This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So it looks like Elon Musk officially owns all of Twitter now, and he's already fired the CEO, CFO, and policy chief. I don't have any strong opinions on this, but does anyone want to stake some predictions?
Musk presents himself as a free speech absolutist, which is encouraging to me, but I'd be concerned about the conflict of interest. I anticipate there will be some accusations of throttling unfavorable opinions about either him or his companies (RIP rogue driverless Tesla videos). I think the tension between unrestricted speech and a quality user experience will continue to be a problem, as I can't identify an obvious solution. Blue checkmarks are making hilariously cataclysmic remarks but I predict Twitter will remain a favored haven for the journalist class.
My opinion of Musk is very low, I think he's essentially a fraud, so I don't have much hopes for his ability to improve Twitter.
Even if he does end up being a competent leader, I worry he will simply be unable to do much. It turns out Dorsey was a libertarian-leaning idealist all along, and he was unable to push his own company in that direction, and had to wait until retirement to actually start making idealistic noises again. If Musk does do anything, we're going to see another round of "No Clicks For Hate" or that WSJ article about Youtube that triggered the Adpocalypse.
I think the best case scenario we can realistically hope for is that he drives Twitter into the ground.
Cost to launch a payload into space:
Space shuttle (USA): $54k/kg
Ariane 5 (Eurozone): $9.1k/kg
Proton (Russian): $4.3k/kg
Falcon 9 (Musk): $2.7k/kg.
Falcon Heavy (Musk): $1.4k/kg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition
What a fraud. He definitely lacks the ability to execute.
This seems to be comparing the total cost of the space shuttle program to the advertised cost of the Falcon 9. Is there an actual apples-to-apples comparison somewhere, with a breakdown of how the figures were arrived at?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is genuinely one of the most confusing takes to me, and I kind of assume it is bordering on a social contagion.
A fraud in what way? I have a Tesla model Y. It is by far the best car I’ve ever driven, and I’ve driven many many cars that are substantially more expensive than this one.
I have a starlink and use it. It works, and when compared to its competitors, absolutely embarrassed them. They aren’t competitors.
SpaceX is clearly a real company which absolutely revolutionized space launches, and has eviscerated anybody who could reasonably claim to be a competitor. It isn’t even close.
As far as self driving: yeah actually my model Y does self drive, and I use it every single day. The “well actually it’s not self driving and it crashes into pedestrians!” YouTube hoaxes are 100% of the time people using autopilot as if it were self driving. It isn’t, and those people shouldn’t be doing that.
I just absolutely fail to see how anything Elon is doing is “fraudulent” especially since I use some of the products and they are almost indistinguishable from magic.
Well yes. But he promises turbo bonkers hypermagic with rainbow-shitting unicorns, and repeatedly swears it'll be released 2-5 years faster than turns out to be the case. And he totally milks his Iron Man/Weirdo Autistic Visionary/Space Messiah image for what are sometimes obviously small-minded purposes (and also to maintain absurd PE ratios). So he's a fraud relative to his own hyperbolic marketing, I guess?
Anyway, people just love to hate those who seem to have much more than them.
More subtly, some people here are blackpilled in a particular manner that prompts them to deny that in the current world (which they believe to be on net irredeemable) true doers and dreamers may achieve such abnormal prominence.
For my part, I have no problem accepting that Musk is exactly who he claims to be (but also not what he not-unsuccessfully attempts to hint at being). He's a strong, flawed man in the spirit of the greatest American capitalist champions – Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Hughes... Fate strikes the strong man in the end. But it'll be an interesting ride.
More options
Context Copy link
I suppose sharing your opinion over the internet, and backing it up with arguments is how social contagion works, so I guess you're right on this one.
In the way he presents himself as someone he's not, and promises things he can't deliver.
That's cool. I never drove one, and I'm not into cars, so I can't judge, but I find it extremely unlikely it's so good that it justifies valuing the company more than all other auto manufacturers combined.
How well does it compare to a mid-range fibre-optic connection?
No it hasn't. The Falcon 9 is ok, but not mind blowing. The stuff that would be impressive is still just a promise that hasn't materialized.
Ok, hold up. They're hoaxes, because they're using a product called "Full Self Driving" as if it were capable fully driving he car by itself? You really don't see that as a tiny bit fraudulent?
Also Elon was promising us robotaxis by now. And whatever happened to the Tesla Truck that was supposed to beat rail on costs in a convoy scenario. How doesthe Hyperloop make any goddamn sense at all, and why did he lie about inventing it?
deleted
More options
Context Copy link
Wasn't there also something called "Full Self-Driving" way back in 2017?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Then I guess I'll have to be optimistic based on Musk's track record with products I've personally witnessed:
Tesla really changed the game for electric cars. They're fast, powerful, cool, techy. People want them. At least in my PNW costal city, you see them everywhere now.
Starlink allows a friend to live in the middle of nowhere and still remote-desktop to work seamlessly. He reports that even online multiplayer gaming is doable with satellite internet.
SpaceX developed into an (I think, as a layman) impressive technology, doing things that previously weren't possible.
Like, I look around and really do see the Teslas on the street. I really do see the Starlink satellites in the sky. I've watched SpaceX launches. Admittedly, I haven't paid any attention to the financials, so maybe it's all going to come crashing down, but people have been saying that for years, and they're still going strong.
I'm a dilettante myself (went Applied Math, haven't even been to an AIAA conference in a decade), but it doesn't take a lot of knowledge to be impressed. Manned orbital launches have been accomplished by Russia, major US consortiums (e.g. Mercury was accomplished by like 5 companies working with 3 government agencies), China ... and SpaceX. Their workhorse rocket isn't quite "doing things that previously weren't possible" (unless you count the longest string of launches without a failure in history), but it is doing things that weren't possible economically, and it was created for a tenth the cost that NASA would have taken to develop it, according to reports from NASA. In each of the first three quarters of this year, the "most orbital launches" competition has ended up with SpaceX in 1st place, China in 2nd, and "everybody else in the entire world put together" in 3rd. They're on track to soon have more satellites in orbit than the rest of the world (including China, this time) put together. Their biggest problem right now is that their current R&D project is so ambitious that, despite a vehicle like Starship being a clear necessity for any significant exploitation or human exploration of space, none of their competitors would even attempt anything like it.
About the only thing I wouldn't expect a layman to be at all aware of is just how long the list is of other space industry outsiders trying to do what Musk did and failing. This isn't "oh, he just saw an opportunity and grabbed it"; the "smart" money in the beginning would have been split between "Blue Origin will beat him to the punch and make SpaceX irrelevant" and "the outsiders will all fail, again; yes this actually is rocket science".
Neither has anyone else who isn't a major private investor; they've been keeping details under tight wraps. Best guess seems to be that they're raking in profit on Falcon 9 but can't really expand that market much more, and that they're still losing money on Starlink. The big question is whether Starlink goes into the black as soon as they're done with the build out costs, or when their number of subscribers increases past some point, or not until they have a fully-successful Starship cutting down on constellation maintenance costs. Even if the latter isn't the case, the cost of Starship development is another open question. If there's a bigger downturn and they have to tighten their belts and Starship ends up getting delayed a decade because Musk burned "I need to finance tens of billions of dollars fast" credibility on Twitter of all things I'm going to be grossly disappointed.
The other question is how much of this is Musk's track record. I suspect he'd have failed before Falcon 9 if not for Gwynne Shotwell and Tom Mueller, but what the hell do I know (archive link because apparently when you're shut down that hard you go back and "protect" your tweets).
More options
Context Copy link
Musk's product range from working-I-suppose-but-wildly-overhyped to "I am confident we will have working in two years (or two years more... or two years more... or two years more...) .
And likewise I might very well be wrong, and Musk is going to change the world, but I'm worried about a lot of contrarians I sympathize with staking their reputation on him.
I could agree that Musk has many times over-promised and under-delivered, but there's no way I can turn that into "Musk is a fraud." There's far too many actual delivered, working products for that to be anywhere close to true.
The only universe where "Musk is a fraud" would make sense is if Musk is pure front-man to a secret behind-the-scenes mastermind. He's not even a great front-man though, his presentations are often awkward and primarily engaging because of the products involved.
More options
Context Copy link
Man, why should you care how hyped they are? Objectively I think some might actually be underhyped, but regardless, why judge accomplishments by whether you think that people under- or overestimate them? Some of these products are enormously important.
My impression is his reputation is based on the hype around his products, rather than their actual value.
For example, a lot of people are pointing to SpaceX's cost reduction, but from what I'm reading that relies on overestimating the Space Shuttle launch costs, and some creative accounting on SpaceX's side. Take out the hype, and it seems you're left with some decent rockets, that haven't revolutionized anything.
OK, look, reputation is ALWAYS based on hype rather than based on actual value. That's kind of by definition how hype and reputation work--while they may have slightly different meanings, both refer to social standing rather than actual accomplishments. So having a "reputation based on hype around his products, rather than their actual value" is just usually true of all people in general.
But sorry for being overly literal, I get that what you're saying is that the hype outpaces the actual products. I don't really agree--my understanding is that both Tesla and SpaceX really have made some pretty major advancements--but I don't know enough to argue the point. The point I was making is that if we're trying to judge a man, we should judge his accomplishments, not judge whether his accomplishments match the hype around them. It's just SO MUCH more productive to argue about whether Edison invented the lightbulb than to argue about whether he deserves 1 million or 100,000 fans for his accomplishments.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's at least important to be familiar with "Elon time" if you're planning to be a consumer of his upcoming products.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The new orbital payload economics just from Falcon 9 have already changed the world. Starship would represent a revolution.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He had many opportunities to take a principled stand against censorship and failed. He oversaw the bannings of many accounts.
He was constrained by advertisers and by his board. He didn't control the company like Zuckerberg controls Facebook.
That's not actually particularly relevant. If you don't uphold your principles in the face of "my business might suffer" or "I might get fired", then they aren't actually principles. So, Jack Dorsey may have made an understandable decision that many would make in his shoes... but in so doing, he gave up any claim to bring a principled believer in free speech.
Martyring yourself doesn't do anyone any favors. If getting fired compromises your ability to implement your principle, then you should avoid getting fired and work to optimize the implementation of your principle instead.
And note that Jack Dorsey was instrumental in persuading Elon to buy Twitter in the first place.
I like how Scott phrased it in his WebM post (actually not a WebM post but stealth bombing another topic, as he is wont to do): "Everyone has to make their own compromise between morally-pure-but-useless and tainted-but-useful".
On the other hand, consider that everyone else is doing that same rationalization in their head. How does that work in the end? Whoever manages to rationalize away the most principles tends to win the competition and rule the world. That's the way Moloch works.
More options
Context Copy link
I wholeheartedly disagree. A principle is that which must not be violated, no matter the cost. If you compromise your principles to advance them, then they weren't actually your principles at all, simply your preferred outcome.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes that's what I'm saying, but my theory isn't that he didn't want to, but because he had some sort of knife on the throat.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link