Yeah, but to be fair this type of behavior is a real liability. Where would you draw the line of acceptability? Bill Clinton was impeached for very similar things…
Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury in front of congress.
This type of behavior can be a liability, yes. It seems Musk is attracted to highly intelligent and capable women, and the work he does is in need of as many of them as it can get, so engaging with them is pretty likely to cause conflicts with company goals.
These are people's personal lives. We don't know what went on. What is acceptable? Whatever the participants find acceptable. It seems to me though from the article that none of the women being discussed here made a thing of it themselves, this seems like friends of theirs sending text messages to a newspaper. The only one of these stories actually involving the person in question is the flight attendant one, and while I can believe that it happened, I don't buy for a second that spacex cut her hours back over it. To me, this all looks like a nothing burger that some editor thought would be a juicy story, or that someone paid to have published. "Musk dates some women, they have relationship problems." "Billionaire propositions woman for a financially rewarding sexual arrangement." Big deal.
And so on… has Musk been confirmed to meet this level of misbehavior? For some of the above examples the answer is yes, for others no. But where there’s smoke there’s fire. It seems to me like you’re trying to move the Overton window on what is deemed acceptable CEO behavior.
Maybe I am, but I don't think it's reprehensible for someone to have intimate relations with willing people. Doing other things, like firing people for ending relationships, or harassing people because they're unwilling, are reprehensible, but I don't see any real evidence of that from this article, only a single claim that is unverified and sounds outlandish.
This is helpful context for an article with a headline that seems to suggest something is wrong but simultaneously is very careful to not make an actual allegation of wrong-doing.
I only have the headline to go from, since it's behind a paywall, but headlines like this are often an indicator that the article will also be designed around a suggestive narrative and 'fitting' anecdotes from a partial perspective.
I don't care one way or the other about Musk, and without the context of a pending shareholder vote the article just seems like the WSJ equivalent of a celebrity tabloid article that's designed to catch the attention of people who don't like the guy.
It could be either, or neither.. but it's a good practice to think about the presentation and context of information you consume, and a shareholder vote is relevant to that.
The AI didn't leak anything, it's hallucinating and connecting dots that don't exist, like the the US exit of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It's putting it up there right next to the founding of SpaceX and writing as they were connected, but that's just completely ridiculous.
And the suggestion that "his Mars colony will have it"(nuclear missile defense) is not supported by the article referenced at all. The only thing it's saying is that if there were a nuclear war, Mars would be safer than the moon as the flight time makes it much easier to react to.
You're deliberately misconstruing the story. Elon was shopping for rocket boosters, and the R7 hadn't been an ICBM for decades. They were retrofitted as single-use booster rockets, and were more commonly known for taking Yuri Gagarin to space.
> The college student studying engineering met Musk in the early 2010s during her summer internship at SpaceX. Musk and the woman went out for a meal after she sent him ideas about how to improve the company, she told friends. They bonded over “Star Wars” and kissed.
Ah that explains it — I'm sure there were no engineers her own age who were into Star Wars.
I'm beginning to suspect that Spacex and Boeing are in the middle of a PR propaganda war with one another. It seems to me that someone wants a lot of bad press for each of these companies right now, I would guess each other.
25 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 69.3 ms ] threadThis type of behavior can be a liability, yes. It seems Musk is attracted to highly intelligent and capable women, and the work he does is in need of as many of them as it can get, so engaging with them is pretty likely to cause conflicts with company goals.
These are people's personal lives. We don't know what went on. What is acceptable? Whatever the participants find acceptable. It seems to me though from the article that none of the women being discussed here made a thing of it themselves, this seems like friends of theirs sending text messages to a newspaper. The only one of these stories actually involving the person in question is the flight attendant one, and while I can believe that it happened, I don't buy for a second that spacex cut her hours back over it. To me, this all looks like a nothing burger that some editor thought would be a juicy story, or that someone paid to have published. "Musk dates some women, they have relationship problems." "Billionaire propositions woman for a financially rewarding sexual arrangement." Big deal.
CNN CEO: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2022/02/02/j...
NBCUniversal CEO: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/24/media/jeff-shell-sexual-haras...
And so on… has Musk been confirmed to meet this level of misbehavior? For some of the above examples the answer is yes, for others no. But where there’s smoke there’s fire. It seems to me like you’re trying to move the Overton window on what is deemed acceptable CEO behavior.
I only have the headline to go from, since it's behind a paywall, but headlines like this are often an indicator that the article will also be designed around a suggestive narrative and 'fitting' anecdotes from a partial perspective.
I don't care one way or the other about Musk, and without the context of a pending shareholder vote the article just seems like the WSJ equivalent of a celebrity tabloid article that's designed to catch the attention of people who don't like the guy.
It could be either, or neither.. but it's a good practice to think about the presentation and context of information you consume, and a shareholder vote is relevant to that.
What's the author's understating of boundaries where this is still blurred?
* identify you across devices;
* actively scan your device for identification;
* create profiles about you;
* combine data to measure how much revenue you generate for them even before paying...
...blurs a boundary with requiring to pay them for the pleasure of doing to.
Who's paying, and how?
I'd [] the above, but even the expanded cookie banner doesn't have a canonical url to these demands.
Ah that explains it — I'm sure there were no engineers her own age who were into Star Wars.