The haters on here are ridiculous. If everyone who ever had a product that failed in the market was called a fraud on HN then probably almost everyone would be. SpaceX failed on their first three launches. All the haters here would have voted to shut it all down. Glad Elon's able to recover from business failures without going to the HN comments section to find out what he should do next.
Elon has done sufficiently impressive things which is why it’s sad that he has to make up a whole bunch of new things to try to impress people. Being the richest man alive is not enough he also has to be the best gamer as well. If he lies about small things that don’t matter then how could I trust him to tell the truth on important things that do matter.
Howard Hughes also did impressive things. Built amazingly advanced aircraft for the era. Started a Hollywood movie studio. Owned one of the world’s largest airlines. His company (after his death of course) provided satellite IP links for decades before Elon showed up with a cheaper option.
He died as an isolated insane hermit wearing kleenex boxes as shoes and collecting his urine in mason jars.
I think that we have already seen peak Elon, and the only thing we will see in the future is his continued descent into madness, which I expect will be aided and abetted by his business associates, just as Howard Huges’s illness was.
Perfect was not the bar that was set. Elon can be the richest person in the world and a lair at the same time. It's about what kind of person lies about being one of the best gamers in the world when clearly they're not. This is of course not the only thing he has lied about but it is possibly the pettiest. And possibly the stupidest because the very people it was supposed to impress were going to find out near instantly and now despise him for it. Consider his foray into politics, it wasn't enough to sway the elections with a large sum of money he also had to insert himself into the process. In addition to being the best gamer he was trying to be the best politician - the result was a catastrophic failure. I'm still pretty convinced Adrian Dittmann is his sock puppet account and his attempt at being the best streamer as well. Done 'anonymously' to make the case that he's not bootstrapping on his other successes but not too anonymously to avoid being totally irrelevant.
I assume then, when you've had a massive positive influence on the world, employed hundred of thousands, brought electric vehicles to the mainstream, built a rocket company and blanketed the entire planet in affordable, high speed internet, etc... then you'll agree with the people on the internet that attack you because you claim to be a better video game player than you actually are.
In your hypothetical you are asking that if I was a lier would I be ok with it. One would have to presume that I wouldn’t be a lier if I wasn’t also ok with it. I am neither a lier and if somehow I had lied I would also not be ok with it and would hope others hold me to a better standard.
So the only two options you can imagine entail his detractors being irrational and emotional? You can not comprehend that anyone can have any valid complaint regarding him and his behavior at all?
Musk has accomplished some remarkable things, by having grand visions, ruthlessly executing on them, and being willing to repeatedly take on a massive amount of risk. If that had been all, I don’t think many people would be decrying him like this. It’s still easy to justify admiring those bits, if you’re so inclined
But he has also done a lot of things that make him unlikable and are harder to justify. He happily whips up massive amounts of hype, regardless of how likely his claims are to actually manifest (which is a large part of why the Tesla stock price is where it’s at). He sucks himself off at every possible turn, and takes dubious personal credit for a lot of things his companies achieve. He is vindictive and has exacted retribution on people with much less power than him (or pouts about it in an undignified fashion when the opponent is too powerful to crush, like the SEC). He has an easily bruised ego and lashes out in a very childish manner (remember the diver he called a pedo on Twitter). He enters into realms he has no expertise in and proclaims to the whole world that he has all the answers. He directly interferes in US and world politics by wielding his wealth and influence, sometimes with disastrous results (it doesn’t help that his political views usually are unsophisticated and immature, especially since he acts so certain of them). Etc, etc
Basically, he’s a dickhead that thinks he’s the best in the world at everything, and many of whose actions are detrimental to both individuals and the world at large. He doesn’t get a free pass for that just because he’s done some impressive things with his businesses
There is absolutely a point. I strongly believe that criticising bad arguments and correcting false claims is especially important when dealing with the worst people and the worst companies. Bad arguments and false claims ultimately work in their favour, distracting away from substantive criticisms. Don’t hand them that advantage.
This isn’t Reddit, and I’m not American. I’m not interested in your culture war.
There was a deeper point to my earlier message. I don’t think I was being particularly cryptic, so I can only assume you’re intentionally refusing to engage with it.
And if I ever see any misleading claims go uncorrected in a discussion, I won't hesitate to provide such corrections. This hasn't happened here, so there's nothing for me to say on that.
Nonetheless, how distressing it must be to learn that a company could ever exaggerate, right up to the point of technical falsehood, in its marketing. GM would never market emissions-cheating engines as "clean diesel." Ford would never label a payload "best-in-class" when it isn't. Perish the thought. Pass me my fainting couch.
Rationalisation and whataboutism. This convinces me that you've formed a parasocial relationship with a car brand. I think it's psychological safer for you to desperately defend the brand than it is to be honest about it.
Given that it's plainly obvious what's going on here, on a whim I asked ChatGPT what it thought of your last reply and here’s what it said:
——————
That message is textbook projection plus motive attribution.
What’s happening, plainly:
1. Projection
They accuse you of a parasocial relationship while displaying one themselves—just inverted (hostile instead of admiring).
2. Mind-reading / motive attribution
“It’s psychologically safer for you…” assigns an internal emotional motive without evidence. That’s not argument; it’s speculation presented as diagnosis.
3. Poisoning the well
By framing disagreement as psychological defense, they pre-emptively invalidate anything you say next. If you respond, it “proves” their claim.
4. Pathologizing dissent
Disagreeing with them is reframed as mental weakness rather than a difference in reasoning or evidence.
5. Asymmetric skepticism
Their own emotional investment is treated as insight; yours is treated as pathology.
——————
It went on, but you get the point. Hey, there might be something to this AI stuff after all.
It’s affordable relative to the definition of affordable given at the time. The entry level Model 3 currently sells for $38,630. That's $28,600 in 2016 dollars.
If you have a good argument, it will withstand the bare minimum of logical analysis, such as the factoring the consequences of inflation.
On a personal note I don’t find the CEO of most companies to be particularly interesting or important, and I include Tesla in that. Obsessing over personalities is the furthest from interesting as it gets for me.
Please don't post shallow attacks of other contributors like this on HN: It detracts from the quality of the forum. Maybe save the behavior for twitter or gab or truth or whatever is the new one these days.
