It isn't baffling at all. It was entirely predictable by looking at his past behavior. The thai cave diver incident and Elon's slander. The hyperloop failure. The continual empty promises of FSD for tesla. His attempts to manipulate the market thru his posts, which the SEC slapped his write for.
Why would Elon take a first-principles approach, instead of the selfish, short-sighted approach of an insecure, lonely, overbearing billionaire with too much money and too many adoring fans?
This take on the Hyperloop thing is totally trumped-up.
There is no evidence it was meant to kill off new railway projects, nor any evidence that it did.
Elon was just paraphrased in a book about how he thought the particular California HSR project was a boondoggle (a view shared by many) and he published an idea for how to do it better.
Hyperloop wasn't an idea for "how to do it better" because Hyperloop cannot do "it" at all. The nameplate capacity of Hyperloop, granting all of Musk's fantasy parameters, is in the low thousands of passengers per day. High speed rail can land a thousand people every minute.
Nit pick: About Japan's busiest high-speed rail line (Tokaido Shinkansen), Wiki says:
At peak times, the line carries up to 16 trains per hour in each direction with 16 cars each (1,323-seat capacity and occasionally additional standing passengers) with a minimum headway of three minutes between trains.
Not exactly "a thousand people every minute", but I agree with the jist of your post. High speed rail has orders of magnitude higher capacity.
Excellent point. Shinjuku station in Tokyo is the busiest train station in the world by passengers, and it does not have high speed rail ("shinkansen").
Isn't there a pretty solid argument to be made that hyperloop (and especially what Boring Company is actually building) is so dumb that it shouldn't seriously be treated as a good faith solution and other motivations should be considered?
I don't agree. The whole Hyperloop thing was not an alternative implementation it was a pitch for a completely different society altogether. Instead of moving everyone in California at a reasonable price, let's have a giant infrastructure that is at least as large and disruptive as rail but only serves a tiny slice of the ultra-rich, everyone else has to take a car.
It wasn't "how to do it better" it was an attempt to reframe the entire question of whether medium-distance mass transportation should exist.
I don’t know where you’re getting this from. The idea has nothing to do with only serving “a tiny slice of the ultra rich”. You’re adding all this dramatic extra stuff about society and reframing.
With his other failures, he's gotten away with it since he always had the "genius at work" aura, and investors (and I guess people in general) just subscribed to the idea that these endeavors were works in progress. Now the vail has been lifted for all to see, and some of what made him attractive to investors is fading away
IMHO you can be a genius in a few areas of expertise but you cannot be a genius at everything. There is no such thing as a person who is a genius at everything so every person we call a genius is actually a genius at a few things at most and not all things.
That's great for you, congrats. But that was in like year 20 of Elon Musk being a notorious jackass. Someone who shorted Tesla early on based on Musk being a charlatan would have got their face ripped off.
Why would Elon take a first-principles approach, instead of the selfish, short-sighted approach of an insecure, lonely, overbearing billionaire with too much money and too many adoring fans?