Elon Musk is pleading for engineers, technicians, and other experts to move to South

[cubby]

Because he literally is a shrewd businessman and a slick, intellectual talker. Like he tried to oust the CEO of CitySearch (and failed), he succeeded in gaining that CEO in early Confinity days. He lasted like a year and a few months, before the board ousted because his business strategy sucked.

The board must have brought him on for reasons other than shrewd/slick. Or are you seeing evidence that was the only reason?

From the very beginning he had Tom Mueller, an actual engineer, in SpaceX, and other people actually designing the rocket. He was, as far as I can tell, a Product Architect at Tesla (the equivalent of a CPO/CTO), which isn't an engineering position but a BUSINESS position, and I can't find any reference of him actually having a hand in designing the Falcon 1 or anything since. I don't dispute that he has some very talented people working at SpaceX. What I dispute is that his visionary "genius" actually translated into the actual rockets launched, instead of his business acumen, which is built on.....well, coming from a very privileged background.

We can't have a conversation about this if you're going to ignore the objective fact that Musk is an engineer. He literally worked on the design of Falcon 1. And you dispute his business acumen as more of a product of his privileged background? Really? Like Trump's business acumen? Having the background means almost nothing when translating it to successful business ventures.
Musk is the richest person in the world, taking or being an integral part of three separate companies all with billion dollar valuations. That's not because of his daddy. It's really bothersome when people cast aside their intellectual honesty because they just subjectively hate someone.

Does he actually have that P.E. designation? Oh, and that link you cited states that the requirements are a relevant degree in engineering in some states, and where they aren't required, you're required to have relevant work engineering experience. I don't know if Elon Musk could even qualify to sit for this exam. As far as I can tell, his B.A. in Physics isn't accredited by the EAC, who determines eligiblity for the P.E. exam.

No, but did I say he did? You said you don't think anyone can be an engineer without having an engineering degree. And the EAC disagrees with your statement. Objectively. You are flat out wrong about this. Period.

I don't think I hate Musk. I just see him for what he is - an unscrupulous businessman. And not a particularly moral one at that (if such a businessman exists). He ranks, imo, in the category of the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world. That's my problem with his personality - that it translates into his morality, and his direct business interests intersect with an important, eschatological step for humanity, which he would undoubtably try and corrupt to the best of his ability. I could give a shit about Apple or Facebook because ultimately those are products which you choose to engage in or not. FB has become harmful in its ubiquitousness as an all-encompassing news source with massive reach, and Zuckerberg's moral ineptitude has directly affected the shitshow which has resulted from that, which I know you know. I see the same course for human space expansion and Musk, but to much direr consequences, because said expansion is the next step of human civilization.

I never said you had to like the man, but you clearly do hate him, because of his personality - and that hatred has clearly affected your otherwise sound judgment. Musk is a successful engineer, businessman, and a genius as well, and now the richest man in the world. That is the very definition of successful - in anyone's book. Oh, and he didn't just make money, he bootstrapped the United States space launch program as well as all the other achievements.

Is he a douchebag personally? By all accounts I would have to say yes.

- - - Updated - - -

If I had to compare Musk to any historical figure, the one I think comes closest is Howard Hughes. Same kind of wealth, same kind of fuck-it attitude to his business ventures, same kind of wide spread of interests, though Hughes tended more towards "weird eccentricity" where Musk leans more into "douchebro".

He's still going to be one of the most important figures of the early 21st century, in the history books of the future. Greatness does not imply goodness.

On this particular point, though, it's definitely "douchebro" territory. You want to convince people to move to Texas to work for you? Offer bigger bonuses/better pay/better incentives. Don't whine about it in the media. Put your money where your mouth is, Musk. As much as I hate capitalism, that's how the game is played; put up or shut up.

I could not agree more with this entire statement. And the analogy to Howard Hughes is spot on.

The plea to move to TX is absolutely "douchbro" territory. As I've stated before, I'd love to work for SpaceX, but their hiring practices are awful - for my field, they are offering a 6-month term/temp position, with no guarantee of FTE, and you have to work in person. Fuck that.

[Edge-]

and that hatred has clearly affected your otherwise sound judgment

You appear to say this about everyone, and it's kinda nonsense. It basically implies that because we dislike him for X or Y reason (note even "hate", just dislike), we're irrational in our thinking about him. That's not true at all.

Any more than we could flip the argument around and claim that because you're clearly a huge fan of Musk (very clearly), your otherwise sound judgment is affected.

It's kinda a nonsense argument on both ends that doesn't actually engage with the content of any of the "what's and why's".

[cubby]

You appear to say this about everyone, and it's kinda nonsense. It basically implies that because we dislike him for X or Y reason (note even "hate", just dislike), we're irrational in our thinking about him. That's not true at all.

Any more than we could flip the argument around and claim that because you're clearly a huge fan of Musk (very clearly), your otherwise sound judgment is affected.

It's kinda a nonsense argument on both ends that doesn't actually engage with the content of any of the "what's and why's".

I don't say this about everyone. I say this about people who can't set aside their personal feelings for someone in an effort to objectively evaluate someone. People's hatred of Musk, rationally or irrationally based, clearly affects their judgment. You can look to eschatological's posts as evidence. He skips all the achievements of Musk, only mentioning the bad parts of otherwise entirely successful ventures.

And this isn't just this topic - we can see that people's feels for something affect their evaluation of that something in every field. A good proposal for a company could be set aside by a manager because the manager doesn't like the person, regardless of the merits of the proposal. Objective evaluation is constantly clouded by subjective emotions. I'm curious why you would think otherwise.

Am I objective about Musk? Fuck no. But I recognize and laud his achievements while at the same time acknowledging his personality issues. I'm at least being reasonable about my subjective and objective evaluations.

[eschatological]

Because his bad faith actions clearly are a detriment to an important field of human development. It is important for leaders of important industries to also be moral leaders, otherwise progress becomes plutocracy. Musk is the definition of a technocrat, but he also tends to be a plutarch. I don't deny his business acumen (especially his vertical integration of the space industry, which was a needed shake up), I just question his character, and why people hero worship him.

It's kind of ironic, because he's acting like the Thomas Edison to the man his own company is named after, Nikolai Tesla. Edison was a huge douchebag, and created a cult of personality around him, and drove Tesla into the ground. Tesla - the far better man, and smarter too - was relegated to the history books for almost two centuries. And Edison's ego prevented true innovation past what he had personally invented (while not crediting anyone he worked with). He was not a collaborator. And that stifled cheap(er), (more) efficient power alternatives for a century and a half (obviously electricity was cheaper and more efficient than, say, coal).

[JohnBrown1917]

I don't say this about everyone. I say this about people who can't set aside their personal feelings for someone in an effort to objectively evaluate someone. People's hatred of Musk, rationally or irrationally based, clearly affects their judgment. You can look to eschatological's posts as evidence. He skips all the achievements of Musk, only mentioning the bad parts of otherwise entirely successful ventures.

And this isn't just this topic - we can see that people's feels for something affect their evaluation of that something in every field. A good proposal for a company could be set aside by a manager because the manager doesn't like the person, regardless of the merits of the proposal. Objective evaluation is constantly clouded by subjective emotions. I'm curious why you would think otherwise.

Am I objective about Musk? Fuck no. But I recognize and laud his achievements while at the same time acknowledging his personality issues. I'm at least being reasonable about my subjective and objective evaluations.

Ah, yes, such classic personality issues like Union busting and treating your workers like shit.

- - - Updated - - -

Because his bad faith actions clearly are a detriment to an important field of human development. It is important for leaders of important industries to also be moral leaders, otherwise progress becomes plutocracy. Musk is the definition of a technocrat, but he also tends to be a plutarch. I don't deny his business acumen (especially his vertical integration of the space industry, which was a needed shake up), I just question his character, and why people hero worship him.

It's kind of ironic, because he's acting like the Thomas Edison to the man his own company is named after, Nikolai Tesla. Edison was a huge douchebag, and created a cult of personality around him, and drove Tesla into the ground. Tesla - the far better man, and smarter too - was relegated to the history books for almost two centuries. And Edison's ego prevented true innovation past what he had personally invented (while not crediting anyone he worked with). He was not a collaborator. And that stifled cheap(er), (more) efficient power alternatives for a century and a half (obviously electricity was cheaper and more efficient than, say, coal).

It should be noted that unlike Edison, Musk has not actually invented anything.

[cubby]

Because his bad faith actions clearly are a detriment to an important field of human development. It is important for leaders of important industries to also be moral leaders, otherwise progress becomes plutocracy. Musk is the definition of a technocrat, but he also tends to be a plutarch. I don't deny his business acumen (especially his vertical integration of the space industry, which was a needed shake up), I just question his character, and why people hero worship him.

It's kind of ironic, because he's acting like the Thomas Edison to the man his own company is named after, Nikolai Tesla. Edison was a huge douchebag, and created a cult of personality around him, and drove Tesla into the ground. Tesla - the far better man, and smarter too - was relegated to the history books for almost two centuries. And Edison's ego prevented true innovation past what he had personally invented (while not crediting anyone he worked with). He was not a collaborator. And that stifled cheap(er), (more) efficient power alternatives for a century and a half (obviously electricity was cheaper and more efficient than, say, coal).

I hope it doesn't seem inconsistent, but I agree with everything you've said above. I shifted from hero worship to admiring fan after the pedo accusation came about.

In your Edison/Tesla comparison, is there a Tesla right now to Musk's Edison?

[eschatological]

I hope it doesn't seem inconsistent, but I agree with everything you've said above. I shifted from hero worship to admiring fan after the pedo accusation came about.

In your Edison/Tesla comparison, is there a Tesla right now to Musk's Edison?

I mean, the guys at JPL have been doing this stuff for decades? Musk brought in a business sense into building these rockets with vertical integration, and JPL is stuck working under old government models, but they've been at the forefront of space engineering since the Apollo program.

The problem with any government project is that since no one makes a profit off it, no one is trying to maximize revenue (which results from business practices like Musk has implemented, which in turn leads to making these rockets more inexpensive). And because government has to think of public safety, they have 100 person teams to operate a launch when Musk claims (and probably does) do launch logistics with about a dozen people. Government over-engineers, in essence, to multiple redundancies. And this always leads to bloat, at least in terms of expenses. And it slows things down.

But JPL has been doing amazing stuff for literal decades.

[PACOX]

Gotcha - and thanks for the source.


Why did they bring Musk back as CEO if he was, according to you, such a douchebag. And Musk was still a part of the success of Paypal.

Its literally the same line of reasoning why companies licensed the Trump name (before his presidency) even though a lot of his ventures fell flat. Imagine and name recognition do a lot when it comes to trying to bring in business/investors.

Its okay to say he has made some good business moves while being a dick head.

His real accomplishment to the space industry is that he is willing to take work no one else wants. And his rocket engines aren't too bad either. As far as reusable vehicles, rocket science cracked that code decades ago. There's not much use for them in the long run though. They can help with short term projects like the ISS, you can speculate on long-term uses, there's no actual long term work for reusable rockets right now and people dont want a space shuttle on their hands where you have impressive hardware that isn't used enough to justify costs.

A nice study razer is great but if you are only shaving a few times a month disposable is better even if the price per unit is higher. But Musk is great at creating demand where there wasn't any. Even if that demand comes from himself, see Starlink.

[cubby]

I mean, the guys at JPL have been doing this stuff for decades? Musk brought in a business sense into building these rockets with vertical integration, and JPL is stuck working under old government models, but they've been at the forefront of space engineering since the Apollo program.

The problem with any government project is that since no one makes a profit off it, no one is trying to maximize revenue (which results from business practices like Musk has implemented, which in turn leads to making these rockets more inexpensive). And because government has to think of public safety, they have 100 person teams to operate a launch when Musk claims (and probably does) do launch logistics with about a dozen people. Government over-engineers, in essence, to multiple redundancies. And this always leads to bloat, at least in terms of expenses. And it slows things down.

But JPL has been doing amazing stuff for literal decades.

And I wasn't trying to take away from anything that JPL or NASA has done. They spent the hundreds of billions to perfect launch systems, get to the moon, build the space station. Musk took that industry and streamlined it to make space access inexpensive - and he was the first private entity to do it. Then, he perfect rockets landing after launch, which further reduced space access costs by an order of magnitude. And Musk is likely to beat everyone else to Mars as well. The Artimes Project rocket is just horrific, with one successful launch in 15 years - the same amount of time, interestingly, in which Musk has made all his milestones.

I love JPL and NASA. But yeah, they certainly overengineered the shit out of everything. I read somewhere back that the reason we couldn't expand on the moon landings (i.e. build a base, etc), outside of funding issues, it because the entire Moon Landing Programs was designed around just that, landing and getting back - with nothing in the hopper for expansion. Not a criticism of course, just an observation.

Weird but related question for you - have you read Seveneves?

- - - Updated - - -

Its literally the same line of reasoning why companies licensed the Trump name (before his presidency) even though a lot of his ventures fell flat. Imagine and name recognition do a lot when it comes to trying to bring in business/investors.

Its okay to say he has made some good business moves while being a dick head.

I agree in general, but of course would say that most of Musk's ventures have been wildly successful.

Agreed as well, of course, I would say that those ventures were slightly better than "good". He might be a dickhead, but he's also the richest person in the world - and you don't get that title with just "good" ventures.

But yeah, we're on the same page.

[Rasulis]

I mean, the guys at JPL have been doing this stuff for decades? Musk brought in a business sense into building these rockets with vertical integration, and JPL is stuck working under old government models, but they've been at the forefront of space engineering since the Apollo program.

The problem with any government project is that since no one makes a profit off it, no one is trying to maximize revenue (which results from business practices like Musk has implemented, which in turn leads to making these rockets more inexpensive). And because government has to think of public safety, they have 100 person teams to operate a launch when Musk claims (and probably does) do launch logistics with about a dozen people. Government over-engineers, in essence, to multiple redundancies. And this always leads to bloat, at least in terms of expenses. And it slows things down.

But JPL has been doing amazing stuff for literal decades.

JPL and Caltech are two major factors why SpaceX is headquartered in Hawthorne instead of the Bay are like all of his other companies. Without JPL, SpaceX would not be where it is now.

NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory is helping SpaceX get to Mars, here’s why that’s good for everyone

This data was from 4 years ago. It breaks down Space X hiring for engineers and scientists. Unfortunately LinkedIn has since removed this query feature.

California Institute of Technology: 323
University of Southern California: 134
University of California, Los Angeles: 97
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University: 85
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 80
Stanford University: 70
Purdue University: 66
Georgia Institute of Technology: 62
California State University-Long Beach: 61
Cornell University: 54

[Rennadrel]

Typical for any tech industry. The bosses always complain that they don't have enough talent and beg for more or advocate for letting more in, when in reality the talent exists and they just don't want to pay them, so they always crave more to have it easier with wage dumping.

Pretty much every corpo scumbag CEO does the same thing. They whine about the quality of workers by paying welfare wages for high quality talent. Then they have to import that talent because only immigrants are willing to work for a lot less than what people with their skills are worth. It's just another corporate welfare scam in an attempt to enrich the pocket books of the wealthy while we can't do anything about it.

[Draco-Onis]

Elon is daddy I might move down there just for funzies.

Have you actually ever looked into the guy? I am not sure if it's the drugs or the lack of sleep but Elon Musk is a horrible human being, I seriously feel sorry for the people in his life but I guess its the price of wealth.

[Sorensen]

Have you actually ever looked into the guy? I am not sure if it's the drugs or the lack of sleep but Elon Musk is a horrible human being, I seriously feel sorry for the people in his life but I guess its the price of wealth.

Name one human who's not horrible.

We're all horrible ok.

[Draco-Onis]

Name one human who's not horrible.

We're all horrible ok.

ROFLMAO

OF course you are the same kind of person as let's say a serial killer

What kind of twisted fucked up logic do you go by? Do you see Adolf Hitler and shrug your head and say well we are all horrible smh.

[Rennadrel]

@cubby

I can't say I've met many engineers who actually have engineering degrees that are great at their jobs or visionaries. In fact, most of them in my sector are all a bunch of incompetent idiots as far as I am concerned. And age isn't selective when it comes to how often they suck at their jobs. And I work in automotive, which is a lot easier then aerospace engineering. I don't think that having an engineering degree automatically qualifies someone as being a capable engineer. Usually it takes years or decades of experience to hone the skills needed to become great at a job anyway. Whether people think Musk is qualified or not isn't relevant since he has so many people working for him that are just as capable and have focused knowledge of the things his companies need. To me, he is more the overseer that has a lot of the final say.

[Sorensen]

ROFLMAO

OF course you are the same kind of person as let's say a serial killer

What kind of twisted fucked up logic do you go by? Do you see Adolf Hitler and shrug your head and say well we are all horrible smh.

Well aren't the truly horrible people things who put Hitler in power?

[Draco-Onis]

Well aren't the truly horrible people things who put Hitler in power?

Why are you changing your tune? you put everyone on equal footing now you are adding truly.

[cubby]

@cubby

I can't say I've met many engineers who actually have engineering degrees that are great at their jobs or visionaries. In fact, most of them in my sector are all a bunch of incompetent idiots as far as I am concerned. And age isn't selective when it comes to how often they suck at their jobs. And I work in automotive, which is a lot easier then aerospace engineering. I don't think that having an engineering degree automatically qualifies someone as being a capable engineer. Usually it takes years or decades of experience to hone the skills needed to become great at a job anyway. Whether people think Musk is qualified or not isn't relevant since he has so many people working for him that are just as capable and have focused knowledge of the things his companies need. To me, he is more the overseer that has a lot of the final say.

I think a degree can certainly help a person be a good engineer, but I work in telecom, and I've seen plenty of non-degreed engineers who do good work, and of course vice versa. My main point was that a degree does not an engineer make. Like Musk or not, he's a genius, and obviously innovative on a number of levels. Personally, he seems to either have always been a douchebag, or has been heading that way for years and finally arrived. Usually these megalomaniacs have very divisive personalities - we see that in Jobs and other industry leaders.

Personally, I am always amused to see people piss all over Musk's accomplishments because they don't like him as a person. Their analysis usually breaks down quickly once we get to the heart of the issue. I'm saying that generally, not aimed at you - just to be clear.