Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018) • Hacker News Board

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#71

Post by nickik » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 9:29 AM UTC

nikofeyn wrote: post #27

nickik wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are still slipping on Elon and how brilliant he is. He is legit the chief designer of the Falcon 9 rocket and of Starship not just the chief executive. That is not just some honorary title. He made every important choice on every important technical decision. He knows every detail of these rockets, he knows them inside and out. Nobody knows more about any of these rockets then Elon. People sometimes want to po…

would you mind pointing out some resources that back up your claims? they read like fiction.

I mean its a fact that is has the title. They don't have two chief engineers. Every single interview with him or anybody else that works at the company takes it for granted that he makes all the engineering decisions. If you listen to press conference you will see that he answers any and all questions, sometimes in insane amount of detail.

This should really not be surprising to anybody who follows SpaceX in any detail.

I would argue the burden of prove is on people who deny what he does. What evidence do you have that he is not the chief engineer. Is there a 'hidden' chief engineer working on the project? Who makes the important engineering decisions if its not Elon?

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#72

Post by nickik » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 9:52 AM UTC

xkjkls wrote: post #57

cowmix wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'm not sure what part of the SpaceX timeline you are talking about but his "money, enthusiasm, and naivety" certainly has brought the company very, very far in the past 17+ years.

It's still not a profitable company with alot of debt to payoff and a valuation to justify. I don't know if we can consider 17 years without any profitable sustainability a success.

It blows my mind that people in the modern world can still think this way.

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#73

Post by nickik » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 9:55 AM UTC

nikofeyn wrote: post #26

starpilot wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing stands out is how hands-on Musk has been. He's got a physics degree and has the raw intelligence and passion to understand aerospace engineering. From his public statements, he shows an understanding of mechanical engineering WAY beyond most executives'. Bezos has been hands-off with BO and is not technical. Similar with Vern Raburn (Microsoftie pilot) trying to run Eclipse Aviation (nearly into the ground,…

> He's [Musk] got a physics degree and has the raw intelligence and passion to understand aerospace engineering. musk was nearly laughed out of early meetings because he basically knew nothing about aerospace engineering and was viewed as just a guy with a lot of money, enthusiasm, and naivety. i have never seen any indication that he understands as much as people freely give him credit for. > Bezos ... is not techni…

> i have never seen any indication that he understands as much as people freely give him credit for.

So your disregarding what every single engineer that work for him says. It seem like you are going out of your way to ignore evidence.

Elon is and was the Chief Engineer on the Falcon 1/Falcon 9 rocket. That is a fact.

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#74

Post by ethbro » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 12:59 PM UTC

xkjkls wrote: post #55

ethbro wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He talked about this in an interview. Something to the effect of 'When I was in college, I tested how little I could live on. Turns out rice and beans are really cheap. So even if I fail, I'm not going to starve.' Admittedly, kids and spouses change ones opinion on that, but it's a fair way to keep perspective, even after becoming rich.

The man owns multiple mansions and spends most of his life flying around in a private jet. Let's not act like he's some monk.

One can own multiple mansions and fly around in a private jet, and still act without fear of losing those things due to risk.

Or one can hedge their bets and optimize for retaining creature comforts at all costs.

Point of this thread being, Elon could certainly be forgiven for doing the latter, but he still seems to be tacking closer to the former.

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#75

Post by nikofeyn » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 2:54 PM UTC

nickik wrote: post #71

nikofeyn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

would you mind pointing out some resources that back up your claims? they read like fiction.

I mean its a fact that is has the title. They don't have two chief engineers. Every single interview with him or anybody else that works at the company takes it for granted that he makes all the engineering decisions. If you listen to press conference you will see that he answers any and all questions, sometimes in insane amount of detail. This should really not be surprising to anybody who follows SpaceX in any deta…

that's not how burden of proof works. you're the one making claims and assertions, not me.

titles are not sufficient proof, and marketing is a thing.

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#76

Post by xkjkls » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

avmich wrote: post #62

xkjkls wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still not a profitable company with alot of debt to payoff and a valuation to justify. I don't know if we can consider 17 years without any profitable sustainability a success.

Amazon roughly fits this profile, with their habit of investing money in expanding markets instead of keeping profits. SpaceX is the only company which returns first stage after flight, in workable condition. In today's launch industry it's like a license to print money. It's really hard not to consider them profitable, even if they are private and don't show financial results.

Amazon has only been unprofitable one year since 2001, and cash flow positive every single year. They are the exact opposite of Tesla because they didn't require returning to the capital markets every two quarters.

> In today's launch industry it's like a license to print money. It's really hard not to consider them profitable, even if they are private and don't show financial results.

Every report on their financial results says they are unprofitable, and they continue to want to raise more and more money.

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#77

Post by nickik » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 11:42 AM UTC

nikofeyn wrote: post #75

nickik wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean its a fact that is has the title. They don't have two chief engineers. Every single interview with him or anybody else that works at the company takes it for granted that he makes all the engineering decisions. If you listen to press conference you will see that he answers any and all questions, sometimes in insane amount of detail. This should really not be surprising to anybody who follows SpaceX in any deta…

that's not how burden of proof works. you're the one making claims and assertions, not me. titles are not sufficient proof, and marketing is a thing.

I'm not making assertions, I'm point out a plain fact that is undenyable. Elon Musk is right now the Chief Engineer of SpaceX.

If you are saying 'that title is a total sham' and 'the title does not accuratly represent Musk role' then you need to provide evidence.

And yes, that is how burdon of proove works.

As I said before, ever single high level engineer that worked with him has repeated over and over again what a genius he is. I don't know what more evidence you could want.

Of course you can just continue to repeat and cast dought because you don't like him. But please show me a single piece of evidence that Elon Musk is not a capable rocket sientists and engineer.

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#78

Post by nikofeyn » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

nickik wrote: post #77

nikofeyn wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not how burden of proof works. you're the one making claims and assertions, not me. titles are not sufficient proof, and marketing is a thing.

I'm not making assertions, I'm point out a plain fact that is undenyable. Elon Musk is right now the Chief Engineer of SpaceX. If you are saying 'that title is a total sham' and 'the title does not accuratly represent Musk role' then you need to provide evidence. And yes, that is how burdon of proove works. As I said before, ever single high level engineer that worked with him has repeated over and over again what a…

you mistake how arguments work. i recommend just googling "burden of proof" and understanding how it works.

you claim that musk is the chief designer beyond just title. specifically, you said:

> He made every important choice on every important technical decision.

and

> He knows every detail of these rockets, he knows them inside and out. Nobody knows more about any of these rockets then Elon.

those are claims. simply stating he has the title of chief designer is not sufficient evidence. neither is citing anecdotal evidence from people who work for him (and you didn't even give quotes, you just stated the supposed conclusions). i asked if you had evidence and didn't make a claim otherwise in my response to you. the burden of proof fully lies on you to backup what you said. i didn't say it.

if people are still "slipping on elon and how brilliant he is", maybe you and his fanboys should provide more evidence than "omg, he's such a genius".

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#79

Post by blobster » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 9:49 PM UTC

felipeko wrote: post #66

blobster wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Austrians fail to grasp is that human behavior is quite predictable at the population level, or for large groups in general. This is the entire basis of game theory, marketing, sociology, etc. Unsurprisingly, Austrians refuse to acknowledge that economics is subject to science and do not recognize entire fields such as statistics. It's true that the actions of single individuals cannot be fully predicted, but th…

You can predict trends, not laws, using large groups observation. Austrians would not deny that. Trends are not a useful tool for economic policy, are only good tools for entrepreneurship.

You can model behavior, which is very useful for economics.

Re: Risky Business: Interview with Marc Andreessen (2018)

#80

Post by nickik » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 10:19 AM UTC

nikofeyn wrote: post #78

nickik wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not making assertions, I'm point out a plain fact that is undenyable. Elon Musk is right now the Chief Engineer of SpaceX. If you are saying 'that title is a total sham' and 'the title does not accuratly represent Musk role' then you need to provide evidence. And yes, that is how burdon of proove works. As I said before, ever single high level engineer that worked with him has repeated over and over again what a…

you mistake how arguments work. i recommend just googling "burden of proof" and understanding how it works. you claim that musk is the chief designer beyond just title. specifically, you said: > He made every important choice on every important technical decision. and > He knows every detail of these rockets, he knows them inside and out. Nobody knows more about any of these rockets then Elon. those are claims. simpl…

I'm sorry, but that is not the standard anybody else would apply when talking about other people. If somebody has a job at some company, we assume that is the job they are actually doing.

Its the Chief Engineers jobs to make choices about high level direction and to be the ultimate decision maker. In my book anybody who has that role for the most successful rocket company in human history is a genius.

If you want to claim he is not, claiming it all some sort of evil genius marketing scheme to hype up Elon, you need to provide an actual argument, no matter how many times you want to deny it.

> simply stating he has the title of chief designer is not sufficient evidence.

Its a private company, the evidence you ask for simply doesn't exists in the public domain. Essentially you have put yourself into a position where you have a opinion, and no evidence that exists in the public domain will convince you.

> neither is citing anecdotal evidence from people who work for him (and you didn't even give quotes, you just stated the supposed conclusions)

The best evidence we have is what people who have worked with him and multiple people in this thread have mentioned this to you. Yet you seem unwilling to do even a minimal amount of work yourself and neither me nor anybody else has time to go threw hours of video materials to provide quotes for you.

The fact is, you have a clearly uninformed opinion that disagrees with all the public knowledge we have and you have no evidence what so ever. This is clearly a stupid position to be in, but be my guest, I will no longer argue this.