when Eberhard was kicked out -- it had produced 0 cars, the Model S hadnt been designed, 3 years before IPO, and would go on to accumulate $6 billion dollars of net losses over the next 13 years…. …and you want crown the first 2 guys for “having the plan” 13 years and 1,000,000 vehicles sold later? That is an amazingly bad understanding of business and history. It’s just that easy? You just build a cheaper one after the other - and it will be no surprise to have a profitable business? When the entire public market signaled (through its equity) for 9 straights years that it didnt believe the company would get anywhere, and the company was on the verge of bankruptcy, you just knew success was no surprise? The revisionism is amazing.

People are only dishonest with themselves when they let their emotion trump their objectivity. Like, you can hate Baker but still admit that hes a better QB than Colt.

Can you explain a little more about what “it” was that got rolling, which idea was claimed, and what relations those 2 founders have to the Tesla company that’s now put over 5 million cars on the road. Musk being ‘just an investor’ was actually the majority owner — ie capitalizing most of the company (and as chair led subsequent funding). That occurred some 6 months into its incorporation. The original founder got booted before Tesla ever sold a single car - the first of which was on a Lotus chassis, totaling 2500 unit in its lifetime. Over a decade later, Tesla achieved profitability for the first time ever, on the backs of mass production of the Model 3. How much of that credit do you want to appoint to the initial employees?

that would be a caffe corretto

Astounding discovery. You’ve just cracked the secret of how to break into and compete/lead multiple industries: get a marketer to tell people to “make X”. Like, “build me the best selling car in the world, chop chop”. Someone should tell Bezos.

My 1601 (i think thats the ref). A blue shantung/mosaic when i was looking for a blue linen

he probably likes the attention and influence of HC, whereas the other gig is just a job, which is not what a man with money really needs

Lee Corso'ed

brainless zombie movies >> marvel/comic cgi slop

Maybe not entirely fair. Hunter has to shoulder that. He's 2-way player, he sought out Prime who was multi-role player (who else would want to go to Jackson State...). Supposedly, he has a very boring off-field life, and commits lots of time to conditioning and recovery. I think he knows what he wants, and his playtime is not merely being pushed by Deion.

speaking of DJ textured dials, dang this one is nice https://www.chrono24.com/rolex/rolex-oyster-perpetual-datejust-silver-linen-16234-1989-full-set--id34652216.htm

i want one of these as a scootaround vehicle but theyre stupidly-priced and you cant 'own' them - the batterys are leased