Why is Linus talking about Elon Musk on every Wan show?

[BaidDSB]

Like every Wan show for 2-4 weeks now?

 

Did Elon shit on Linus?

[SupaKomputa]

because he's the edison of today.

[SolarNova]

Hate boner

 

i jest ofc

[Heliian]

Can you provide some examples?  I haven't been watching the wan. 

 

10 minutes ago, SupaKomputa said:

edison of today.

Give me a break, the guy is good at shuffling money and conning investors.  I don't think he invented a single thing.  

 

He does have cult of personality though. 

 

 

[TetraSky]

Because he talked about Elon once. Elon fans came out of the woodwork and attacked Linus. Linus defended his position with facts. Elon fans can't be reasoned with and believe Teslas are the best cars ever. Linus still tries... Rinse and repeat.
The only way out of it is to simply refuse to acknowledge any opinions someone might have, no matter how wrong they might be.

[SupaKomputa]

19 minutes ago, Heliian said:

I don't think he invented a single thing.

You don't have to actually invent anything by yourself, in this day of age, the inventor usually don't make it to the press.

Paypal, Tesla, SpaceX are groundbreaking companies FOUNDED by him.

Without the out of the box thinking, all of that wont make it, you got to give the man a credit.

[harryk]

24 minutes ago, SupaKomputa said:

You don't have to actually invent anything by yourself, in this day of age, the inventor usually don't make it to the press.

Paypal, Tesla, SpaceX are groundbreaking companies FOUNDED by him.

Without the out of the box thinking, all of that wont make it, you got to give the man a credit.

I'll give Musk credit for leading successful companies, but do not compare him to Edison who is several levels above Musk in many regards. Musk is arguably good at bringing together other skilled people and creating environments for them to be successful. But don't fool yourself, Musk himself is not an engineer or inventor. He may have novel ideas, but so do children. The difference is Musk has enough money to pay people to try to make his ideas reality.

 

Also to set the record straight:

• Musk did not found PayPal. He is not even listed as a co-founder. Musk created a small competing website which merged during PayPal's early days. Then Musk was ousted before PayPal boomed in success. Musk benefitted from PayPal because he held a significant number of shares when the company released its IPO.
• Musk did not found Tesla Motors. He bought his way in during series A funding. Tesla has become successful under Musk's leadership and he deserves credit for that.
• Musk did found SpaceX. He can have credit for this one, and for leading it to success. 

[idkwhat]

57 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Because he talked about Elon once. Elon fans came out of the woodwork and attacked Linus. Linus defended his position with facts. Elon fans can't be reasoned with and believe Teslas are the best cars ever. Linus still tries... Rinse and repeat.
The only way out of it is to simply refuse to acknowledge any opinions someone might have, no matter how wrong they might be.

I mean that's not really fair, right? One of the main reasons Elon keeps getting brought up is Linus is having to clarify and/or retract his positions from the previous week. 

[Zodiark1593]

*shrugs*

 

Elon has done some really cool things, and he’s done some pretty shitty things. 
 

So long as the entire show doesn’t revolve around the guy, I kind of give zero Fs. 

[Shreyas1]

Whether you like him or not, he is pretty big in the tech space and is making a lot of moves recently (Twitter, mainly). Makes sense for him to appear on a tech news based podcast 

 

 

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, harryk said:

• Musk did not found PayPal. He is not even listed as a co-founder. Musk created a small competing website which merged during PayPal's early days. Then Musk was ousted before PayPal boomed in success. Musk benefitted from PayPal because he held a significant number of shares when the company released its IPO.

I feel like you misunderstood what happened, or are wilfully trying to mislead people.

Elon and one of his partners founded the company X.com. X.com merged with a company called Confinity. Those two companies together later changed name to PayPal.

The company Elon founded merged with another company and those two companies together formed PayPal. It would be very easy to read your post and get the impression that PayPal just bought the company Elon has founded, which was not the case. They merged, and created PayPal.

 

My guess is that Elon is not listed as "founder" on the Wikipedia page because Confinity was founded slightly before X.com, and only the people who founded confinity are listed as founders. 

 

Not sure why you are calling x.com a "small competitor" to Confinity either. First of all, it was not a competitor. The two companies were doing different things. One was an online bank, and the other one was online money transfers.

Secondly, I can't find any estimates of how big the companies were at the time of the merger, but generally when two companies merge, it is because they are roughly the same size. Otherwise it's not a merged, it's an acquisition. Confinity did not acquire X.com, nor did X.com acquire Confinity.

 

Edit: Confinity had a program for the Palm Pilot which was called PayPal. A while after X.com and Confinity had merged, they decided to call the entire company "PayPal", because people assumed X.com was something to do with porn.

A lot of the "PayPal" features we now know today originated from X.com however. For example using an email address to send money to someone else. The original "PayPal" program for the Palm does not at all resemble the "PayPal" we know today. 

I guess you could say that Confinity invented "PayPal", but they mostly invented the name, and the functions we today associate with PayPal were mostly invented to X.Com, which was founded by Elon.

 

 

 

  

7 hours ago, harryk said:

But don't fool yourself, Musk himself is not an engineer or inventor. He may have novel ideas, but so do children. The difference is Musk has enough money to pay people to try to make his ideas reality.

He is pretty highly educated though. He got two bachelors degrees. One in physics and one in economics. He is a very smart person.

But if people think that he is personally developing space rockets and cars then yeah, those people are wrong. But I mean, no single person are inventing those things. Elon is part of the management for those people.

Same as with for example Lisa Su. 

[gergy008]

7 hours ago, SupaKomputa said:

You don't have to actually invent anything by yourself, in this day of age, the inventor usually don't make it to the press.

Paypal, Tesla, SpaceX are groundbreaking companies FOUNDED by him.

Without the out of the box thinking, all of that wont make it, you got to give the man a credit.

I mean don't tell linus that he founded tesla because that was like 30 minutes of content on it's own

[WhitetailAni]

8 hours ago, Heliian said:

I don't think he invented a single thing.  

Edison didn't really invent the lightbulb either, most of the work was done by other people. He mostly just bought the patents.

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, FakeKGB said:

Edison didn't really invent the lightbulb either, most of the work was done by other people. He mostly just bought the patents.

I feel like hating on Edison has become a meme. One of those things people like to go "ackchually" about to seem smart.

Yes, Edison did not invent the incandescent light bulb. He did however invent the first practical version of it by pooling together ideas and knowledge from other people. 

The light bulbs before Edison were for example made of platinum and thus were extremely expensive, or in other cases only lasted like 10 hours before breaking.

Edison's light bulb on the other hand, was relatively cheap and lasted well above 1000 hours.

 

Edison also invented and innovative on a ton of other things. I have no idea how people think calling someone an "Edison" is an insult, yet people seem to use it that way.

[danomicar]

Like him or not, Elon is a super important public figure and has been doing a lot of different interesting stuff lately.

[harryk]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I feel like you misunderstood what happened, or are wilfully trying to mislead people.

Elon and one of his partners founded the company X.com. X.com merged with a company called Confinity. Those two companies together later changed name to PayPal.

The company Elon founded merged with another company and those two companies together formed PayPal. It would be very easy to read your post and get the impression that PayPal just bought the company Elon has founded, which was not the case. They merged, and created PayPal.

You are correct. I misread/misunderstood the explanation on Wikipedia.

[wanderingfool2]

On 4/23/2022 at 7:36 AM, TetraSky said:

Because he talked about Elon once. Elon fans came out of the woodwork and attacked Linus. Linus defended his position with facts. Elon fans can't be reasoned with and believe Teslas are the best cars ever. Linus still tries... Rinse and repeat.
The only way out of it is to simply refuse to acknowledge any opinions someone might have, no matter how wrong they might be.

Blindly hating is just as bad as those who blindly follow.

 

A more correct statement would be, Linus talked about Elon and gave some poor examples where some examples were half-truths, some were false, and some that has some truth to it [Classical Linus kind of rant, where he goes off assumptions without knowing if what is talking about is actually grounded in truth].  He was correct only partially (and even on the second WAN show, a decent amount was a bit of walking back).  It was clear that whoever wrote the prep work for that though still was in a hating mind-set because he went on to say more wrong things [and Luke to his credit realized the corrected statements weren't exactly right either].

 

From there Linus had to recant more of his this past WAN show used against Elon.

 

You say Elon fans can't be reasoned with but labeling people into those categories is just toxic.  Linus didn't defend his position with "facts"; it took him 2 WAN show attempts (and recanting on previous statements).

 

The biggest thing is his family life stuff, then again to each their own for family life principles.  (Specifically the children stuff, not the divorce stuff).  The only other thing would be the buying over 5% of Twitter stock...but then again, I'm withholding judgement until more details are released in the court case; as I suspect his purchase of the stock may have occurred prior to the disclosure date based on the volume...at which point it's not to the extreme that Linus has said...also one individual simply doesn't buy 5% of a stock by themselves.  With financing and other stuff, there would have been many people there...many of whom would warn that it could mean a financial penalty/lawsuits.

 

The other stuff that was mentioned was either recanted or I think is still doesn't quite hold true to what Linus was talking about.

 

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Edison also invented and innovative on a ton of other things. I have no idea how people think calling someone an "Edison" is an insult, yet people seem to use it that way.

I think a major problem is that people don't realize how much of an ability it takes to surround yourself with the right people; and the ability to understand enough of what is going on to make well informed choices.  An CEO who can rattle off terms, and make impressive speeches means nothing if all he's ever done is gotten himself an MBA and plays politics.

 

The statements that people like Linus and others also fail to see (and I think a reason why he succeeds) is when he says things like the following (paraphrasing because I can't find the quote...it was when launching the first dragon capsule with people in it).

 [Paraphrase] If things go wrong it is on me.  It means I have failed not the team, I take the full blame.  If it's successful it's the hard work of the SpaceX employees who made this achievement real [/Paraphrase]

 

13 hours ago, harryk said:

Musk did not found Tesla Motors. He bought his way in during series A funding. Tesla has become successful under Musk's leadership and he deserves credit for that.

It really depends on what you think of as a founder.  Musk from what I can tell was the 4th employee and brought in the 5th employee.  They hadn't even gotten to the stage of naming a CEO...so given the funding and the fact they only had from what I seen create the name and hired a single person, I would argue he should be considered the founder (given how much he also contributed to designing the first product)

[RejZoR]

14 hours ago, harryk said:

I'll give Musk credit for leading successful companies, but do not compare him to Edison who is several levels above Musk in many regards. Musk is arguably good at bringing together other skilled people and creating environments for them to be successful. But don't fool yourself, Musk himself is not an engineer or inventor. He may have novel ideas, but so do children. The difference is Musk has enough money to pay people to try to make his ideas reality.

 

Also to set the record straight:

• Musk did not found PayPal. He is not even listed as a co-founder. Musk created a small competing website which merged during PayPal's early days. Then Musk was ousted before PayPal boomed in success. Musk benefitted from PayPal because he held a significant number of shares when the company released its IPO.
• Musk did not found Tesla Motors. He bought his way in during series A funding. Tesla has become successful under Musk's leadership and he deserves credit for that.
• Musk did found SpaceX. He can have credit for this one, and for leading it to success. 

SpaceX's success is debatable imo. They were promising miraculous cheap flights with reusable rockets just for the whole thing to turn into an extortionist scheme thrown at NASA (since they stopped using Space Shuttles and particularly now that Russian ties have been severed due to their invasion of Ukraine). SpaceX started charging costs way higher than initially promised and now that Russia's Soyuz rockets are basically out of the picture, they can basically charge whatever if NASA wants to send anything into space. It's hardly SpaceX's innovation as much as it's just pure stupid luck of dumb circumstances.

 

And SpaceX stuff is filled with Elons idiocies like his totally overblown and way too optimistic ideas of Mars colonization, then again all his ideas are mostly like this. Dumb and overenthusiastic filled with absolute nonsense. And if you look his shit in the past, he's like this everywhere, not just in SpaceX. Tesla is full of overpromising and underdelivering, same for Hyperloop which is a total failure and an absolute joke. And I thought he had any serious part in PayPal just to learn later he was just in for the ride at the right time, but he didn't actually contributed ANYTHING to PayPal's success. He was just there at the right time.

 

Only thing I can give him credit for is how he somehow manages to weasel his way through everything with all the bullshit he says and keeps saying. It takes either incredible skill to say so much bullshit and still be successful or he just has so much dumb luck and so many literally cultist followers who excuse his bullshit and silence anyone who opposes his bullshit. Which I have also seen how armadas of Elon fanboys attack people who disagree and silence them into submission. So, there's that too...

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

They were promising miraculous cheap flights with reusable rockets just for the whole thing to turn into an extortionist scheme thrown at NASA (since they stopped using Space Shuttles and particularly now that Russian ties have been severed due to their invasion of Ukraine)

Russian Engines have been on the chopping block since like 2014 (the first invasion actually).  Gov't tried funding replacements, which is where SpaceX, ULA, Boeing, Blue Origin all came in.

 

Try actually showing that it's extortionist instead of just babbling about how they are extortionists.  They literally bid for contracts, and Boeing and SpaceX won the bids to build the replacement.  Boeing was $90 million per seat, and SpaceX was $55 million per seat.  The going rate for Russia was $90 million per seat.

 

Not really extortionist numbers really...but even looking at the most recent extension of the contract by SpaceX ($900 millions, 3 missions)...still works out to $75 million a seat, but I think this pricing was built into the original contract; but it shouldn't have been needed had Boeing's Starliner actually worked. 

 

Oh and the Space Shuttle, Boeing was tasked to refit the SLS (already 4 years behind schedule and overbudget).  They've spent $23 billion on the rocket.  That's enough to fund SpaceX ISS missions for like 10 years.

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

And SpaceX stuff is filled with Elons idiocies like his totally overblown and way too optimistic ideas of Mars colonization, then again all his ideas are mostly like this. Dumb and overenthusiastic filled with absolute nonsense. And if you look his shit in the past, he's like this everywhere, not just in SpaceX.

Out of all of the larger modern space industry SpaceX has really been the only one with successes.  The rest failed to deliver at all (and most took gov't funding and still failed...actually Boeing fails and gets more money to fix what they failed on).  So maybe, just maybe, consider that that overpromising and ambitious mindset is what made SpaceX successful.  A high risk high reward mentality at the beginning.  After all, it was the "dumb and over enthusiastic" idea of landing a rocket booster that a lot of the industry is now trying to achieve (after many many many people criticizing it saying it wasn't economically feasible).

 

 

[Imbadatnames]

20 hours ago, SupaKomputa said:

because he's the edison of today.

Nah Edison was actually an inventor and contributed to the world. All Musk has done is take family money and use it to force people out of their own profitable business. Tesla for example was leading the world in EVs, the more he’s got involved the worse they’ve got to the point where Mercedes who haven’t been seriously in the EV game that long have overtaken Tesla in capability, both in actual range and in self driving which musk promised would happen 6 years ago.

[Middcore]

On 4/23/2022 at 9:51 AM, SupaKomputa said:

You don't have to actually invent anything by yourself

 

I think to be compared to Edison, you actually do. 

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

All Musk has done is take family money and use it to force people out of their own profitable business

This is a good point of blindly hating.

 

4 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

Tesla for example was leading the world in EVs, the more he’s got involved the worse they’ve got to the point where Mercedes who haven’t been seriously in the EV game that long have overtaken Tesla in capability, both in actual range and in self driving which musk promised would happen 6 years ago.

If you are going to lie at least make it more convincing

 

Let see.  Lets start on "force people out of their own profitable business"

Tesla he was the 4th employee, entered after 7 months.  Yes a very "profitable business" before taking over, just like SpaceX that he took over...oh wait, both were cash burners and needed Elon's funds to survive.  He gutted most of the company by 2009 (claiming the burn-rate was too high)..and given they had gotten to the point of near bankruptcy before forcing them out it kind of is true, took it public and using those funds to ramp production, and just recently became the vehicle with the most gross margins.  So no, he forced out people of a profitable business.  If you want to make those claims at least provide examples which people can pick apart.

 

Next part....regarding Mercedes.  Care to share a bit of actual proof behind that.

From what I can see, Mercedes hasn't even physically sold a single EV yet...so can't really say taking over on capabilities for a yet to release vehicle.

EQA: 426KM

Model 3 LR: 538 KM

EQS: 565 KM (barely beats Tesla)...I got this from the Mercedes site https://www.mercedes-benz.ca/en/vehicles/model/eqs/sedan/eqs580v4#specifications

 

Let's look at the EQS vs Tesla a bit more close:

EQS: 565 KM...how big is the battery size though? 107kWh.  Or you know 5.3KM/kWh

Model 3 LR: 538KM, 75kwh...or 7 KM/kWh

 

Yes so much losing capability.  Lets be clear, shoving more battery in to get a higher range is not innovation or evening beating.  Literally Tesla seems to be 28% more efficient.

 

As for the self driving thing, you seriously need to educate yourself on that before claiming Mercedes is doing better than Tesla in that department.

[Imbadatnames]

On 4/24/2022 at 7:04 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

This is a good point of blindly hating.

 

If you are going to lie at least make it more convincing

 

Let see.  Lets start on "force people out of their own profitable business"

Tesla he was the 4th employee, entered after 7 months.  Yes a very "profitable business" before taking over, just like SpaceX that he took over...oh wait, both were cash burners and needed Elon's funds to survive.  He gutted most of the company by 2009 (claiming the burn-rate was too high)..and given they had gotten to the point of near bankruptcy before forcing them out it kind of is true, took it public and using those funds to ramp production, and just recently became the vehicle with the most gross margins.  So no, he forced out people of a profitable business.  If you want to make those claims at least provide examples which people can pick apart.

Are you forgetting PayPal? He didn’t start at Tesla 
 

The hard work at both had already been done, the product was successful literally all he did was provide backing, oust the founders then in teslas case essentially ruin that product. 

On 4/24/2022 at 7:04 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

 

Next part....regarding Mercedes.  Care to share a bit of actual proof behind that.

From what I can see, Mercedes hasn't even physically sold a single EV yet...so can't really say taking over on capabilities for a yet to release vehicle.

Merc released an electric SLS as a party piece in 2013/14. 

On 4/24/2022 at 7:04 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

EQA: 426KM

Model 3 LR: 538 KM

EQS: 565 KM (barely beats Tesla)...I got this from the Mercedes site https://www.mercedes-benz.ca/en/vehicles/model/eqs/sedan/eqs580v4#specifications

Look at the EQXX, just a research project for the next gen of EQ cars but got 1000Km. The EQS also does 780KM supposedly, 100 more than Tesla can supposedly do. 

On 4/24/2022 at 7:04 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

 

Let's look at the EQS vs Tesla a bit more close:

EQS: 565 KM...how big is the battery size though? 107kWh.  Or you know 5.3KM/kWh

Model 3 LR: 538KM, 75kwh...or 7 KM/kWh

 

Yes so much losing capability.  Lets be clear, shoving more battery in to get a higher range is not innovation or evening beating.  Literally Tesla seems to be 28% more efficient.

Battery size is governed by the design, a larger battery also provided more longevity. Plus you don’t know how much of each is being held in reserve as a buffer. 

On 4/24/2022 at 7:04 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

As for the self driving thing, you seriously need to educate yourself on that before claiming Mercedes is doing better than Tesla in that department.

Mercedes has been granted level 3 self driving in Europe, Tesla has level 2. 

Edited April 30, 2022 by LogicalDrm

[volatus146]

What does LTT (and LMG as a whole) do?
Tech news.

What does Elon Musk do for a living?
Tech companies.

What does Elon Musk love?
Sh*tloads of media attention, and doing what he can to get it

seems bout right tbh