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 -
I've seen people expressing bafflement that the average midwit on Reddit might think they could run Musk's assets better than Musk if they had the same luck/unscrupulousness to have the same resources. I ask, after seeing Musk apparently fail to understand Wikipedia costs money to provide, who wouldn't?
The most charitable read here is that Musk thinks Wikipedia deserves less money, not no money, and, like, ok Elon, I think you deserve less money and if you don't care about that opinion, why should they?
I'm the resident Musk-skeptic here who called him a fraud, and expects SpaceX and Tesla to crash and burn in the middle-term. I don't think he's wrong here. The disproportion between the funding they're raising and the funding they need to run the site is massive and insane. I think someone back on Reddit mentioned it was literally running out of some guys closet for many years, until it became a Respectable Nonprofit, and they started looking for things to spend money on.
So while it doesn't literally cost no money, you can more or less round it down to it costing no money, and that's without attempting further optimizations like P2P hosting.
Yeah, decent prediction. At the very least a crash in market cap. And generally just being displaced by other car manufacturers making electric cars.
Nope. No way.
More options
Context Copy link
Can you define your motte-and-bailey for Musks crashing and burning?
I can see Tesla stock falling 70% and car production tripling. Happens all the time in stocks. Car companies usually aren’t valued that high.
SpaceX valuation I actually believe a lot more. Starlink looks like it could be one of those tech platforms (like say the cable company) that pisses off economic rents for decades.
And SpaceX really did change our rocket technology. Calling him a fraud just seems way off as there is some very real hard tech he created out of nowhere. And I don’t think you should get a victory lap if someday financial markets and their fickle nature drop his networth a large percentage.
I don't do motte-and-bailey's or at least I try not to. My terms would be:
Starship does not make it to orbit. I already have 2 bets on this, feel free to join. You can pick the timeline as long as you keep track of the bet (though preferably pick one before our hairs turn grey)
Neither company makes it through the next major recession, sans bailouts or change of ownership and massive restructuring.
To the extent that he did, I think it's way overhyped. I may be proven wrong on the fraud thing, but I fully expect there to be some voodoo accounting in SpaceX in particular, and for the changes he brought to the industry to turn out to be a mirage.
Well, now I feel you're the one bracing to do a motte-and-bailey. I'm making a serious accusation here, and would not consider victory laps if he merely has a slip on some deadlines, makes less money than expected, etc. I believe his companies run on almost raw hype, and the price of his stocks is sustained by memes. "Drop his net worth by a large percentage" sounds like exactly what would happen under those circumstances, and I don't want you to do a victory lap if he happens to get a bailout through his political connections.
Thing is I think you’ve already lost by your metrics.
Tsla created an entirely new car category. People spent $23 billion on their cars last quarter. Still retains 50% US market share. About $1 billion in fcf last quarter. Assume they continue to grow but in a mature market it’s on about $10 billion in fcf at a terminal rate. I could see that company only being worth 100-150 billion. Tsla market cap today is almost 700 billion. So yes I could see the stock collapsing 70-80%. And the meme stuff gives it a huge premium. But I still consider inventing a new car category and doing $100 billion a year in revenue as falsifying your thesis.
Starlink
https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/13/23872244/spacex-starlink-revenue-customer-base-elon-musk
I don’t disagree he overhypes but doing a billion plus in revenue last year and I’m guessing 2-3X this year in an entirely new category is a huge accomplishment. Long term I think this is his best business. And it’s already shown military capabilities. Perhaps to the extent of causing Russia to lose the Ukraine War.
SpaceX itself has shown huge price cuts versus incumbents. It’s also an enabling technology for things like Starlink and some start ups like Varda Space.
No idea if his rockets make it to orbit. I don’t believe in recessions so tough for me to bet on a recession scenerio, but looking on seekingalpha Tsla has enterprise value 15 billion below market cap which means they have net cash. Tough to go bankrupt in that situation unless you have other operational leverage (union contracts for example can do that).
The reason I asked for a motte-and-Bailey is because yes Musks sets crazy projections and I agree he usually fails though. But his underlying what he actually accomplished dwarfs any “hard tech” accomplishments I’ve seen from any other human in my lifetime.
Personally, I get some of the Musks hate. I do think he’s committed security regulation violations that would put anyone else in jail.
Come on, my metrics was Starship making it to orbit, and Tesla not bankrupting / needing a bailout in the future.
I don't think this is accurate. People have been playing around with electric cars for decades. You might say they're the first "commercially viable" electric cars, but this is exactly what I'm questioning. IMO he generated enough hype to produce these cars, but the investment does not make financial sense.
There was a leaked email where he was screaming at his coworkers to get Starhip done or Starlink won't make any real money for the company. Maybe the leak was fake (though never heard of it getting deboonked), or maybe it was just Elon cracking the whip, and they'll be fine even without Starhip, but it's something to consider.
Again, as far as accusations of fraud goes, this is where I'd paint the target. I think there's some financial juggling going on that allows him to pretend the launch price is cheaper than it is in reality. If 5 years from now he'll upload a video to X where he's driving a remote-controlled Tesla on the moon to the applause of his investors, I'll eat crow.
Well, that's lame. Starship is supposed to be the big cost-cutting thing. It's supposed to take us to the moon, and Mars. If it never makes it to orbit, surely that will be a big disappointment?
What tech of his impressed you so much?
Counterpoint: The SEC is stark raving mad. But I actually agree, I don't think he's doing anything jailworthy.
Your rhetoric and your standard for “Musks isn’t a fraud” do not seem to align.
You make accusations of huge accounting fraud. Bigger than Enron to be perfectly honest and then fall back on he has to go the moon to be proven wrong. I feel like this is the definition of motte-and-baily.
And the thing on electronic cars it’s a gigantically huge accomplishment to go from some hobbyist thing to a $200 billion a year auto manufacturer and the first privately funded auto manufacturer since basically Ford (Hyundai I believe had state funding; one could quibble that tax rebates on electronics helped him a lot). Steve Jobs didn’t even accomplish that feat with the smart phone. We had commercialized blackberries before him.
As far as investment in Tesla being justified - if you look at his actual fundraising for it then $4 billion in yearly fcf is a good investment. It’s current 200x fcf multiple seems expensive to me.
The costs cuts per kg launch to space is one of the biggest technological breakthroughs I’ve seen. Is this chart all fake numbers
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-cost-of-space-flight/
If you want to not be in Motte-Bailey land you need to establish that these numbers are fake. We had no improvements in decades and then Musks came along and prices collapsed. Same with cars you negate all his Tesla accomplishments because we had hobbyist.
I’m actually disagreeing with you on whether Musks committed criminal offenses that result in jail time. I think that is 100% yes. But he’s politically protected because he’s too important because his engineering accomplishments are the greatest thing since atleast WW2.
I think they align pretty well. For one making it back to the moon is what Musk was contracted to do. He's literally giving away tickets to the moon to youtubers, surely, if nothing else, giving away tickets for what is, charitably, a fake-it-till-you-make-it venture can be described as fraudulent?
Secondly, you're misrepresenting what I'm saying re: accounting. While I think SpaceX is not running at a profit, I believe the investors have an accurate financial picture of what is going on. I think the company is going to crash because the massive profits they are expecting in the future are not going to show up, not because there's a giant gaping hole where the profits are supposed to be right now. The accounting fraud I'm expecting to come out is it turning out that the government paid a lot more per launch than the headline numbers are saying, but it's hidden under "miscellaneous" expenditures, or something.
Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp, but the fourth one... stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get, lad: the strongest castle in these islands.
It would be impressive to set up a brand new auto manufacturer, if it wasn't at risk of falling apart when it runs out of hype. The reason there were no privately funded auto manfucaturers since basically Ford wasn't because there's some uncrackable mystery about building cars, it's because the established automakers have such a massive infrastructure, that they'd eat you for breakfast if you tried to compete with them. Musk managed to generate enough hype, to get enough money, to set up competing factories, but that doesn't mean the hype was justified. If the company can't stand on it's own two feet, and will end up needing a bailout, or getting sold at a garage sale to it's competitors, then I feel my statement about it crashing and burning is entirely justified.
Very likely manipulated to an extent that makes them effectively useless. For example the Shuttle number is derived by taking the cost of the entire program, and dividing it by the amount of launches. The SpaceX numbers, I believe, is what they charge other private companies. We have no insight into their accounting, and we don't know how much it actually costs to put a kilogram of payload to orbit with a SpaceX rocket, that would make it apples to apples with the Shuttle.
On one hand that's fair, on the other hand you know that I have no way of doing that unless I can look at their accounting. As a compromise I offer to plant my flag here, if I'm right it's bound to come up sooner or later.
I have to once again ask what is the marvel of engineering he created that has you so impressed? If his companies end up successful, I'll agree he's a brilliant executive, but from a tech point of view nothing he did seems all that impressive?
what makes it 'fraud'? lots of space companies have sold launches for rockets that have never gone up yet.
reusable rockets aren't impressive? even if you think the cost savings are all faked, the sheer volume of launches that they enable is an incredible achievement in their own right.
More options
Context Copy link
Musks does usually fail. And he sets goals that he is likely to fail. No complaint there. If you judge Musks by the goals he sets them he is a loser.
For the record I’ve shorted Tesla before and have never owned it. The goals he set are 10-100x what the rest of society is trying to achieve. He ends up doing 5x. A .200 hitter in baseball when the rest of the world is batting .03.
I don’t know if he will get to the moon. I do know no one else on earth even has a plan to go to the moon. We have sclerosis in hard tech.
I’ve said what I think he’s done that are huge advancements. All modern tech is built on the shoulders of giants to an extent so your always going to have a whataboutism that some other guy was doing something similar. But his achievements went much farther than that other guy. You’ve disagreed these are big achievements and quite frankly I think you are wrong.
And I’ve been wrong on Musks in the past. I always doubted it. Then a few years later he had all these companies humming and produce great products at lower costs and greater scale.
I do agree his hype and promotion are a big reason why he achieves things. It’s why he’s a great boss. He inspires his workers to accomplish goals they didn’t think possible. He’s no doubt a very talented engineer. His real ability is being the greatest coach we’ve ever seen at getting his teams to achieve things we don’t think we can accomplish.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is completely correct. It's not even up for debate, really: You can find the 2021-22 financial statment here and scroll to Page 4. In ONE YEAR, they (Wikimedia) received 160 million dollars in donations and in the SAME YEAR spent literally twice as much money (6.2 million dollars) in just processing those same donations than they did on internet hosting itself (what people assume the money is spent on) -- which was only 2.7 million dollars. Look at those two numbers. 160 vs 3 million. They aren't even in the same ballpark. 15 million dollars they literally just gave away in grants and 88 million dollars in salaries and 18 million on "professional services", which is odd for an organization that primarily (as far as I assume most donors are concerned) simply runs Wikipedia and literally prohibits (most) paid editing...
There's a reason why I advise people to avoid donating money to Wikipedia if at all possible. Wikipedia does not need the money, and at this point reducing the income stream is the only way they might change.
I'm not optimistic that they will, of course, but at the very least we stop rewarding irresponsible behaviour.
More options
Context Copy link
Agreed. Wikimedia is a hugely profitable business, operated on a pay-what-you-want business model. It is impossible to tell just how profitable because the published accounts don't distinguish between spending that supports the encyclopedia and community (paying the salaries of the Wikimedia software developers, subsidising conference attendance for Wikipedia editors from poor countries etc.) and spending which is actually distributing profits to the pro-establishment leftist causes that Wikipedia's stakeholders like.
Per this 80,000 hours article, fundraising for ineffective charities (or for-profits masquerading as charities) is one of the most destructive things you can legally do because it reduces donations to effective charities. The Wikimedia Foundation know that their appeals are deceptive and that their marginal grantee is ineffective, so I have no qualms about calling them an evil organisation. (This is despite the fact that, unlike most Motteposters, I do not consider the pro-establishment left to be per se evil).
The English Wikipedia community who are actually editing the encyclopedia are eccentric but not evil, and produce a pretty good encyclopedia.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link