• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair

Status
Not open for further replies.

East Lake

Member
Goalposts have gone and flown away into outer space I see. Musk wasn't talking about retroactive conditions of existence, he was evaluating worth in the present day based on employee absences. Aint nobody saying that the other paypal cofounders are essential to SpaceXs operation because without them Musk wouldn't have been able to have any paypal money in the first place because that is a stupid train of thought. And Musk certainly didn't evaluate whether his secretary was an essential element of his success over 12 years.
I'm responding to your thought experiment which isn't particularly well defined. For example what is an established business? General Electric is not the same as Tesla for a variety of reasons. If you're not going to say what a well established business is, it's perfectly reasonable for me to use a Tesla as an example of an established business that would not exist if one person wasn't there to use his own capital. And further if Elon Musk died right now, Tesla would would probably have a much more difficult time securing funding. Elon's involvement is cited by basically every person you can find when they explain their investment in the company.

Hell, even if we were to accept your thought experiment as both valid and true, all it would show is that Musk's capital (not Musk himself) used to be essential to the company's operation. But anybody could have provided that capital, it's not like there's something unique about Musk's money that makes it more meaningful than someone else's. And his will/estate likely would have continued funding the company after his death so it still doesn't resolve his proposed test.
This seems like a set of pretty huge assumptions. First, how would we have any idea what his will was, and second are we saying that anybody could have provided the capital? That sort of seems like me saying I could have been Mark Zuckerberg, and that really when you think about it there's no difference between me or Zuckerberg. Do people not make decisions? Are you assuming he's risking his own money for no reason?

But more importantly, we can put aside all those factors because now his capital isn't necessary anymore so he would still fail his own test. So you would still be forced to admit that Musk brings no value at this time based on his logical reasoning / experiment.

And you complain about the veracity of the article as if we're reciting the narcissist's prayer, "Stop it guys, there's no proof Elon said this jeez, buuuuut...... if he did say it then he didn't say anything wrong". Okay, so then why complain about whether he actually said it or not if there's nothing wrong with it. The only reason you're complaining about whether he said it or not is because the statement/story clearly has so much negative inherent worth.
The story probably doesn't have a lot of "negative inherent worth", whatever that means. It's more like, if he did say it lets keep it in context, which is the person has the option to remain employed at the same company.

Plus, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that he would treat his employees with less respect than his wife, and he certainly didn't refrain from treating his wife the same way.
Is it? How would you know?
 
Here's a fun thought experiment as well. Would Tesla or Spacex be in operation today without Musk using his own personal money to fund them? The answer is no.

Another thought experiment might be, do you have enough information in that article to know whether that event actually happened?

So, a bunch of douches wouldn't have overly expensive cars and libertarian types wouldn't have a better argument for privatizing NASA? I'm failing to see the downside here.
 

East Lake

Member
So, a bunch of douches wouldn't have overly expensive cars and libertarian types wouldn't have a better argument for privatizing NASA? I'm failing to see the downside here.
Everyone who buys a Tesla is a douche? You seem like a nice person.

Maybe NASA should prioritized rocket reusability a while ago.
 
Yeah, I live in Michigan and I was thinking ...Stabenow is up next year and Peters in 2020. If Hillary was president with the GOP blocking literally everything and we got another 2010-esque midterm in 18 and then a GOP president/more gains in 2020.....eesh if we ended up with 2 GOP senators somehow.

Granted, I think anything could happen at this point and I'm NEVER counting chickens before they hatch again, but...the one tiny little silver lining of last year is that we have the potential to flip the momentum of house/senate elections to our favor again. Maybe. Hopefully.

I wish America could just continually vote for good people but apparently we have to flop back to shit every other cycle

There are probably about half a dozen Democrats in the Senate who are up in 2018 who I regard as favorites in their races (note: not guaranteed winners) who would be toast if Clinton were president.
 
Because I do know your posting history EastLake, I'm not going to engage in the blatant obfuscation regarding the central issue because I'm not interested in that game.

Please just answer whether anyone else in Tesla/SpaceX, such as CFO Bret Johnson or random systems engineer, could pass the test that Musk has been accused of subjugating his secretary to.

If your answer is only Musk passes the two week absence test I'd love to here again how this isn't hero worship.
 

Teggy

Member
This is a pretty small point buried in this larger Trump/McConnell piece, but still:



That's fucking insane! How could anyone possibly tolerate going to those things twice in a week, much less every day?

I recall that when Ryan was being drafted for speaker, this was one of the reasons he didn't want the job.

It's a pretty sad commentary on our political system, too. Legislation is being driven by the highest bidder, pretty much. Not what the founders intended.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Someone needs to photoshop the "But her emails" road-sign onto a picture of a nuclear warhead going off.

tenor.gif
 

East Lake

Member
Because I do know your posting history EastLake, I'm not going to engage in the blatant obfuscation regarding the central issue because I'm not interested in that game.

Please just answer whether anyone else in Tesla/SpaceX, such as CFO Bret Johnson or random systems engineer, could pass the test that Musk has been accused of subjugating his secretary to.

If your answer is only Musk passes the two week absence test I'd love to here again how this isn't hero worship.
I don't think it's blatant obfuscation, and I don't think the test itself is sensible. I'm mostly disagreeing with some of the conclusions people are drawing from the story. If people were saying "if this happened that's a stupid way to evaluate an employee" I wouldn't have a problem. But you have the range from "techno libertarian maniac" to "robot" and people in the same thread wondering unironically if Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are good guys? And they might be to some extent! If you took Gates as an example on the whole he's probably done a ton more good than bad, even if he treated some of his employees unfairly. Randian psychopath probably isn't an accurate description of him.
 

Teggy

Member
People are putting donut emojis on their twitter names I guess in support of the DNC (I think? Who knows) because of this Nina Turner snippet

A spread of donuts and water had also been set up for the Our Revolution party. Turner took particular issue with the donuts and water, which she called “hand-out trinkets.”

“They tried to seduce us with donuts and water,” she said. “They’re pompous and arrogant enough to say to the people, you’re not good enough to be on our property — and, oh by the way, we’re just gonna hand you donuts and water over the barricade. That is insulting. Absolutely insulting.”

Turner decided to write to Our Revolution members about the incident because, in her view, she said, it embodied the problems that first made the DNC a source of mistrust. She recalled the brief remarks from DNC political director Amanda Brown Lierman, who told the crowd that Democrats would need their support in 2018. “That’s the problem,” said Turner. “You think people are just gonna do what you say, and you don’t have to really listen.” The DNC recalled the moment differently: Brown Lierman “expressed gratitude on behalf of the DNC,” and spoke about the party’s “shared values,” Hinojosa said.


This country is just too stupid now. Everything is stupid.
 
I don't think it's blatant obfuscation, and I don't think the test itself is sensible. I'm mostly disagreeing with some of the conclusions people are drawing from the story. If people were saying "if this happened that's a stupid way to evaluate an employee" I wouldn't have a problem. But you have the range from "techno libertarian maniac" to "robot" and people in the same thread wondering unironically if Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are good guys? And they might be to some extent! If you took Gates as an example on the whole he's probably done a ton more good than bad, even if he treated some of his employees unfairly. Randian psychopath probably isn't an accurate description of him.

So? We bad mouth all kinds of public figures who engage in bad acts/practices. Musk isn't entitled to respect or admiration, nor are gates or buffet. Being a billionaire isn't a free pass to escape public condemnation when you act immorally.

If this happened it's not just a 'bad' employee evaluation method (it's impossible to pass), it's absolutely cruel and degrading behavior to subjugate anyone to, let alone your 12 year secretary or your godamn wife. It speaks far more to who Musk is as a person than what his company does.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
ahem

That's the Honorable Nina Turner to you!

She is such an egotistical asshole.
If the group wants to be taken seriously, they need to ditch her.

As it stands, it's a joke organisation, and anyone here who supports it should feel bad.

It's amazing how her insistence on using the honorific 'honorable' is the perfect microcosm of her personality.
 

East Lake

Member
So? We bad mouth all kinds of public figures who engage in bad acts/practices. Musk isn't entitled to respect or admiration, nor are gates or buffet. Being a billionaire isn't a free pass to escape public condemnation when you act immorally.
This seems like a strawman and you don't even seem to bother responding to my points. Did I say he's entitled to a free pass? If you're going to bring up a bunch of supporting arguments about where capital comes from and who really is responsible for it, in order to support your theory that yes, this employee evaluation really bad then don't be surprised when I respond to them.

If this happened it's not just a 'bad' employee evaluation method (it's impossible to pass), it's absolutely cruel and degrading behavior to subjugate anyone to, let alone your 12 year secretary or your godamn wife. It speaks far more to who Musk is as a person than what his company does.
If being the operative word.
 
People are putting donut emojis on their twitter names I guess in support of the DNC (I think? Who knows) because of this Nina Turner snippet




This country is just too stupid now. Everything is stupid.

I can't deal with this shit. She still sounds pissy they didn't let her speak at the convention last year, although in retrospect she deserved it far more than fucking Gabbard.
 
People are putting donut emojis on their twitter names I guess in support of the DNC (I think? Who knows) because of this Nina Turner snippet




This country is just too stupid now. Everything is stupid.

OK, to be honest, Nina Turner is such a failure in the Ohio Democratic Party that she makes Ed FitzGerald and Ted Strickland look like Kennedy and LBJ. She's beyond irrelevant here.
 

royalan

Member
The attacks on Kamala Harris are not only reflective of her efficacy but motivated by their fear that she'll succeed.

Succeed at what tho...?

That's the problem with Our Revolution and almost everyone in their orbit. What they want isn't clear, and it shifts depending on who their allies are at any given moment. It's like Occupy all over again.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
The attacks on Kamala Harris are not only reflective of her efficacy but motivated by their fear that she'll succeed.

Greenwald is way off in the deep end.

It's sad really.

A spread of donuts and water had also been set up for the Our Revolution party. Turner took particular issue with the donuts and water, which she called “hand-out trinkets."

“They tried to seduce us with donuts and water,” she said. “They’re pompous and arrogant enough to say to the people, 'you’re not good enough to be on our property — and, oh by the way, we’re just gonna hand you donuts and water over the barricade.' That is insulting. Absolutely insulting.”

Greenwald can fucking defend this?
It's next level entitlement and egotism.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I can't deal with this shit. She still sounds pissy they didn't let her speak at the convention last year, although in retrospect she deserved it far more than fucking Gabbard.

Gabbard at least got elected at the state level, Turner failed out after the state-senate. All this comes off as her trying to force her way onto the national stage without getting elected.

Good lord

Doing a bit of looking around I've seen it described as a hit piece, but that said I'm not sure any amount of context will help those quotes not stink like shit.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
I don't get what Turner expected when she showed up with 60 people? Like that they would sit around a conference table? What, in her mind, was the acceptable reception?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom