Linkedin Cringe/hell

[no_chill]

Not only LinkedIn but corporate life in general is exactly like that. Everyone is so proud about their company and so fucking compassionate about what "true life changing service/product" they make. There is nothing more draining and sinister on earth than working a job. I wish I lived on an solitude island in the pacific with 2 or 3 women and get to eat unwashed pussy all day, not that the company I work for makes 1 Billion euro in earnings. I get convulsions whenever I must endure corpo speak. Yes I had to visit expos and corporate fairs for my job and its the most retarded thing ever. I couldn't be more disinterested about literally everything the corpos do. However I'm a really good actor and no one notices this while they explain to me how their new metal engraving machine works 3times faster than the last model. When I was in corpo office I read articles on stolenhistory or agora all day and literally finished my work in 30mins and no one ever knew.

 

[Some_porcupine]

the biggest "oooof" are all-positive reactions. i need one with wtf/(asuka) what are you stupid!?

 

[Captain]

I dealt with a company whose slogan was "Turn can not into can did." They were so proud of it. Biggest bunch of idiots I had ever met. They made millions a year somehow while fighting with each other and the customers. I think it just proves this is a simulation lol. It defied all logic. Go tEaM!

 

[Vetusomaru]

I saw a local company I've dealt with that had everyone change their profile picture to them with masks to show just how on the bandwagon they were. Some of the stuff people post on there is unbelievable.

If they forced me to get a social media account like a linkedin one at my job, I would smash their head with a CRT computer screen.

 

[Vetusomaru]

"We are (like) family (here)!"
Yeah, dysfunctional

Unfortunately they use that motto to Japanese corporations to make them more workaholic. And yet they wonder why hikkikomori is a thing and why women prefer marrying instead of getting a job career.

 

[InsufferableCynic]

I unfortunately have to use LinkedIn because I am self employed and it's one of the few ways to actually communicate with hiring managers and other people in corporations who are capable of hiring contractors.

The entire site is a cesspool and I hate using it.

I have noticed that nobody there has a personality. Nobody posts anything unique. Posts always end up in one of 4 categories, and never anything else.

The first category (and in my opinion the most insufferable one) are the corporate-begging posts. People will make posts like "so glad to be part of a great and wonderful team doing so much good for the diversity of our wonderful planet!" and the post will contain a picture of 10 people smiling, all wearing the same boring suit with the same boring hair style. These posts are designed for their boss to hit "like" so they will like them more and be likely to promote them, and when applying for jobs for their potential employer to see that they are a good worker and be more likely to hire them. If you're wanting a new job, fill your LinkedIn feed with these sorts of posts and you're more likely to get the job.

The second category are the dumb corporate memes or "observations". Things that are designed to make you go "yeah, you tell it!" while at the same time not rocking the boat enough to actually upset or offend anyone. People will post things like "Companies want us to get up at 8 and come in on time at 9, but the boss always comes in at midday". They are never directed at a company specifically, and are always vague enough to be applicable to anyone, so that nobody loses their job when their boss feels attacked. Worse, there's always some comment from a corporate-begger along the lines of "that's because bosses are busy forming connections and keeping the company growing, and are usually the last ones out the door!", which is always some pro-corporate "rebuttal". The purpose of these posts is to post something interesting enough that people will share, in order to grow your linkedin network and become more likely to get noticed by potential employers. The point of the rebuttals on these posts is to allow someone to gain that same network growth - their friends will see that they responded to the post and will thus share it including their response - while at the same time absolving any responsibility for the post, in case it does happen to go too far and cross a line somewhere. These are the riskiest posts on the platform, and the rarest, but they are potentially the most valuable because they can get people noticed and grow networks.

The third category is companies patting themselves on the back, or talking about how they are doing something new and innovative. They will write something like "This year we delivered more value to our customers than ever before, over 3000 new sales of our new WhizBang product in 3 weeks!", and the picture will be a graph or a stock image of a person at a service desk smiling. Or they will write something like "AI is taking over, and we are at the forefront of AI-developed eco-tools to develop value-chain solutions for businesses at scale" (the more buzzwords the better). These posts will always be accompanied by some generic, inoffensive but mildly interesting picture, like a robot arm or a castle or something, and they will always make sure the picture contains their logo or company name somewhere on it as a watermark, so that on the off chance they do post an image that might be remotely interesting, anyone else who uses it can't do so without advertising for them. The purpose of these posts is essentially PR, they exist as a way to advertise on the site without paying for advertising, and their hope is that enough people will be interested in their milquetoast achievement to share it.

Lastly, there are just outright scams. This is usually companies or individuals selling courses on "business management and value chain creation", or companies talking about how you should attend their conference on "Agile Data-Driven Infrastructure in a Modern Eco-Friendly world". These posts are designed to drive new business, but are more specific and direct than the above category. They aren't designed to drive customers to a business, they are instead designed to con businesses and business managers (the kinds of people who take LinkedIn seriously) into paying them to help their business achieve growth.

 

[SolidStateSurvivor]

Unfortunately they use that motto to Japanese corporations to make them more workaholic. And yet they wonder why hikkikomori is a thing and why women prefer marrying instead of getting a job career.

Japan is just the US's testing ground for pushing the corporate life death cult, the same societal trends are beginning here too.

 

[remember_summer_days]

I hate LinkedIn's safe and clean corposhit aesthetic, but honestly, as far as I'm aware is one of the easiest ways to network and find potential recruiters, so you gotta endure it.

 

[LostintheCycle]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/elon-musks-iq-what-zainab-shaikh/
THANK YOU LINKEDIN!
DADDY MUSK IS A GENIUS 150 IQ!!

 

[Outer Heaven]

Arguably is does help people if you're in a corporate job, which is the most aggravating part to me.
Have had discussions with hiring managers at my job that have brought up the fact they ignore hiring people who they cannot find on LinkedIn. Which scares me if I ever lose my current job and have to go find another one as I don't have an account.

This infuriates me too. I'm graduating next year so I had to make an account and fix it up. Especially in certain industries the etiquette is so gay. Without a friend of mine helping me out I would have been completely lost. Just having a presentable profile is a chore. I just want to go back to when you could give an employer a firm handshake and get a cushy job with a HS degree.

 

[InsufferableCynic]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/elon-musks-iq-what-zainab-shaikh/
THANK YOU LINKEDIN!
DADDY MUSK IS A GENIUS 150 IQ!!

I can take all sorts of cringe, but Musk worship is just way too far for me. I can't stand it.

When will the world realise Musk is nothing but a con artist?

 

[RisingThumb]

THANK YOU LINKEDIN!
DADDY MUSK IS A GENIUS 150 IQ!!

A far better test of IQ:

Conditionals are very difficult for sub 90 IQs. Let us take liberties and extrapolate this further in recursion. There's a reason most CS101 students struggle when recursion comes up in lessons, and I suspect for sub 110 IQs it's very difficult to make sense of it, especially when you add additional algorithm or behavioural logic on top of the recursion. This is also the reason for true functional programming being so damned and rare among the profession, and further why so much functional code is also garbage because it's genuinely intense and difficult for your average person. A procedural approach works best for most people, and if you can't separate concerns well, an object oriented one will beat you over the head and choke you into being concerned. This is all a long part of the reason for leetcode questions being "cute" algorithm questions involving recursion and algorithm implementation. It's the closest thing you have to an IQ test, without being an IQ test- IQ tests being illegal to use for hiring employees. Of course the issue with this, is subject-specific excellence in mathematics(CS is just a subdomain of mathematics, just as mathematics is just a subdomain of philosophical logic). Going up by similar fields tends to work, and it's why philosophy being a root subject from which the majority derive some detail from can be beneficial for relating subjects, but most are so willfully ignorant that ideas that sound good get executed. It's similar to how God is both revered by a small number of highly intelligent people while a larger number of highly intelligent people are atheistic(though I would attribute a lot more of this to the sinking brainrot of technology use, and its reverence by those liberal fanatics. A thorough explanation of that can be found in Kaczynski's manifesto)- in the same regards perversion of their bodies, decimation of cultures towards a monoculture and newspeak. It's rare to find a conservative programmer, for the same reason it's rare to find a scientific artist, as the two fields are so far apart that it's very hard to entertain them. If you go to any software development office this month, you'll find it bannered up like the Nuremburg of 1930s in cultish delight.

Once you're talking to people beyond 120 IQ, the value of IQ drops off massively and it becomes a case of the quality of their work. In fact, paradoxically, most high IQ individuals do very poorly for themselves due to an overemphasising of thought and thinking- and an overfilling of odious foods that wreck the balance of the body. 2% of the general population are millionaires, as compared to 0.5% of the cult of Mensa(if I recall from the statistics that I can't recall where they're cited them from). Additionally, it doesn't consider deference of your desires for delayed gratification. There's a reason a lot of high IQ people dope themselves up on a cocktail sewer slide, to suicide- to quell that thinking part, and when the corruption of that open sewer sets the reasons of a person are perverted in sustaining these short term passions. I will close in that overzealous application of IQ, falls in line with overzealous tarot, zodiac, MBTI and related applications to judge people.

I can take all sorts of cringe, but Musk worship is just way too far for me. I can't stand it.

When will the world realise Musk is nothing but a con artist?

Tesla stock up to about $250 on Friday. Thanks Musk. Regarding his con artist, I disagree. Some of his works like that loop transportation is an obvious scam to anyone who knows about physics- but others like Tesla provide good value in funding AI developments, and in advancing electric vehicles as a field. I'll let this video on chinese EVs suffice to explain it. Classical car manufacturers are engaged more in hybrid cars than pure EVs and are behind. Tesla is also more affordable than classical cars when bought new currently- though a lack of advertising which they are now correcting makes it easier for people to find out. The biggest concern to me in them is actually a hard resource problem, as this will exacerbate electronics resource issues- moving our global warming issues into a resource limitation issue.

Regarding his other companies- he co-founded openAI which I hardly need to tell you is excellent. He co-founded PayPal, which I hardly need to tell you is excellent. He's taking advantage of Government grants in order to fund SpaceX, which alongside NASA is preventing our knowledge of space travel from falling into ruin. The problem with space travel is it's a very complex engineering problem, to a very simple problem(getting out of Earth's orbit). The problem with complex knowledge, is it requires maintaining across multiple populations and generations. The secret of Damascus steel is lost similarly to Roman Concrete being lost- and this is due to it not being passed down. Then there's his X-Corp I think it's called which I will wait and see, and also his boring company which is just a cool practical joke. In short, he has a reputation and portfolio of excellent companies he's done work for, and poor companies he's done work for. In other words, you have to use that rare and cursed ability deep within all men... the ability of critical reasoning.

Claiming he's a con artist, is just Hegelian dialectical antithesis to people who support him. Don't be so reactionary and quick, and consider a man beyond what twitter tells you.


Sorry for sperging out about topics unrelated to linkedin. I'm easily baited

 

[Some_porcupine]

very famous greentext, i like it

 

[Some_porcupine]

bury me:

If You Can't Find a Job, It's Your Fault

(If you're one of those people who loves to blame the government, the President, the economy, your country, your school, your lack of experience, your excess of experience, your culture, your race, your major, your age, or your language skills, and enjoy being a finger-pointing victim, please leave

www.linkedin.com

 

[MidnightVisions]

Linkedin is very useful, but one should be careful not to look into the posts/start cringeposting as well. Just login, check messages, look people up if necessary, leave.

 

[approaching perfection]

i honestly do like using linkedin to (for lack of a better word) stalk friends of friends. I like to see what people are up to

 

[InsufferableCynic]

A far better test of IQ:
View attachment 64591
Conditionals are very difficult for sub 90 IQs. Let us take liberties and extrapolate this further in recursion. There's a reason most CS101 students struggle when recursion comes up in lessons, and I suspect for sub 110 IQs it's very difficult to make sense of it, especially when you add additional algorithm or behavioural logic on top of the recursion. This is also the reason for true functional programming being so damned and rare among the profession, and further why so much functional code is also garbage because it's genuinely intense and difficult for your average person. A procedural approach works best for most people, and if you can't separate concerns well, an object oriented one will beat you over the head and choke you into being concerned. This is all a long part of the reason for leetcode questions being "cute" algorithm questions involving recursion and algorithm implementation. It's the closest thing you have to an IQ test, without being an IQ test- IQ tests being illegal to use for hiring employees. Of course the issue with this, is subject-specific excellence in mathematics(CS is just a subdomain of mathematics, just as mathematics is just a subdomain of philosophical logic). Going up by similar fields tends to work, and it's why philosophy being a root subject from which the majority derive some detail from can be beneficial for relating subjects, but most are so willfully ignorant that ideas that sound good get executed. It's similar to how God is both revered by a small number of highly intelligent people while a larger number of highly intelligent people are atheistic(though I would attribute a lot more of this to the sinking brainrot of technology use, and its reverence by those liberal fanatics. A thorough explanation of that can be found in Kaczynski's manifesto)- in the same regards perversion of their bodies, decimation of cultures towards a monoculture and newspeak. It's rare to find a conservative programmer, for the same reason it's rare to find a scientific artist, as the two fields are so far apart that it's very hard to entertain them. If you go to any software development office this month, you'll find it bannered up like the Nuremburg of 1930s in cultish delight.

Once you're talking to people beyond 120 IQ, the value of IQ drops off massively and it becomes a case of the quality of their work. In fact, paradoxically, most high IQ individuals do very poorly for themselves due to an overemphasising of thought and thinking- and an overfilling of odious foods that wreck the balance of the body. 2% of the general population are millionaires, as compared to 0.5% of the cult of Mensa(if I recall from the statistics that I can't recall where they're cited them from). Additionally, it doesn't consider deference of your desires for delayed gratification. There's a reason a lot of high IQ people dope themselves up on a cocktail sewer slide, to suicide- to quell that thinking part, and when the corruption of that open sewer sets the reasons of a person are perverted in sustaining these short term passions. I will close in that overzealous application of IQ, falls in line with overzealous tarot, zodiac, MBTI and related applications to judge people.

Yes, those are certainly all words.

I find it funny (and very telling) that you happen to have ""logic"" and ""reasoning"" to describe people you don't support (atheists, liberals etc) as less intelligent. Because of course all the intelligent people believe in God. That's why the American South is so well known for it's professors, mathematicians, scientists and engineers.

Tesla stock up to about $250 on Friday.

Tesla is extremely overvalued. It's also the only remotely profitable venture he has ever made, and yet he sold Tesla stock to buy the sinking ship that is Twitter, so he must REALLY believe in the company.

If you can't see the writing on the wall here, then I will spell it out slowly:

Just because a market valuation says it's worth that much doesn't mean it's worth that much, especially since it has so little marketshare compared to other EVs. If you're smart you'll sell now and make sure someone else is left holding the bag a year from now. Other EV manufactuers are eating Tesla for lunch in terms of sales, and the hype around "self driving" is dying down because everyone has realised what a pipe dream it is. With the hype goes the value. Get out now while you can, because I guarantee you those shares are going to plummet within the next 12 months.

Regarding his con artist, I disagree. Some of his works like that loop transportation is an obvious scam to anyone who knows about physics- but others like Tesla provide good value in funding AI developments, and in advancing electric vehicles as a field.

Tesla is not advancing electric vehicles at all. As I specified above, other companies are eating their market share because they are more innovative. All of Teslas "innovations", especially recently, have either been technological disasters (self driving), or have been minor iterations (wow, who knew that using a battery of double the volume would give double the power, Musk truly is a genius!)

Tesla is innovative in the same way Apple is innovative. They don't actually innovate, they are just really good at redefining existing technologies, adding a proprietary layer on top, and calling it their own invention.

I'll let this video on chinese EVs suffice to explain it.

This conspiracy theory video is predicated on the idea that Tesla's don't randomly catch fire.

This is definitely not the case.

Lithium-Ion batteries are inherently unsafe - the moment the internals of the battery are exposed to oxygen, or if a short occurs, it catches fire. Which is a bad sign if you're in a type of vehicle known to crash occasionally.

Electric Cars are inherently prone to catching fire as a result of serious damage - especially if a crash occurs, but even a random short can cause a fire, which is the case for all the EV's that randomly catch fire while parked.

Focusing exclusively on one EV manufacturer - be it Tesla or BYD or any other manufacturer - as a fire hazard is dishonest - they are all prone to it.

ALL Electric cars are actually pretty safe, though, in terms of fires.

Why not look at some actual data, rather than scary videos with spooky music?

When you look at market share, it's obvious that people aren't falling for Tesla fans fear-mongering, and I suspect Tesla will continue to decline over time as other more affordable and better quality EV's flood the market.

Classical car manufacturers are engaged more in hybrid cars than pure EVs and are behind. Tesla is also more affordable than classical cars when bought new currently- though a lack of advertising which they are now correcting makes it easier for people to find out. The biggest concern to me in them is actually a hard resource problem, as this will exacerbate electronics resource issues- moving our global warming issues into a resource limitation issue.

[Citation Needed]

Tesla cars tend to be extremely overpriced, especially compared to combustion cars. This goes double when you realise that Lithium-Ion cells have an inherently short lifespan (about 10 years or so), which completely invalidates the second hand market.

When I can buy an efficient, reliable car that's 3-4 years old for $5000, and an equivalent EV from any company (which HAS to be bought brand new) is going to cost between $50,000 and $100,000, then there's no competition.

Buying new cars is already inherently a scam, as they lose half their value the moment you drive them off the lot, but it gets even worse for EVs because you can't buy second hand either, and the battery is constantly degrading.

Regarding his other companies- he co-founded openAI which I hardly need to tell you is excellent.

In your opinion

He co-founded PayPal, which I hardly need to tell you is excellent.

Actually, he had nothing to do with PayPal or it's success. He founded X.com, which merged with another company to form PayPal. When the happened, he was immediately fired for incompetence.

He's taking advantage of Government grants in order to fund SpaceX

Scamming the government is basically his only course of action since SpaceX is failing to turn a profit, mainly because they haven't been able to reach their reusability goals, something they would have already known was not viable had they done even a modicum of research into NASA's Shuttle program. It's a physics problem, not "government wastage", as so many claim.

which alongside NASA is preventing our knowledge of space travel from falling into ruin.

No. Space travel is expensive and there's just honestly not that much to see (at least not with a manned ship), but we send out probes all the time. How exactly is our knowledge of space travel falling into ruin? We are launching more probes than ever before.

The problem with space travel is it's a very complex engineering problem, to a very simple problem(getting out of Earth's orbit). The problem with complex knowledge, is it requires maintaining across multiple populations and generations. The secret of Damascus steel is lost similarly to Roman Concrete being lost- and this is due to it not being passed down.

Space travel is not comparable to Damascus Steel. Space travel is inherently difficult because of physical limitations - a certain amount of energy is required per kilogram to leave earths orbit. This is inherently expensive and there's no "special knowledge" that can allow us to break this barrier, so it will always be expensive.

I don't see how Musk and SpaceX could possibly improve this situation. Even the most diehard braindead Musk fan doesn't honestly think he can change the laws of physics.

Then there's his X-Corp I think it's called which I will wait and see, and also his boring company which is just a cool practical joke.

Both of these companies are outright scams. Don't hold your breath.

In short, he has a reputation and portfolio of excellent companies he's done work for,

Not really. Even if you consider Paypal, Tesla and SpaceX successes, he has still failed a hell of a lot more than he has succeeded. You haven't mentioned SolarCity, The Vegas Loop, NeuraLink, or any of his other big disasters. I wonder why that is.

you have to use that rare and cursed ability deep within all men... the ability of critical reasoning.

Ironic that you're saying this

Claiming he's a con artist, is just Hegelian dialectical antithesis to people who support him.

No, it's just reality.

He is either woefully incompetent or intentionally engaging in deceptive marketing to overvalue his products. Your choice.

Don't be so reactionary and quick, and consider a man beyond what twitter tells you.

Don't be so reactionary and quick, and consider a man beyond what dumb Musk fans tell you.

Most Musk fans tend to be libertarians (which already proves they are braindead, but I digress) who somehow feel a need to support him, probably because he's one of the few "rich people" who presents a veneer of being right-wing and "based" (even though the censorship in his work contracts would make even the most ruthless of communist dictators blush). But you shouldn't support an incompetent piece of shit just because he happens to agree with you on certain politics (especially when it's clear he doesn't actually support free markets, since he consistently tries to shut down free exchange of information the first moment he gets).

I'm not even going to mention how he promoted various pump-and-dump Crypto schemes that short-changed everyday people for his own benefit, lied under oath in the SolarCity case, claimed to be for free speech on Twitter only to shadowban people with Mastodon links in their profiles the moment he gained power, or generally all of the zany shit he does.

I guess people see Musk as an example of "Capitalism being successful and rewarding innovation compared to the useless government" when in reality it really only shows the worst aspects of capitalism - overpromising and underdelivering, manipulating money markets for profit, demanding those in your employ don't criticise you, hero worship because of brand names and products rather than accomplishments, and claiming other people's work as your own.

Don't fall for the Musk scam. Nobody who knows the first thing about science supports Musk.

 

[RisingThumb]

I find it funny (and very telling) that you happen to have ""logic"" and ""reasoning"" to describe people you don't support (atheists, liberals etc) as less intelligent. Because of course all the intelligent people believe in God. That's why the American South is so well known for it's professors, mathematicians, scientists and engineers.

It's similar to how God is both revered by a small number of highly intelligent people while a larger number of highly intelligent people are atheistic(though I would attribute a lot more of this to the sinking brainrot of technology use, and its reverence by those liberal fanatics. A thorough explanation of that can be found in Kaczynski's manifesto)-

I never said I support or don't support liberalism. I myself am an Agnostic and I'm generally speaking liberal- but I've not asserted anything about geography, and only asserted a ratio of less intelligent people believing in God than not.

Tesla is extremely overvalued. It's also the only remotely profitable venture he has ever made, and yet he sold Tesla stock to buy the sinking ship that is Twitter, so he must REALLY believe in the company.

He has to sell Tesla stock to liquidate money in order to purchase the company, because a lot of his money is locked up in the stock market and cannot be easily liquidated-- whether or not this is him not believing in Tesla, I don't know.

Just because a market valuation says it's worth that much doesn't mean it's worth that much, especially since it has so little marketshare compared to other EVs. If you're smart you'll sell now and make sure someone else is left holding the bag a year from now. Other EV manufactuers are eating Tesla for lunch in terms of sales, and the hype around "self driving" is dying down because everyone has realised what a pipe dream it is. With the hype goes the value. Get out now while you can, because I guarantee you those shares are going to plummet within the next 12 months.

For my own curiosity, do you hold stocks and shares? Additionally, are you aware of the concept of diversification? You're correct that the self-driving cars hype is dying down. You're also correct that other EV manufacturers are eating Tesla for lunch in terms of sales- as echoed by decreasing the purchase price for a Tesla car to meet with demand.

Tesla cars tend to be extremely overpriced, especially compared to combustion cars. This goes double when you realise that Lithium-Ion cells have an inherently short lifespan (about 10 years or so), which completely invalidates the second hand market.

When I can buy an efficient, reliable car that's 3-4 years old for $5000, and an equivalent EV from any company (which HAS to be bought brand new) is going to cost between $50,000 and $100,000, then there's no competition.

Buying new cars is already inherently a scam, as they lose half their value the moment you drive them off the lot, but it gets even worse for EVs because you can't buy second hand either, and the battery is constantly degrading.

This is correct- but increasing Petrol and Diesel prices, make a regular combustion car an interesting question. Your point about batteries is correct, but this applies to all electronics- there is a hidden cost here in resources as Lithium is not plentiful and Lithium Ion batteries have their risks as you've quite rightly pointed out later. On the contrary... Sodium-Ion Batteries. If I was purchasing a car, I'd go for a secondhand manual transmission car- preferably a decade old so I know it will last and so I know it's not completely impossible to do repairs due to computer components. You're only sort of correct on the points about the secondhand market. People still sell secondhand electronics like phones, PCs, Laptops and the like without any issues. There is nothing here that says and stamps with an iron fist that you cannot sell secondhand teslas- similarly nothing saying you can't repair them(though I don't know how difficult repairs are)

In your opinion

Individual technologies when taken alone, are incredibly hard to argue against their advantages, but when taken all together as a cohesive whole with all the other technologies they compound and worsen- but this is a societal point. Economically it's good for investors.

Actually, he had nothing to do with PayPal or it's success. He founded X.com, which merged with another company to form PayPal. When the happened, he was immediately fired for incompetence.

I didn't actually know that.

Tesla is not advancing electric vehicles at all. As I specified above, other companies are eating their market share because they are more innovative. All of Teslas "innovations", especially recently, have either been technological disasters (self driving), or have been minor iterations (wow, who knew that using a battery of double the volume would give double the power, Musk truly is a genius!)

Tesla is innovative in the same way Apple is innovative. They don't actually innovate, they are just really good at redefining existing technologies, adding a proprietary layer on top, and calling it their own invention.

You're correct, and I think this particular point is fine. Not everything needs to be innovation. Apple is like 7% of the S&P500(of course Tesla isn't but it's just a point on how it doesn't have to be particularly innovative to be used).

This conspiracy theory video is predicated on the idea that Tesla's don't randomly catch fire.

This is definitely not the case.

Lithium-Ion batteries are inherently unsafe - the moment the internals of the battery are exposed to oxygen, or if a short occurs, it catches fire. Which is a bad sign if you're in a type of vehicle known to crash occasionally.

Electric Cars are inherently prone to catching fire as a result of serious damage - especially if a crash occurs, but even a random short can cause a fire, which is the case for all the EV's that randomly catch fire while parked.

Focusing exclusively on one EV manufacturer - be it Tesla or BYD or any other manufacturer - as a fire hazard is dishonest - they are all prone to it.

ALL Electric cars are actually pretty safe, though, in terms of fires.

Why not look at some actual data, rather than scary videos with spooky music?

When you look at market share, it's obvious that people aren't falling for Tesla fans fear-mongering, and I suspect Tesla will continue to decline over time as other more affordable and better quality EV's flood the market.

Thanks for the information- why do you think BYDs aren't sold in the US currently? Economics issue, Regulation issue? You also asserted Tesla will plummet, and now you're asserting it will decline over time- which is it?

Scamming the government is basically his only course of action since SpaceX is failing to turn a profit, mainly because they haven't been able to reach their reusability goals, something they would have already known was not viable had they done even a modicum of research into NASA's Shuttle program. It's a physics problem, not "government wastage", as so many claim.

Yeah, well it's tax dollars and not many other companies are doing equivalent work- so of course government grants are gonna go to him. Its not a physics problem as the problem is expressed easily, it's an engineering problem of efficiency and effectiveness.

No. Space travel is expensive and there's just honestly not that much to see (at least not with a manned ship), but we send out probes all the time. How exactly is our knowledge of space travel falling into ruin? We are launching more probes than ever before.

Space travel is not comparable to Damascus Steel. Space travel is inherently difficult because of physical limitations - a certain amount of energy is required per kilogram to leave earths orbit. This is inherently expensive and there's no "special knowledge" that can allow us to break this barrier, so it will always be expensive.

I don't see how Musk and SpaceX could possibly improve this situation. Even the most diehard braindead Musk fan doesn't honestly think he can change the laws of physics.

As far as physics, yes there's no special knowledge. But as far as what types of rockets actually work, and why, and how to go about making them, etc- there's a LOT. This holds for all things of any complexity. Here's an excellent talk from Jonathon Blow on how things that are more complex, are the quickest to lose knowledge on. Regardless, you're exactly correct that you can't change the laws of physics. If it violates the laws of physics, it's a very obvious scam- but it's not it's just an engineering problem.

Both of these companies are outright scams. Don't hold your breath.

Not really. Even if you consider Paypal, Tesla and SpaceX successes, he has still failed a hell of a lot more than he has succeeded. You haven't mentioned SolarCity, The Vegas Loop, NeuraLink, or any of his other big disasters. I wonder why that is.

Because I forgot about them- good points regardless.

Ironic that you're saying this

The easiest way to get people to come out of the woodwork, is to be wrong on the internet
You've provided me a lot of excellent material to read through and consider.

No, it's just reality.

He is either woefully incompetent or intentionally engaging in deceptive marketing to overvalue his products. Your choice.

*Shrugs* That affects him legally. I think he's a great guy for people who love speculative high-risk, high-growth stocks.

Don't be so reactionary and quick, and consider a man beyond what dumb Musk fans tell you.

Most Musk fans tend to be libertarians (which already proves they are braindead, but I digress) who somehow feel a need to support him, probably because he's one of the few "rich people" who presents a veneer of being right-wing and "based" (even though the censorship in his work contracts would make even the most ruthless of communist dictators blush). But you shouldn't support an incompetent piece of shit just because he happens to agree with you on certain politics (especially when it's clear he doesn't actually support free markets, since he consistently tries to shut down free exchange of information the first moment he gets).

I'm not even going to mention how he promoted various pump-and-dump Crypto schemes that short-changed everyday people for his own benefit, lied under oath in the SolarCity case, claimed to be for free speech on Twitter only to shadowban people with Mastodon links in their profiles the moment he gained power, or generally all of the zany shit he does.

I guess people see Musk as an example of "Capitalism being successful and rewarding innovation compared to the useless government" when in reality it really only shows the worst aspects of capitalism - overpromising and underdelivering, manipulating money markets for profit, demanding those in your employ don't criticise you, hero worship because of brand names and products rather than accomplishments, and claiming other people's work as your own.

Don't fall for the Musk scam. Nobody who knows the first thing about science supports Musk.

Yeah, you're correct in all of this- but that's capitalism for you though. Musk isn't really a scam so much as just unsustainable growth based on speculation that you need to cut the weeds to find where it leads(SO MANY Tech startups are growth-based, and unsustainable built on similar speculation). Same with Bezos. I don't support the guy, never met him personally, I support my own portfolio though

 

[Some_porcupine]

You're correct, and I think this particular point is fine. Not everything needs to be innovation. Apple is like 7% of the S&P500(of course Tesla isn't but it's just a point on how it doesn't have to be particularly innovative to be used).

adobe and microsoft meanwhile:

 

[InsufferableCynic]

I never said I support or don't support liberalism. I myself am an Agnostic and I'm generally speaking liberal- but I've not asserted anything about geography, and only asserted a ratio of less intelligent people believing in God than not.

Fair enough

He has to sell Tesla stock to liquidate money in order to purchase the company, because a lot of his money is locked up in the stock market and cannot be easily liquidated-- whether or not this is him not believing in Tesla, I don't know.

That's true, but it just moves the problem - no competent businessman would withdraw stocks from a successful company in order to pursue a bad purchase - and this isn't just a case of him thinking it was a good purchase and being mistaken (which would be forgivable as mere incompetence), he went ahead with it and sold his stock even after everyone told him this was a terrible idea.

This would be like Richard Branson selling stock in Virgin to buy a majority stake in a failing web enterprise - it's bad business.

His money being tied up in stocks doesn't excuse it - it was a stupid purchase to begin with, and short-changing himself to do it made it a monumentally stupid purchase.

The fact that he's making stupid purchases with his investors money isn't just incompetence, it's immoral.

Either he's stupid, or he doesn't see Tesla as being as reliable a stock as he leads everyone to believe.

For my own curiosity, do you hold stocks and shares? Additionally, are you aware of the concept of diversification? You're correct that the self-driving cars hype is dying down. You're also correct that other EV manufacturers are eating Tesla for lunch in terms of sales- as echoed by decreasing the purchase price for a Tesla car to meet with demand.

I mostly own index funds as they are far more reliable. I know about diversification - that doesn't mean I should buy into bad stocks on the off chance they turn out to be good - especially if those bad stocks are vastly overpriced by all estimates. And DOUBLY especially if those stocks are in companies who don't actually sell worthwhile products, and operate largely on hype - that's not just high-risk, that's a bad investment.

If you're buying Tesla stock to diversify because "it's paying out well right now" - fair enough, just be careful to get out before the house of cards collapses. But buying stocks because you think they will give a return is a far cry from believing in the company or the man behind it. You didn't present an argument that Tesla was good to buy for money, you presented an argument that Tesla was a genuinely forward-thinking and innovative company, and that's simply not the case. It's also dangerous as you will play right into Musks hands - believing the stocks can only ever go up because of claim after claim right until they all collapse under you. This is exactly what happened to a lot of crypto investors and they deserved the losses they got, since they weren't paying attention and valued hype more than the ability to deliver a tangible service.

This is correct- but increasing Petrol and Diesel prices, make a regular combustion car an interesting question. Your point about batteries is correct, but this applies to all electronics- there is a hidden cost here in resources as Lithium is not plentiful and Lithium Ion batteries have their risks as you've quite rightly pointed out later. On the contrary... Sodium-Ion Batteries. If I was purchasing a car, I'd go for a secondhand manual transmission car- preferably a decade old so I know it will last and so I know it's not completely impossible to do repairs due to computer components. You're only sort of correct on the points about the secondhand market. People still sell secondhand electronics like phones, PCs, Laptops and the like without any issues. There is nothing here that says and stamps with an iron fist that you cannot sell secondhand teslas- similarly nothing saying you can't repair them(though I don't know how difficult repairs are).

The difference is that if a phone loses 10% of it's total battery life per year, it's not a huge deal - people are realistically at home frequently, phones are not expensive to charge, and only having 6 hours of charge rather than 8 hours is not a big deal - even then, people still complain when their phone loses capacity.

A loss of 10% battery life for a car is much more significant, as it affects mileage. You have a point in that, a driver who uses their car maybe ~1 hour a day going to and from work in a small city (a 30 minute trip each way) probably has nothing to worry about, but telling someone that their 5 year old Tesla won't be able to make it the 100km to the next charging station is a big deal.

Phones are also quite cheap, comparatively. Replacing your phone because the battery only holds 60% of it's original charge is a viable proposition - replacing your car is not. If buying a second hand Tesla means replacing the battery, that essentially doubles the cost of the car, since the vast majority of it's cost and weight is in batteries.

Also, the majority of electronics available second hand are between 1 and 5 years old. Cars can last reliably up to 10 years, and many can surpass 20 years - that is significant when it comes to battery life. Comparing Electronic Cars to Electronic Computers on the used market is not a fair comparison at all.

Individual technologies when taken alone, are incredibly hard to argue against their advantages, but when taken all together as a cohesive whole with all the other technologies they compound and worsen- but this is a societal point. Economically it's good for investors.

Maybe some of us want a future where industries operate on more than just what makes money.

You're correct, and I think this particular point is fine. Not everything needs to be innovation. Apple is like 7% of the S&P500(of course Tesla isn't but it's just a point on how it doesn't have to be particularly innovative to be used).

The problem is that you claimed directly that considering Musk a scammer was unjustified because Tesla is innovative. Now you agree that Tesla isn't actually innovative.

Given that they aren't innovative, do you concede the point that Musk continually promising everything from full self driving by 2020, to money-making robotaxis that never matetrialised essentially makes him a con artist, since he has essentially convinced everyone that his non-innovative market-share-losing car company is actually worth more than the rest of the American car industry combined, based entirely on false promises?

Thanks for the information- why do you think BYDs aren't sold in the US currently? Economics issue, Regulation issue? You also asserted Tesla will plummet, and now you're asserting it will decline over time- which is it?

Tesla will have a major plummet in a year or so to correct it's price when the jig is up and everyone realises full-self-driving and the Tesla Semi are never going to happen, then it will continue to decline over time as it loses market-share to better manufacturers.

There's probably some regulation in the US that BYD still needs to pass before they can be sold. I have no doubt they will do whatever they need to do in order to pass it, and then they will start to dominate the market.

Yeah, well it's tax dollars and not many other companies are doing equivalent work- so of course government grants are gonna go to him. Its not a physics problem as the problem is expressed easily, it's an engineering problem of efficiency and effectiveness.

It's not a physics problem because it's hard to understand or can't be quantified, it's a physics problem because the issue is that there are certain physical limitations, we can't simply engineer our way around them, unless we come up with a completely new way of doing things, which I don't expect anyone to come up with in our lifetimes (let alone SpaceX)

As far as physics, yes there's no special knowledge. But as far as what types of rockets actually work, and why, and how to go about making them, etc- there's a LOT. This holds for all things of any complexity. Here's an excellent talk from Jonathon Blow on how things that are more complex, are the quickest to lose knowledge on. Regardless, you're exactly correct that you can't change the laws of physics. If it violates the laws of physics, it's a very obvious scam- but it's not it's just an engineering problem.

Rocket technology has remained fundamentally unchanged for the last 50 years. We already have some of the most efficient fuels and propulsion systems possible, developing anything further (short of RADICAL new technologies which SpaceX really isn't looking to provide) such as bending space time, we are essentially stuck dealing with relatively-good-quality fuel and a LOT of required energy to move a payload.

Rocket fuel is already quite efficient at what it does, the problem is the sheer amount of force required.

This insane amount of force requires an insane amount of energy, which is why going to space is so expensive.

Even if it WAS purely an engineering problem and not just a lack of knowledge, SpaceX seems to think that we can just work around the huge expense by implementing reusability, but that's not viable for a multitude of reasons, the most important of which being the extra requirement for nearly double the fuel load in order to power the thrusters for landing - essentially nullifying any potential gains, especially since fuel is already the heaviest part of any spacecraft (and therefore the most expensive to actually fly into space) and is not reusable. This is why the Shuttle had the wise idea to use more conventional landing approaches and gliding, rather than trying to land upright - and even with that advantage, it still turned out to not be economically viable because of how damaging re-entry is for spacecraft and long they were out of service for between flights. These are not problems SpaceX is going to fix. Their rocket landing demonstration a few years ago was admittedly a very neat trick - and it's definitely cool and interesting as a concept - but if they have convinced you that their system is therefore viable, you have been swindled.

In 2016, SpaceX's cost per launch for the Falcon 9 was $62 Million, in 2022 it was.... $67 Million

If their reusability claim was accurate, their launch costs should be going down significantly year on year.

I am not a rocket engineer, my degree is in computer science, so I could very much be wrong here, I just wish someone from NASA was here to actually comment on this thread - I'm sure they would have a lot to say about Musk and SpaceX.

The easiest way to get people to come out of the woodwork, is to be wrong on the internet
You've provided me a lot of excellent material to read through and consider.

Thanks, I'm glad you're able to engage with it rather than being a mindless pro-Musk zealot. I hope I don't come across as a mindless anti-Musk zealot.

*Shrugs* That affects him legally. I think he's a great guy for people who love speculative high-risk, high-growth stocks.

Not really. Most of the people who invest in his offerings will end up broke. Just look at what happened to those who invested in SolarCity (and what will happen to those who invested in StarLink). Investing in a high-risk company that ends up producing something of value and growing can be very rewarding, both for the investors and the company. Investing in a hype company that produces nothing can only benefit the handful of investors who get in and out quickly enough to ride the hype wave without staying long enough to see the crash. Even if they end up making money, it's a net negative for society as a whole - is making a bit of extra money really worth that level of degeneration?

Why not do high-risk investments in companies that are more likely to go somewhere - not only will the value go up and you'll get your high share prices, but you'll also be getting big dividends year on year which will make a good next egg, plus you're potentially helping your fellow man.

Investing in literally anything other than Musk enterprises is a better deal for everyone involved - except Musk. No wonder he has so much monetary value (it's all fake, though).

Yeah, you're correct in all of this- but that's capitalism for you though. Musk isn't really a scam so much as just unsustainable growth based on speculation that you need to cut the weeds to find where it leads(SO MANY Tech startups are growth-based, and unsustainable built on similar speculation). Same with Bezos. I don't support the guy, never met him personally, I support my own portfolio though

Unsustainable growth based on speculation is already a scam, but Musk goes one step further - we're not just talking about some companies that are doing honest business and might end up doing well or not depending on how the market goes, we're talking about companies which deliberately lie, overpromise and make all sorts of wild claims to jack up their share prices, convince people to invest, and then evaporate.

It's a textbook scam. This isn't just "capitalism being capitalism", this is fraud and it needs to stop.