471–480 of 627 posts
I can't really put my finger on why, but this looks like a quite stupid move. Usually in such situations this person gets fired and sued and then the top management tries to put silence over that topic. An email to the whole staff is the opposite of that and makes me wonder if Elon tries to cover some own missteps. Any hints in that direction?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At Facebook, you could alter code even after somebody had given the OK for code review. I know some people specifically kept some small commits open after being approved, just so they could quickly make changes without needing approval if they ever needed to.
At Google you can mark something as TBR (to be reviewed), as long as you're one of the designated owners for that code.
We need to figure out if he was acting alone or with others at Tesla and if he was working with any outside organizations. As you know, there are a long list of organizations that want Tesla to die. These include Wall Street short-sellers, who have already lost billions of dollars and stand to lose a lot more. Then there are the oil & gas companies, the wealthiest industry in the world — they don't love the idea of T…
> Wow, the level of paranoia he's going into is impressive. Exactly. It is surprising people pointing out - "Well, so many shorts etc so it's plausible". This kind of reasoning misses the bigger point - we need our leaders, political and otherwise, to refrain from actively pumping out conspiracy theories. If there is proof of malicious behavior present it instead of rumor mongering. But given Musk's(Tesla) constant n…
I agree with much of what you are saying, but this line is really out of place. He needs to shift blame for car crashes? How many crashes do his cars have per 1,000 miles vs the others?
Deflecting questions on their financial situation? Which question from the shareholders meeting really went unanswered?
I agree that the handling of this incident is strange, but the rest of your narrative isn't as clear as the negative filter would have someone believe.
I made this same comment on the other discussion. I find it concerning that one person was able to push malicious code to 'production'. To me, this suggests that Tesla, a company building highly sensitive software, does not employ basic branch policies. How is is it that these changes could have made it through a code review process and get deployed? If a company like Microsoft or Google announced that a disgruntled…
This is a very naive comment. There will always be a small handful of engineers that can push the button to move code into PROD or even change code in PROD live. Ideally, with mature controls, the people in this list is short. But to jump to the conclusion that Tesla doesn't use good practises is very short sighted. Who's to say that external parties didn't target this person specifically because of their role/influe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some manager asks IT multiple times over the course of a few weeks to create an account for a contractor, then give them permissions to access production type machines. And -- keeping in mind that production type machines operate machinery that can kill -- this sounds okay to you? Not to mention this: > Or a contractor that was fired had their credentials appropriated by this manager, perhaps by that manager removi…
Someone has to be responsible for managing people and organising access to the appropriate machines for them to do their job, if it isn't their manager then who is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tesla's greatest enemy at this point is the cult of Elon Musk, and the cult's leader, Elon Musk. Huh, well, given that, I strongly suggest you short TSLA, which would be a sure thing, right?
The best counter argument you have is sarcasm? They had their 5th body shop fire yesterday. Immediately they implied the saboteur was to blame. What is more realistic I don't short TSLA, I don't hold TSLA stock or options. I don't want to be involved with it in anyway shape or form.
Yeah, I was tired and irratible when I wrote that. As quotes, it's actuly true: his small but extremely vocal 'cult' following is a big problem.
I still don't agree with most of what his most strident critics say.
I think he's being unusually straightforward in thought and communication.
What can I say, except "lol".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not trying to be mean here, but: you never wondered why so many people in Iran hated the US enough to call it the "Great Satan"? I know we've had a generation or so of leaders over here who just prattle on about "they hate us for our freedom", but I'm kind of boggled by the idea that people don't get curious and wonder what really set off the level of virulent hatred of the US (and European powers) that existed a…
I may be betraying ignorance (I always love to learn—thanks!), but before today, I assumed that had to do with the US being Israel’s closest ally, since Iran from the beginning has hated Israel for what I assumed were religious reasons, and the fact that a non-Islamic country has (parts of) Jerusalem after over 1000 years of wars over who gets to have it (many of which were at least partly religiously motivated — or…
It's also instructive to pay attention to the names. Some of them are going to jump out at you, and at least a couple times you're going to think "wait, isn't he the bad guy" when, once upon a time, some recognizable name was "on our side" (but really was on his own side all along, and willing to play at doing a major power's bidding in order to get funded/armed/maintained in power/etc.).
And some of the names of the foreign-policy wonks are going to get eerily repetitive, and you'll wonder how these guys managed to stay cozy with administration after administration despite their track record of literally leaving desolation around the world. Worse: you're going to read their bios and find out some of them are still in positions of power and being taken seriously today.
I made this same comment on the other discussion. I find it concerning that one person was able to push malicious code to 'production'. To me, this suggests that Tesla, a company building highly sensitive software, does not employ basic branch policies. How is is it that these changes could have made it through a code review process and get deployed? If a company like Microsoft or Google announced that a disgruntled…
Most companies allow you to add on code and then push it after it has already been approved (mainly to account for small nitpick changes)
> get deployed?
I would assume through the normal process? You don't have to immediately try and blow up everything causing an immediate rollback. If you are smart, you'll pull a stuxnet [0] and carefully fuck up the machinery to try and make it go unnoticed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
News flash! Achieving great things is hard and everybody makes some mistakes along the way. On the way, they meet jokers who take great pride in laughing at their mistakes, because, let's be real, jokers are sore losers. Deep down they know they can't do 1% of that shit, and so yeah, let's lift a leg and piss on that fucker. That will show him!
There is a middle ground here. He's achieved some great things for sure. No doubt about that. He's also playing fast and loose with the finances of his companies - and since they are all intertwined through various debts, any one of them faltering could be catastrophic for all of them.