Common denominator: both smart, both a$$holes
enjoying a read doesn't mean it was accurateI really enjoyed the Steve Jobs one. Wouldn't it have made more sense if this was something that was worked on and released posthumous like Jobs? Is that the goal? I know the Jobs book was a product of on and off conversations over many years. I just never understood biographies being released while the person is alive especially given that Musk is so young and could still do so much more.
Musk isn’t a fraudster. His cars are silently and cleanly zipping up and down my street, and will soon be charging in my own garage. His rockets are delivering to orbit and landing oriented the same way they launched. This is a future I didn’t think I’d see even in my old age, and I’m hardly 40. When Elon says we’re going to Mars, I now believe him.I'm not even remotely an Apple fanboy but Steve Jobs is a much much better character than this fraudster Musk. They're not even comparable
Thanks for letting us know? 🙄Walter is a good writer but, I won’t be reading about Elon.
enjoying a read doesn't mean it was accurate
Can anyone give me a quick rundown as to why MR members seems to have a negative view of Elon Musk? I remember the article with the Tim Cook CEO thing but it appears to be false. Is there anything else that I am missing?
A cardboard box is more interesting that Tim Cook.Like him or not, he sure is more interesting than Tim Cook.
Thanks for this good stuff, listening to it now!The best critique of the Jobs biography for me came from John Siracusa in the Hypercritical podcast: Walter Isaacson was the wrong guy for the job.
He has a good eye for stylish eyewear 🤷🏼A cardboard box is more interesting that Tim Cook.
His cars based on ideas that have been around for decades using battery technology that was not his, and rocket innovation that was mooted decades ago. His cars might be silently zipping, but not cleanly, as you forget conveniently the resource cost of the vehicle, which is greater than an ICE. As far as the charging, yes, no doubt massive subsidy for infrastructure and charging points will be put in, again not calculated into the clean resource scenario, let alone how the extra electricity will be supplied, or the extra copper, the extra plastics, lithium etc., where an EV requires significantly more plastics to make up for the massive battery weight, along with the titanium shield over the battery which if water penetrates is a recipe for an explosion or fire that cannot be contained and where existing fire services are ill equipped to deal with, and God knows what happens when motorways and highways get clogged up with EV's that have run out of charge? The original resource cost of an EV was based on batteries lasting 10 years or more, and they are failing in that respect, where a report by independent Finnish researchers suggested resource cost of the EV battery alone was equivalent to driving a diesel for 8.2 years. Once an EV gets to holding just 80% charge performance is affected and range, and where the specs for EV's didn't account for colder climates where heater use, wipers and even radio affected range. We are already seeing many batteries that lasted nowhere near the 10 year, so now many are only claiming an 8 year guarantee (limited at that) which makes it more resource costly than the ICE, where the battery alone is so resource dependent, let alone the car itself.Musk isn’t a fraudster. His cars are silently and cleanly zipping up and down my street, and will soon be charging in my own garage. His rockets are delivering to orbit and landing oriented the same way they launched. This is a future I didn’t think I’d see even in my old age, and I’m hardly 40. When Elon says we’re going to Mars, I now believe him.
The only issue here with the biography is that it is premature. Elon’s story has a lot of chapters still unwritten...
His cars based on ideas that have been around for decades using battery technology that was not his, and rocket innovation that was mooted decades ago. His cars might be silently zipping, but not cleanly, as you forget conveniently the resource cost of the vehicle, which is greater than an ICE. As far as the charging, yes, no doubt massive subsidy for infrastructure and charging points will be put in, again not calculated into the clean resource scenario, let alone how the extra electricity will be supplied, or the extra copper, the extra plastics, lithium etc., where an EV requires significantly more plastics to make up for the massive battery weight, along with the titanium shield over the battery which if water penetrates is a recipe for an explosion or fire that cannot be contained and where existing fire services are ill equipped to deal with, and God knows what happens when motorways and highways get clogged up with EV's that have run out of charge? The original resource cost of an EV was based on batteries lasting 10 years or more, and they are failing in that respect, where a report by independent Finnish researchers suggested resource cost of the EV battery alone was equivalent to driving a diesel for 8.2 years. Once an EV gets to holding just 80% charge performance is affected and range, and where the specs for EV's didn't account for colder climates where heater use, wipers and even radio affected range. We are already seeing many batteries that lasted nowhere near the 10 year, so now many are only claiming an 8 year guarantee (limited at that) which makes it more resource costly than the ICE, where the battery alone is so resource dependent, let alone the car itself.
Emergency services are not prepared for the EV situation, let alone dealing with solar installations, but with the EV, fire trucks that carry copious amounts of water are often the first to be used...which may be equivalent to adding petrol to a fire.
At present they are not even geared up to recycling these batteries and an EV uses up to 150lb more copper than an equivalent ICE and where if we get to the larger vehicles, an EV bus would use 700lb. more copper.
Even 'Elon's' vacuum tunnel is something thought of decades ago, and implemented as a transport system decades ago.
But we wouldn’t have viable EV without him and his dream.
I don’t believe that 5 year figure. Maybe 50 years would be believable.The turning point for "viable EV" would have just happened 5 years later without him.
Wether that would a point in the past or the future is another 5000 post flamefest.
Back to your regular scheduled fanboy circle####.....
I don’t believe that 5 year figure. Maybe 50 years would be believable.
Agreed. Really love his writing style, but Musk is not good subject material.Walter is a good writer but, I won’t be reading about Elon.
The only issue here with the biography is that it is premature. Elon’s story has a lot of chapters still unwritten...
Why not?Agreed. Really love his writing style, but Musk is not good subject material.
EV’s of 100 or 10 years ago are not comparable to Tesla. Contemporary EV’s are nowhere near Tesla. They are a decade ahead of other vehicles regardless of fuel system. All of your example happened because of leaders with vision, not organically.Thats just as plausible as:
- without the iPhone we would still use keyboards on feature phones
- without the Mac we would still be typing into command line interfaces
- without the Model_T cars would still be just toys for the 1%
In reality all these happened because the tech it is based on was developed shortly before and someone smart&lucky managed to piece them together before anybody else.
As for EV those existed long before as real products. I used to "putter" around Dortmund in an electric MicroVan almost 30 years ago, Toyota and Honda brought hybrids to market in the late 90s. Noone knows how that would have developed till today but it was above critical mass long before Elon started retrofitting the Lotus Elise to an EV as a 10th car for filmstars and proto hipsters.