Musk: "In the past, I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party. But they have become the party of division and hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican. Now, watch their dirty tricks campaign against me unfold."
You should tweet at him that you're doing as you were told.
I personally don't agree with his choice of political party and I'm worried about the Republican/Trump rabbit hole he's been going down for a while. But he's absolutely right about the dirty tricks campaign and that's exactly what we're seeing with this article. It reads like an opinion piece, but isn't labelled as one. It's pretty poor form even for The Guardian.
Is any of it factually incorrect[1]? Does it mark a change in tone for The Guardian in re. Musk or Tesla? How does it compare to articles about similar subjects?
“Hit piece” is a low-effort drive-by dismissal that reeks of news hate endemic to my friends on the other side of the aisle - and not unbiased analysis.
[1] The burden of proof is obviously on them and not you, but “They’re being meanies!” isn’t much of a rebuttal.
>Is it still a knockoff if the internals are different?
Yes, because talking about a simple electric car like the roadster (no "autopilot" etc) the most complicated thing is the frame and the suspension aka geometry.
No, because Tesla and Lotus had a contract for Lotus to supply gliders to Tesla. Tesla didn't "knock off" the Lotus Elise body. It bought them from Lotus.
> Musk’s other companies have benefited from corporate welfare schemes too. In 2015, the LA Times reckoned Musk’s companies had benefited from almost $5bn in government support. That includes SpaceX, which just landed a $2.89bn contract with Nasa and a $653m air force contract, both in 2021...
I think we should judge recipients of government subsidies by whether they leverage them into genuine technological advances, or simply treat them as a teat to suck upon. Judged by that standard, SpaceX has done much better than its "OldSpace" competitors such as Boeing or ULA, who have received significantly greater subsidies yet achieved a lot less with them. But proponents of the "SpaceX government subsidies" narrative – present article included – rarely seem to consider the issue from that angle.
And Musk is hardly the only CEO saying "we view the coming recession as more of a business opportunity than a threat, even as economically beneficial in the long-term". That way of viewing recessions – assuming a business is in overall good health – is commonly taught at business schools. But Musk is a controversial celebrity, so when he says it – instant controversy-brewing clickbait – when some other CEO of whom few have heard says the same thing, I doubt The Guardian would cover it.
> But Musk is a controversial celebrity, so when he says it – instant controversy-brewing clickbait – when some other CEO of whom few have heard says the same thing, I doubt The Guardian would cover it.
That’s how the world works. How much of a Twitter following do the CEOs of ULA and Boeing have? Do their C-suites have legions of followers who will spring to their defense when they don’t care for the tone of a news article? Boeing has a market cap 10% of Tesla’s. How do ULA and other companies compare?
15 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 38.4 ms ] threadAlso like, if he said that and if the Tesla stuff is also true, he's kind of a hypocrite and a reprobate.
You should tweet at him that you're doing as you were told.
Just look at Schwarzenegger, he's absolutely does not match the republican "standard" but even less with the democratic one, it's kind of sad.
Same with Sanders...
“Hit piece” is a low-effort drive-by dismissal that reeks of news hate endemic to my friends on the other side of the aisle - and not unbiased analysis.
[1] The burden of proof is obviously on them and not you, but “They’re being meanies!” isn’t much of a rebuttal.
Is it still a knockoff if the internals are different?
Is the Impossible Burger a knockoff of the Whopper?
Yes, because talking about a simple electric car like the roadster (no "autopilot" etc) the most complicated thing is the frame and the suspension aka geometry.
I think we should judge recipients of government subsidies by whether they leverage them into genuine technological advances, or simply treat them as a teat to suck upon. Judged by that standard, SpaceX has done much better than its "OldSpace" competitors such as Boeing or ULA, who have received significantly greater subsidies yet achieved a lot less with them. But proponents of the "SpaceX government subsidies" narrative – present article included – rarely seem to consider the issue from that angle.
And Musk is hardly the only CEO saying "we view the coming recession as more of a business opportunity than a threat, even as economically beneficial in the long-term". That way of viewing recessions – assuming a business is in overall good health – is commonly taught at business schools. But Musk is a controversial celebrity, so when he says it – instant controversy-brewing clickbait – when some other CEO of whom few have heard says the same thing, I doubt The Guardian would cover it.
That’s how the world works. How much of a Twitter following do the CEOs of ULA and Boeing have? Do their C-suites have legions of followers who will spring to their defense when they don’t care for the tone of a news article? Boeing has a market cap 10% of Tesla’s. How do ULA and other companies compare?
Are their CEOs the richest person in the world?
Have any CEOs even said something similar?