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

Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 282 posts

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#51

Post by danso »

patagonia wrote: post #41
danso wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And. Risky for sure. Elon Musk obviously doesn’t shy from risky. He sets goals that solve existential problems. In this case, our reliance on fossil fuels. What is the relevance of these platitudes? Are they intended to be a catchall explanation/excuse for every time Musk makes an objectively terrible business decision? That we have to consider Musk cares so much about ending fossil fuels and factor that into the c…

It was literally an offhand comment speaking to a small portion of the preceding comment. And you manage to spend 3 paragraphs tearing apart my “logic”. Aren’t we supposed to “Assume good faith.”

Only my first paragraph complains about the "platitudes".

I apologize if it wasn't clear that the second paragraph is taking you in good faith. I mean, it literally begins with "accept the premise that Elon Musk is special" and all the other things he's respected for. I don't think it's controversial or wrong to really believe that of him, but if you're saying it's just an offhand-comment that has nothing to do with the financial decisions the article describes, I'll take your word for it.

My third paragraph was also taking you at good faith. You made this factual claim:

> Solar City is not just a solar cell company. It is a power generation and distribution company. Which clearly ties into charging electric cars.

And that seems like a reasonable assertion? You likely know more about SolarCity than I do. I said I wasn't able to find recent news or articles about how SolarCity's power generation and distribution business, despite you implying they were key parts of the business. So do you know of any? Or is it possible SolarCity in 2019 has changed its portfolio?

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#52

Post by aerovistae »

martythemaniak wrote: post #36

Well, Tesla is one long stream of gambles. You dont get to school an established, global, trillion dollar industry without taking risks. The only notable thing here is that hating on Musk is really popular these days. So the failed gambles (this, falcon doors, the initial overautomation of the Model 3 production, etc) will be highlighted and mocked, while the successful gambles will go unmentioned or incorporated as…

Indeed. I think this article is on the money in the sense that SolarCity and the Buffalo plant failed, but without any greater context it's misleading. While this failed, SpaceX succeeded, the Model S succeeded, the Model 3 succeeded (even if it's been a rocky road).

I don't think Musk was trying to harm anyone-- I think he doesn't realize he's human and he can't actually juggle 44 million balls at once. And I think even if he drops some balls, we're all better off for the ones he juggles successfully.

If the collateral cost of a revitalized space industry and a growing electric car industry is $750million wasted in NY State, that seems like a small price to pay.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#53

Post by wil421 »

>the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced criminal charges against a handful of Cuomo staffers for rigging the construction bids for the Buffalo Billion program to favor the governor’s campaign donors. The man tapped by Cuomo to oversee the taxpayer subsidies, as well as a leading donor who received a $225 million contract to build out the Buffalo factory, were both convicted last year of conspiring to rig the bids.

At the end of the article they mention the lack of car by New York State. Of course they don’t care, the decision makers already got what they and their rich friends wanted.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#54

Post by Retric »

whatok wrote: post #49
martythemaniak wrote: post #36

Well, Tesla is one long stream of gambles. You dont get to school an established, global, trillion dollar industry without taking risks. The only notable thing here is that hating on Musk is really popular these days. So the failed gambles (this, falcon doors, the initial overautomation of the Model 3 production, etc) will be highlighted and mocked, while the successful gambles will go unmentioned or incorporated as…

Please describe how this selection bias filter works.

Failure is more interesting. The Model 3’s novel UI was extremely risky, but seems to have been acceptable so it’s rarely mentioned.

In the end he takes a lot of risks, but it’s only by looking at both successes and failures that you can judge his approach is reasonable.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#55

Post by jshowa3 »

martythemaniak wrote: post #36

Well, Tesla is one long stream of gambles. You dont get to school an established, global, trillion dollar industry without taking risks. The only notable thing here is that hating on Musk is really popular these days. So the failed gambles (this, falcon doors, the initial overautomation of the Model 3 production, etc) will be highlighted and mocked, while the successful gambles will go unmentioned or incorporated as…

Nobodies perfect. Not even Musk. So I suggest accepting both the faults and successes of the man as a complete package.

Tesla is one of the many cases of Silicon Valley syndrome where you run a company at negative profit forever while claiming to make all these substantial advances (some laudable, others stupid) in an attempt to disrupt something that's been working for decades for specific reasons. There's a reason car assembly lines aren't fully automated. There's a reason car companies don't allow customers to pre-order a vehicle. There's a reason dealership networks exist.

Musk isn't some fantastical genius with a solution to everything. Everyone before Musk was as smart and as talented, so his active refusal to really learn from anyone before him is what causes him so much headache. In fact, I'd argue that his contract with NASA probably saved SpaceX because that's one avenue where he didn't ignore a previously, well established business.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#57

Post by danso »

martythemaniak wrote: post #50
danso wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You read this story and think it boils down to "hating on Musk"? Which of the story's numbers or claims about SolarCity finances and production do you believe are distorted or misleading?

It's more of a meta comment on which stories surface up on Hacker News and other media. The selection of content you get exposed to can matter more than the exact content you consume. I went for dinner to my in-laws a few months ago and my mother-in-law asked if I had heard about the Tesla that caught fire in Shanghai. I said, yeah but did you hear about all the combustion cars that had combusted that day. She had no…

Genuinely curious: how did you identify this story as being low value? The Shanghai anecdote to me seems self-evidently low value (since the incidence of car fires is still rare, and individual incidents have low impact). But this story's headline (on the article page) alleges serious misconduct, as well as financial problems/shortfalls that unavoidably impact Tesla.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#58

Post by jstummbillig »

jshowa3 wrote: post #55
martythemaniak wrote: post #36

Well, Tesla is one long stream of gambles. You dont get to school an established, global, trillion dollar industry without taking risks. The only notable thing here is that hating on Musk is really popular these days. So the failed gambles (this, falcon doors, the initial overautomation of the Model 3 production, etc) will be highlighted and mocked, while the successful gambles will go unmentioned or incorporated as…

Nobodies perfect. Not even Musk. So I suggest accepting both the faults and successes of the man as a complete package. Tesla is one of the many cases of Silicon Valley syndrome where you run a company at negative profit forever while claiming to make all these substantial advances (some laudable, others stupid) in an attempt to disrupt something that's been working for decades for specific reasons. There's a reason…

There's also a reason electric driving has been put off as long as it has.

Everything is done a certain way until it isn't but that historically is past the point of "about damn time" and "why'd take so long". Doing what is right and what is smart are often very different things — and I am not claiming Musk is doing either, but this certainly didn't convince me of the opposite.

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#59

Post by smacktoward »

AstralStorm wrote: post #38
smacktoward wrote: post #9

This bit seems pretty damning: > As SolarCity struggled to raise money from institutional investors, it began offering individuals a chance to buy what it called Solar Bonds. (“Now you can get paid while driving the solar revolution,” the marketing material said.) But there were few takers—so other parts of the Musk empire took up the slack. According to the shareholder lawsuit, SpaceX acquired $255 million of the bo…

Only in a deal to furnish sats and rockets with solar panels forever. Vertical integration more or less.

These were just corporate bonds, though, and corporate bonds don't work that way. A corporate bond is a simple agreement: you give me $X now, I give you back $X + interest when the bond matures. They're a way for a company to borrow money, nothing more.

If SpaceX managed to get extraordinary concessions for its bond purchase, like some kind of exclusivity agreement, that would raise even more questions -- like, why does one of Elon's other companies get special perks for buying Solar City bonds that the non-Elon-connected buyer doesn't?

Re: Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

#60

Post by moltensodium »

martythemaniak wrote: post #36

Well, Tesla is one long stream of gambles. You dont get to school an established, global, trillion dollar industry without taking risks. The only notable thing here is that hating on Musk is really popular these days. So the failed gambles (this, falcon doors, the initial overautomation of the Model 3 production, etc) will be highlighted and mocked, while the successful gambles will go unmentioned or incorporated as…

"Hating on Musk is really popular these days" is exactly the sort of meaningless nonsense people used to post about Elizabeth Holmes.

Stop worrying about what is hip and trendy and trying to dismiss things that sounds like other things. You don't even try to parse and respond to any facts or details from this story at all, you're just being lazy.

Post reply on HN