Why is there only one Elon Musk? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#151

Post by jordan0day » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 4:52 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #128

untog wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your sentiment but I'm actually kind of conflicted. Inspecting into his marriage feels dirty and indeed, tabloid. But if we want to get the full picture of entrepreneurial life, we can't ignore personal life. If you want to be the next Elon Musk it is probably worth noting that his marriage failed- if nothing else, just to remind you that even when you're a billionaire it is very difficult to have it all…

> Inspecting into his marriage feels dirty and indeed, tabloid. But if we want to get the full picture of entrepreneurial life, we can't ignore personal life. On the contrary, you can, and you should. The era when a man or a woman is defined by his relationships and family is over, and good riddance. People shouldn't be pressured into a family lifestyle if they don't feel a motivation in that direction. Can you tell…

> People shouldn't be pressured into a family lifestyle if they don't feel a motivation in that direction.

Agreed. But what does that have to do with this discussion? Are you saying that Elon Musk only got married/had children because he was pressured into it? And now that he is divorced and apparently doesn't see his kids much (as the article states, I really have no idea), well, all the better for him, because maybe he never wanted any of that to begin with?

If you don't want to get married, or if you don't want to have children, that's awesome. You'll be free to devote more of your time to your work or hobbies. If that's what you find most fulfilling in life, then that's what you should do.

Once you do have children, and to a lesser extent (in today's world, at least) get married, you've now made promises that you ought to keep. I'm not sure where your "children are an option, not a requirement" tangent is coming from -- surely not from anything I read in the article or comments here. Unless, again, you're arguing that somehow Elon Musk was required to have children?!

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#152

Post by Wintamute » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 4:54 PM UTC

distant- wrote: post #66

Meanwhile, the author of the blog post runs a porn website. I find it amusing that all of these advocates of tackling "big issues, that matter", "building world-changing technology" are very far from walking their talk.

Top be fair he actually does a fairly good job of intellectualising it in other blog posts.

http://blog.paintbottle.com/post/46266111738/how-we-convince...

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#153

Post by jordan0day » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 4:55 PM UTC

Egregore wrote: post #62

edw519 wrote: post #30

This post reminds me of that old joke: Husband: I am the head of the household! I determine our family's position on all of the major economic, political, and social issues of the day! Wife: I decide the little things, like where we'll live, what we'll eat, and where the kids go to school. As much as I admire the dreams and accomplishments of Elon Musk, I have trouble getting past the idea that he failed to maintain…

What's more importing preserving a marriage or flying to Mars?

What a horrible, horrible false dichotomy.

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#154

Post by rayiner » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 4:55 PM UTC

CodeCube wrote: post #126

dbrian wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that kind of the point?

So what? what did Elon musk do for spacex and tesla other than bankroll them? edit: meant as reply to GP :)

Quit his day job to run them?

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#155

Post by nickpinkston » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 4:55 PM UTC

barredo wrote: post #119

pdenya wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair a lot more people have figured out how to have a good marriage than how to put rockets into space.

Yes, but a lot more of people marry than try to put rockets into space! Also, it's not like Elon its doing all the math and engineering, he has people that does that for him, which is the hardest thing in the putting-rockets-into-space business

The "math and engineering" aren't the hard parts. Few people can raise that kind of money, form that kind of vision and try to compete in that kind of race. Low level engineering is important, but there's a reason the other rocket companies (Scaled Composited) aren't heard about nearly as much or doing nearly as impressive of things.

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#156

Post by Pwnguinz » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 5:02 PM UTC

oliverhunt wrote: post #146

edw519 wrote: post #30

This post reminds me of that old joke: Husband: I am the head of the household! I determine our family's position on all of the major economic, political, and social issues of the day! Wife: I decide the little things, like where we'll live, what we'll eat, and where the kids go to school. As much as I admire the dreams and accomplishments of Elon Musk, I have trouble getting past the idea that he failed to maintain…

Some of the responses you are getting are as if you are the anti-Musk but you are right. People can choose family life, they can choose professional or a balance. I see one as an individual perspective and one as a society perspective. Musk will be remembered for his incredible achievements, he will not be remembered for being father of the year (any time soon at least according to your post).

Name one person that was named "father of the year"? I certainly can't bring any to mind (without googling or some such--assuming such an award is even given out by some tabloid outlet).

Precisely why would Elon Musk care to be named something that has, for all practical intents and purposes, no value?

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#157

Post by lutusp » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 5:05 PM UTC

jordan0day wrote: post #151

lutusp wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Inspecting into his marriage feels dirty and indeed, tabloid. But if we want to get the full picture of entrepreneurial life, we can't ignore personal life. On the contrary, you can, and you should. The era when a man or a woman is defined by his relationships and family is over, and good riddance. People shouldn't be pressured into a family lifestyle if they don't feel a motivation in that direction. Can you tell…

> People shouldn't be pressured into a family lifestyle if they don't feel a motivation in that direction. Agreed. But what does that have to do with this discussion? Are you saying that Elon Musk only got married/had children because he was pressured into it? And now that he is divorced and apparently doesn't see his kids much (as the article states, I really have no idea), well, all the better for him, because mayb…

> Are you saying that Elon Musk only got married/had children because he was pressured into it?

I have no idea. My only point is that's a common problem in modern times. It's unfortunate, it disproportionately hurts women in their careers, and it is slowly changing for the better.

> Unless, again, you're arguing that somehow Elon Musk was required to have children?!

To the young, something may seem a requirement that to a more mature person is obviously just a choice. And intelligence seems not to play a large part in that age distinction.

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#158

Post by qzxt » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 5:06 PM UTC

SeanDav wrote: post #141

qzxt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people who hype on and on about his personal life are just grasping at straws to mask their own insecurities. As someone who grew up not spending that cliched ooey gooey version of "family time" that we always see on television and someone who has been married once, I'm fairly sure it's a lot more complicated than "oh always working, and doesn't care about his family? --insert underhanded "I'm better than you…

The fact that someone can in all seriousness talk about the "hype" of personal life as "grasping at straws to mask their own insecurities" is a very sad indication of some aspects of modern life. What could be more important than a happy family and personal life? How on earth is this considered "hype"? I would trade any amount of billions for that, in fact I probably have, because I decided long ago that family and m…

I don't know if you even read the post fully, but the post was about the hype of Elon Musk's personal life, not the hype of personal life. And yes for the most part, it is. The reality is he's a busy man, with a busy life, anyone who thinks that his family life is somehow supposed to be like that of a traditional "as seen in social studies" textbook either has their head up their you know what or is trying to mask a certain insecurity with a veneer of self-righteousness.

>What could be more important than a happy family and personal life? How on earth is this considered "hype"?

That may be all well and good for you, but first, you have a terribly ethnocentric and rather simplistic view of life as seen only from your perspective. Some people want to get enough and retire and frolic. Other people want to discover. Your ideal life may be sitting on the porch waiting for little Timmy to get back from school so you can build a go-kart; that's great, but that's not everyone's ideal life - and it doesn't in any way mean that little Timmy is any less important to anyone else. So if your thesis is that your vision of life is somehow better simply because it's the most traditional, you're going to need a more robust argument for that.

>I would trade any amount of billions for that, in fact I probably have, because I decided long ago that family and my personal happiness are more important than millions in the bank.

Also, you make the assumption that the man is somehow concerned about money. Whether you do that on purpose to further your point, or whether you didn't take full stock of the situation, I don't know. But the man is rich. And if he wasn't rich before, he's certainly "fuck you" rich now. He could be earning multiples on his money without even lifting a finger. It's not about money, it's about interest, and apparently, for him, about vision. My comment was about people self-righteously trying to compare the amount of time and the way they spend time with their families to someone who - regardless of how you feel about him, and I don't feel as hot as everyone else about him - is taking on two immensely difficult tasks. So when John Battelle, and everyone else self-righteously comment about not using email when spending time with their kids as if they were some martyrs of child-rearing, I'd have to say there's some insecurity involved.

So it's great that you wouldn't trade money over your children. That's great and I'm sure no well-adjusted person would. However, there are things in life that do not fit in to the inane work-life paradigm, and people expecting it to, either have very limited scopes of what life is and how one should live it, or they have their eyes glossed over by nicely packaged institutions of socialization. The truth is, a lot of people have very complex family lives. It's nice when you look at social studies textbooks and see two parents, one son, and one daughter, but life's never been like that and a happy family can't simplistically be reduced to "one that doesn't check email and text while spending time with each other - which, by the way, must be x amount of hours if you really want to be considered a close, happy family"

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#159

Post by TheCoelacanth » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 5:08 PM UTC

loganfrederick wrote: post #84

unreal37 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having not been able to maintain my own marriage, I think its more complicated than that. But the quality Musk has that almost no one in his position has is the willingness to risk it all for the dream. Musk himself almost went broke on SpaceX and Tesla. Most billionaires are into preservation of capital in a big way.

"Most billionaires are into preservation of capital in a big way." Depending on how you define "are into", this could be argued as empirically wrong. A study done by the editor of the updated edition of Graham's "The Intelligent Investor" shows that the Forbes 400 (400 Richest Americans) only had 68 members who stayed on the list from some time in the 1980 to the early 2000s. The author calculated the return required…

> If they really cared about "preservation of capital", they would liquidate more of their stakes when one company made them rich then diversify their holdings.

That might not always be possible. If the shares they own are a substantial portion of the total company, selling a lot of them at once would cause the share price to plummet and a lot of their wealth would disappear.

Most of them do sell off stock in the companies that made them rich, they just do it gradually, so that they don't cause the price to drop. For instance, Bill Gates has been dumping Microsoft stock for several years. The stock he sold in the past few years amounts to about 3% of all of Microsoft.

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#160

Post by Pwnguinz » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 5:09 PM UTC

milkshakes wrote: post #149

lutusp wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> he era when a man or a woman is defined by his relationships and family is over, and good riddance. > No it's not. Those things help to define a person. When you try to refute someone's position, it's expected that you will offer a counterargument, not a different topic. Yes, relationships help define a person. No, that doesn't mean the era hasn't ended in which one's relationships are central to one's identity.

Sure, I'll bite. You argue that family is no longer important (or, 'optional', in your words) because Wikipedia does not elevate the status of, or obsess over the details of the family of a notable person in the same fashion. This is a ridiculous argument [1]. Who cares what Wikipedia thinks? Who cares what google thinks? Who cares what society thinks? A relationship is a very personal connection between two people.…

> Who cares what society thinks?

You are making the same fallacy that your parent post accused another poster of making, you're failing to address to argument at hand.

Eras are defined by society at large (as much retroactively defined by future generations as defined by the present). Disregarding what society thinks refutes your entire argument. Two people caring about a certain thing is an anecdote, not an era.

Note that he never said "relationships are not worth having", merely that "The era when a man or a woman is defined by his relationships and family is over".

Your GGP's post's conclusion holds, even if what you are saying is true.