Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is there only one Elon Musk?

blog.paintbottle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 180 posts

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#121

Post by kiba »

rollo_tommasi wrote: post #35
kiba wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What he was working on is a financial service, not just a consumer web app. He changed the world by making payment and ecommerce easier. It may not be sci-fi or anything like, but what he was doing was of importance.

Right, but he didn't jump right into future-tech industries; he had a huge pool of personal capital to draw on, and only himself to answer to in using it. The point the parent is trying to make is that there are probably a lot of people working in less glamorous businesses who would love to jump to working on the cutting-edge, but they don't have access to hundreds of millions in personal funds.

I would argue that paypal was the future tech of its time. It was in 1998 that paypal launched.

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#122

Post by jessriedel »

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…

Hey this is really interesting. Thanks very much for posting this.

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#123

Post by rgbrenner »

resu_nimda wrote: post #114
ohwp wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like Richard Branson?

Yeah, ok, I get that the article did say there is "only one" Elon Musk, but pointing out the small handful of individuals in a similar space doesn't seem like a very solid refutation of the points made. And with the possible exception of Branson, none of them are close to doing as big of things, with as much success, and as much inspirational flair and passion, as Musk.

The author is the one who narrowed the field, and unnecessarily so, to make a point.

He starts the criteria with "billionaires".. 0.000000215% of the worlds population.

Then to narrow it down farther he says they must be working on 'cool sci-fi shit'. Ie: they can't just be doing innovative things, they must be sci-fi things, and even if they are sci-fi, they must be 'cool'.

Of course there are only a few people who meet that criteria.

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#124

Post by jnp »

danso wrote: post #97

This is one of the more annoyingly shortsighted posts I've read on HN in a long while. It reflects the attitude of someone too spoonfed by blockbuster movie culture: if shit ain't being blown up, then who cares? When Norman Borlaug died a few years back, there were a lot of people who thought, "Who?" And when they learned that this farm-raised Iowan is credited with saving a billion human lives, they said, "Well why…

I wrote the article. In it, I clearly outline that the topic of discussion is -- specifically -- childlike wonder and what happens when it mixes with wealth. Not "that every wealthy person should behave in a particular way."

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#125

Post by lutusp »

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…

> As much as I admire the dreams and accomplishments of Elon Musk, I have trouble getting past the idea that he failed to maintain his marriage (the biggest promise of them all) and rarely sees his own children.

Look at the personal histories of accomplished men and women throughout history, and you will see many examples of lives in which personal relationships and children were a low or nonexistent priority -- these are often lives dedicated to doing something important instead.

To put this in the simplest possible way, can you tell me the names of Einstein's children? I can -- they're Special Relativity, General Relativity, and the photoelectric effect. They look great together in family photographs. Einstein actually had biological children, but they just weren't very important to his life or his work.

How about the children of two-time (1903 and 1911) Nobel Prizewinner Marie Curie? She had children, but they just weren't very important, either to her personally or to her place in history -- consider that, in her lengthy Wikipedia article, her children are only mentioned in passing (she had two):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

> Maybe the answer to OP's question is, "Because many who could dream and do like Elon Musk would rather focus on the "little things" like life, love, and family.

Yes, and, given what extraordinary people can accomplish when they are more focused, that's often a tragedy. Consider how often one hears stories of people who inadvertently get involved in child-raising who have no aptitude for it, and who do a terrible job.

My point? Relationships and family are a choice in life, not a requirement. People -- men and women -- should feel free to focus on career instead if they wish. The idea that relationships and family are primary requirements is a persistent myth that disproportionately hurts women in their careers, but men as well.

Giving birth to a child is nice, but there's no shortage of people doing that. Giving birth to an idea is extraordinary, and far too few people make that life choice.

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#126

Post by CodeCube »

dbrian wrote: post #86
rayiner wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did the Google guys do for Glass or driverless cars other than bankroll them?

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 :)

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#127

Post by danso »

jnp wrote: post #124
danso wrote: post #97

This is one of the more annoyingly shortsighted posts I've read on HN in a long while. It reflects the attitude of someone too spoonfed by blockbuster movie culture: if shit ain't being blown up, then who cares? When Norman Borlaug died a few years back, there were a lot of people who thought, "Who?" And when they learned that this farm-raised Iowan is credited with saving a billion human lives, they said, "Well why…

I wrote the article. In it, I clearly outline that the topic of discussion is -- specifically -- childlike wonder and what happens when it mixes with wealth. Not "that every wealthy person should behave in a particular way."

Yes, but you place too great of emphasis on a certain kind of achievement/product as being indicative of this ideal mixing of childlike wonder + wealth. Or else how could you characterize Bill Gates' work as being somehow less creative or less wondrous. Bill Gates is trying to foster a world free of disease and poverty, which requires no less of a cool, sci-fi-brainstorm to accomplish...how is that less of a crazy childlike ambition than building an electric car?

In fact, I would argue even that Gates' path is even far more crazy and childlike. In order to do what he has done, he's had to get out of the relatively clean, logical bubble of technology and deal with messy, real world politics to accomplish his goals...and yet he still pushes forth in idealism. Contrast this with Musk, who after a less-than-favorable review in the New York Times, threw a fit. I'm not saying Musk was or wasn't justified, I'm pointing out that real world revolution takes both child-like wonder and an ability to handle out-of-your-realm realities...Gates is farther along in this difficult path than Musk, though I agree, Musk is more likely to have an Iron Man-like movie made about him.

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#128

Post by lutusp »

untog wrote: post #54
Me1000 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we really going to start analyzing a man's marriage now? This is not a tabloid. :/

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 me the names of Einstein's children? No? How about two-time Nobel Prizewinner Marie Curie? Ironically, on Curie's Wikipedia page, her children (two) are only mentioned in passing -- they just weren't important enough to include in her list of noteworthy lifetime accomplishments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

And if we accept the idea that children are an option, not a requirement, guess who benefits the most? Children, of course. The children who are brought into existence without social pressure can feel assurance they they were planned, not mistakes.

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#129

Post by mikeryan »

resu_nimda wrote: post #114
ohwp wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like Richard Branson?

Yeah, ok, I get that the article did say there is "only one" Elon Musk, but pointing out the small handful of individuals in a similar space doesn't seem like a very solid refutation of the points made. And with the possible exception of Branson, none of them are close to doing as big of things, with as much success, and as much inspirational flair and passion, as Musk.

Its not very sci-fi but I find what Bill Gates, Warren Buffet are doing with the Giving Pledge to be every bit as important and inspirational as what Musk is doing with Tesla and Space X.

There's a lot of ways to contribute to society, to each their own.

http://givingpledge.org/

Re: Why is there only one Elon Musk?

#130

Post by potatolicious »

jnp wrote: post #124
danso wrote: post #97

This is one of the more annoyingly shortsighted posts I've read on HN in a long while. It reflects the attitude of someone too spoonfed by blockbuster movie culture: if shit ain't being blown up, then who cares? When Norman Borlaug died a few years back, there were a lot of people who thought, "Who?" And when they learned that this farm-raised Iowan is credited with saving a billion human lives, they said, "Well why…

I wrote the article. In it, I clearly outline that the topic of discussion is -- specifically -- childlike wonder and what happens when it mixes with wealth. Not "that every wealthy person should behave in a particular way."

> "Not "that every wealthy person should behave in a particular way.""

This was not the claim made by GP. He did not object to any attempts to prescribe behavior to billionaires, his objection was this:

> "if shit ain't being blown up, then who cares?"

Which is an admittedly snarky summary of your post, but accurate. As you said, your complaint is that people aren't doing enough to inspire childlike wonder.

Except they are - Borlaug as a good example. He saved literally billions of lives, revolutionized our every day lives, and has changed the face of food forever using science and technology. When he died, the bulk of HN didn't even know who he was.

Likewise, others in this thread have brought up a great many people - many of whom billionaires - who are doing "cool sci-fi shit", where "sci-fi" means more than putting stuff into low Earth orbit.

The answer to "why aren't more people doing cool sci-fi shit?" is "you need to look harder, because cool sci-fi shit doesn't always have a solid fuel booster attached to it".

Post reply on HN