Tesla "Full Self Driving" not capable of autonomous driving

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Outside of some exceptions that must exist, I’m under the impression that he is like a military general. A military general might be tyrannical and cruel because they are direct and finite in their decisions, absolute in the way they manage and in the way they expect their orders to be carried out, and so on. Failure is tolerated, but not incompetence, complacency, inefficiency or insubordination.

Being labile, sociopathic and obsessive seems to be par for the course for most of these exceptional visionary leaders. How else would they do what they do? It might be part of the package.

You ever meet a general?

What is it that "visionaries" do again? My perception is that they lie about things and hope someone else can solve problems before anyone finds out about it.

[soundman98]

lol, musk or jobs as a military general.

the very specific difference here is who's order one is enforcing.

military generals, pastors, they all agree to follow a very specific set of rules that were created and set into place by much larger committees.

musk, jobs, even henry ford, none of them followed any set of rules beyond their own. there is an order, but not always apparent, and generally always benefits them first, whereas the benefit to anyone else is always secondary to that consideration. henry ford created the 40 hour work week just so his employee's would have enough time off to buy the cars they were building. i don't know any military general that sacrifices troops for their own benefit like that...

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by soundman98

lol, musk or jobs as a military general.

the very specific difference here is who's order one is enforcing.

military generals, pastors, they all agree to follow a very specific set of rules that were created and set into place by much larger committees.

musk, jobs, even henry ford, none of them followed any set of rules beyond their own. there is an order, but not always apparent, and generally always benefits them first, whereas the benefit to anyone else is always secondary to that consideration. henry ford created the 40 hour work week just so his employee's would have enough time off to buy the cars they were building. i don't know any military general that sacrifices troops for their own benefit like that...

You ever meet a Russian general?

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Spuds

You ever meet a Russian general?

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

We were talking about work culture, hiring and retaining top engineering recruits. It was stated that the C-suite is “small c” conservatives, trapped in old thinking, which is why their want people to return to work when remote work has the potential to be better for the employee and employer. The video suggests that his style of management may not be so tyrannical or incapable of some progressive thinking.

why even take him at his word? the man is infamous for making wild claims about shit that he has no intention of doing or seriously pursuing. he's a carnival barker.

most importantly: why on earth are you compelled to waste a single second defending him it's so weird that people are like this

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

You ever meet a general?

What is it that "visionaries" do again? My perception is that they lie about things and hope someone else can solve problems before anyone finds out about it.

Yeah, several. I work in a hospital and use to manage a gym and personal train, so lots of encounters with military of every branch. They come off as no nonsense types who expect straight answers, respect and to follow what they say, while being direct, so much so, that it can come off as blunt, rude, cruel/insensitive.

Well, it depends on who we are talking about, but yeah, probably. Benjamin Franklin was a visionary and founding father of this country, but he was also an adulterer who was against the war and backed the British because he lived for many years in Europe and had British aristocrats as friends. Tesla was OCD, paranoid, grandiose and delusional, especially towards his later years. Newton was so driven to discover the laws of optics that he slid a metal instrument behind his eye to explore the optic nerve and test changes to his vision and could have easily lost an eye. Henry Ford was an anti-semite and destroyed unions, while trying to control his workers:

While $5 a day was a generous factory wage at the time, it came with a substantial catch. Technically, workers’ pay remained less than or near $2.50 a day, and the extra money was a bonus they had to earn. The year Ford introduced the bonus, he established a company Sociological Department that sent inspectors to the homes of his employees—at this point, mostly male immigrants—to make sure they were living in a way Ford approved of. Workers were denied the full $5 a day if their wives worked outside the home, if their homes were unclean, if they displayed signs of drinking or gambling, if they took in boarders or if they didn’t contribute to a savings account.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires

why even take him at his word? the man is infamous for making wild claims about shit that he has no intention of doing or seriously pursuing. he's a carnival barker.

most importantly: why on earth are you compelled to waste a single second defending him it's so weird that people are like this

[IMG]

It seems plausible given the pace of innovation. Maybe he says one thing and believes another thing, so maybe he says he wants people back to work, but is secretly working on molding the business so people can work remotely...until then, he needs them to be compliant and get back to work. We can do the back and forth, speculate, bla bla. You want to take his word to bring everyone back permanently because it seems more plausible. How are we being different?

Like what infamous things are you referring to?

Why on earth are people compelled to waste a single second attacking him. it's so weird that people are like this Takes a lot of time to present the other side, and I love to debate. Maybe everyone can try defending him, so I can work on pointing out the flaws.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Yeah, several. I work in a hospital and use to manage a gym and personal train, so lots of encounters with military of every branch. They come off as no nonsense types who expect straight answers, respect and to follow what they say, while being direct, so much so, that it can come off as blunt, rude, cruel/insensitive.

Well, it depends on who we are talking about, but yeah, probably. Benjamin Franklin was a visionary and founding father of this country, but he was also an adulterer who was against the war and backed the British because he lived for many years in Europe and had British aristocrats as friends. Tesla was OCD, paranoid, grandiose and delusional, especially towards his later years. Newton was so driven to discover the laws of optics that he slid a metal instrument behind his eye to explore the optic nerve and test changes to his vision and could have easily lost an eye. Henry Ford was an anti-semite and destroyed unions, while trying to control his workers:

Seems pretty much the opposite of Elon Musk to me. What you are describing is the result of decades of discipline, answering to the same kind of superiors. Musk is the result of decades of being a rich boy, answering to nobody.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Seems pretty much the opposite of Elon Musk to me. What you are describing is the result of decades of discipline, answering to the same kind of superiors. Musk is the result of decades of being a rich boy, answering to nobody.

The quote I made of generals, does it not describe Jobs, Musk, Trump, etc.? Maybe growing up being rich boys, answering to rich parents, modeling rich behavior, having servants and people taking instruction below them is like a general modeling their military predecessors. Different paths leading to the same results.



Maybe Musk needs to take a queue from Trump and just tell people "You're incompetent and useless. You're fired!" Maybe then that'll be celebrated on prime time television like he is a smart and ruthless businessman instead of berating him for doing the same as his predecessors. I suppose Trump was lambasted for calling people back from remote working too. Maybe none of these rich boys can win against doing work in pajamas and flip flops.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The quote I made of generals, does it not describe Jobs, Musk, Trump, etc.? Maybe growing up being rich boys, answering to rich parents, modeling rich behavior, having servants and people taking instruction below them is like a general modeling their military predecessors. Different paths leading to the same results.



Maybe Musk needs to take a queue from Trump and just tell people "You're incompetent and useless. You're fired!" Maybe then that'll be celebrated on prime time television like he is a smart and ruthless businessman instead of berating him for doing the same as his predecessors. I suppose Trump was lambasted for calling people back from remote working too. Maybe none of these rich boys can win against doing work in pajamas and flip flops.

Oh, that's a comparison I can get behind! They are quite similar aren't they.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Oh, that's a comparison I can get behind! They are quite similar aren't they.

As I said earlier, Musk is Musk. Neither he nor Jobs are or were Newton or Tesla.


Spuds hit the nail on the head. Your last analogy is one I can agree with. I've argued for years Musk is little more than Trump with some functioning gray cells. Both have a reptilian cunning that enables them to take advantage of others. Musk is smarter, but often too clever by half. He seems to make a habit of caricaturing himself.

All three, Jobs, Musk, and Trump are or were authoritarian and autocratic. Better suited for the role of Caligula or Stalin or Putin in the school play than Newton or Tesla or Einstein. I guess we should be grateful that Musk is not native born. At least in today's reality, we're spared the specter of a Musk presidential bid.

Musk is a juvenile, bullying, narcissistic, gratuitously cruel, authoritarian, autocratic, despotic, venal, vulgar, vituperative, grotesque, megalomaniac. I think the fact that he is so capable of inspiring long lists of pejorative adjectives may inspire some to feel sorry for him and come to his defense. My sister is one of those. I've tried to tell her that her sympathy is misplaced.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The quote I made of generals, does it not describe Jobs, Musk, Trump, etc.? Maybe growing up being rich boys, answering to rich parents, modeling rich behavior, having servants and people taking instruction below them is like a general modeling their military predecessors. Different paths leading to the same results.

But the paths are important. I can't think of a single West Point graduate who entered the service as a general. There is a path to follow. Even then we have had too many generals who walked that path and still became supreme assholes to count. Fortunately, in some of those cases, those generals (think Patton and McArthur in the modern context) ran into superiors who reined in their baser impulses.

In Trump's case it appears that servants did more than take instruction. They took college entrance exams and, perhaps, wrote term papers.

Years ago Anne Richards quipped about one of the Bushes, "he was born on third base and is convinced he hit a triple."

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

But the paths are important. I can't think of a single West Point graduate who entered the service as a general. There is a path to follow. Even then we have had too many generals who walked that path and still became supreme assholes to count. Fortunately, in some of those cases, those generals (think Patton and McArthur in the modern context) ran into superiors who reined in their baser impulses.

In Trump's case it appears that servants did more than take instruction. They took college entrance exams and, perhaps, wrote term papers.

Years ago Anne Richards quipped about one of the Bushes, "he was born on third base and is convinced he hit a triple."

They were generals, just without the titles; they had to earn that, but much of who they are and what they would be was already there. I think the paths are important too. Musk didn’t enter the world as a CEO, but he has wealthy parents, which is probably the case for many if not most West Point graduates. Getting a congressional appointment for a free $200k+ education probably requires family wealth and some campaign contributions, most often. Musk didn’t parachute into a CEO role with an MBA either. His brother and he started Zip2 and received $20k-28k from their father along with $180k from angel investors before acquiring $3 million from a firm and eventually selling to Nasdaq. For Zip2, he did coding and was eventually made into the chief technology officer when the company grew with a different CEO in charge, not him. He has a long history of living and sleeping at work with Zip2 and Tesla and Twitter. For SpaceX, he bought a $50k prefab home near the headquarters/launchpad or something in Texas to be near work. I doubt Trump or Bush did the same. I think those guys have floated on the coattails of their family name far more than Musk.

My brother is an officer. I told him don’t turn into an asshole, but after a while he says the job does it to you. The education and dealing with liars and lowlives each day calluses your personality. In a similar way, a general’s personality is shaped by education and experience coupled with the inherit traits they already possess. Similarly, Musk has a personality and aptitudes, which were further shaped by education and experience. He is both shaped by his roll, as he is uniquely built for his roll like a general.

I guess a question to ask is who did it right for you? Who was a major instrument of change—who was a visionary—someone who changed the world or an industry radically towards a future with the greater good in mind, who was disruptive, yet accomplished what they accomplished without having any of the pejoratives you have used earlier?

https://www.webpronews.com/elon-musk...eing-the-boss/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-revealed.html

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

They were generals, just without the titles; they had to earn that, but much of who they are and what they would be was already there. I think the paths are important too. Musk didn’t enter the world as a CEO, but he has wealthy parents, which is probably the case for many if not most West Point graduates. Getting a congressional appointment for a free $200k+ education probably requires family wealth and some campaign contributions, most often. Musk didn’t parachute into a CEO role with an MBA either. His brother and he started Zip2 and received $20k-28k from their father along with $180k from angel investors before acquiring $3 million from a firm and eventually selling to Nasdaq. For Zip2, he did coding and was eventually made into the chief technology officer when the company grew with a different CEO in charge, not him. He has a long history of living and sleeping at work with Zip2 and Tesla and Twitter. For SpaceX, he bought a $50k prefab home near the headquarters/launchpad or something in Texas to be near work. I doubt Trump or Bush did the same. I think those guys have floated on the coattails of their family name far more than Musk.

My brother is an officer. I told him don’t turn into an asshole, but after a while he says the job does it to you. The education and dealing with liars and lowlives each day calluses your personality. In a similar way, a general’s personality is shaped by education and experience coupled with the inherit traits they already possess. Similarly, Musk has a personality and aptitudes, which were further shaped by education and experience. He is both shaped by his roll, as he is uniquely built for his roll like a general.

I guess a question to ask is who did it right for you? Who was a major instrument of change—who was a visionary—someone who changed the world or an industry radically towards a future with the greater good in mind, who was disruptive, yet accomplished what they accomplished without having any of the pejoratives you have used earlier?

https://www.webpronews.com/elon-musk...eing-the-boss/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-revealed.html

Your final question is an interesting one. If I can paraphrase it, "can you change the world and remain a decent, if not perfect, human being?" The answer is, I think yes. Run through the list of Nobel Prize winners. Focus on the Peace prize. Who among those winners made significant contributions to the betterment of society and the human condition? Which of them are renowned for being despicable human beings?

You won't have heard of many of them, but I suspects that in not because they didn't make great differences, or because they didn't engage in extreme self-promotion? I believe the difference is humility.

One of my favorite comparisons is Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Teller. Clearly, both changed the world, although arguably not for the better. Oppenheimer was, by every account I've read NOT the flaming asshole that Teller was. Why? I think it was because Oppenheimer was self-aware and self critical. Teller was, from what I can tell, none-of-the-above."

That, I think is the key. It is something that I think is incompatible with the simple minded and single minded pursuit of personal gain goal at all costs.

Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall. All political figures, to be sure, but I suggest that each changed the world for the better. None that I know of would inspire a list of pejoratives remotely comparable to Musk (and Jobs and Trump). Were they perfect? Of course not. But what you seem to be suggesting is that make the world a better place you have to be despicable. Is that what you mean? Can a humble, caring, even occasionally kind, person make a positive difference. I think they can.

You realize, don't you, that we are locked in a circular discussion? I suspect we have plowed all the ground there is to plow - several times. So, I'll leave you the last word. What I will say is something I truly believe. Musk displays all of the pejorative attributes I have attributed to him, and probably many more. I categorically reject the idea that you have to be a jerk to contribute to the betterment of humanity. Some may think so, but I do and will continue to disagree.