He doesn't say that, though. "Wasn't done at my request" means that if it was done, he didn't order it; it neither confirms nor denies that it actually happened. Musk is being cagey; it's possible that he didn't yet know exactly what had occurred or who had ordered it.
Again, maybe there's something in that 48-page thread that proves me wrong. I'm fine with that. But it makes no sense to swallow the article's simplified interpretation without first doing the homework.
To me, Musk comes across as an out-of-touch engineer who keeps trying to argue the technical case and insists it's the customer's fault.
I interpreted the blog post very differently. He says that the article is an outright premeditated lie, and presents an overwhelming amount of technical data to back up his claim.
Somewhat interesting that the full context of the thread is not published or any discussion around it, only the one sentence from Musk and a few words from the post to which he was responding.
I don't understand the point you are trying to make?
It doesn't matter if Musk would not have said these things "on the record" or not, since he never had an agreement to be quoted off-the-record. It would seem to be his mistake.
I'll admit I had vague memory of Musk's tweet and thought he was merely questioning the overall narrative (which was quite messy honestly) with a text reply, but apparently he linked to an article with baseless claims like you mentioned.
I was willing to give Musk the benefit of the doubt about this initially, but that was clearly misjudged on his end.
You are using evidence of Musk doing the thing to say he didn't do the thing (even though you discounted this evidence in another chain). You wanted to know why you were being downvoted and not replied to. I gave you a reason and it wasnt good enough for you. Lesson learned. There is nothing to gain from further interactions with each other.
The argument that it's just "missing deadlines" which as true as it is, is also a strawman.
Musk hasn't just "missed deadlines". He's outright lied.
For example, in 2016 he claimed Tesla already had self driving capabilities it hasn't shown today, 8 years later.
He lied about bulletproof windows on the CyberTruck. His own demo disproved this.
He lied about the solar roofs. The entire demo was false and staged and the tiles on the roofs were not solar tiles as the demo strongly implied. And testimony showed that he personally knew that it was a lie.
Musk doesn't just miss deadlines. He blatantly lies. And that raises the legitimate concern that a lot of "missed deadlines" weren't just deadlines that were missed, but deadlines that were never feasible and he just lied about.
It was absolutely the initial implication. Musk bent over backwards to downplay that possibility of sabotage at the very first news conference. He also tweeted that it was unlikely and publicly joked about it: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/783567161402888192
I feel again like you're not comprehending what I wrote, and I'm going to assume you're not intentionally being dishonest in doing so.
> without mindlessly discarding everything else the person said.
It's a good thing I didn't do that.
> That will be a very successful way to never have to challenge any of your opinions since nobody is infallible.
Funny because I don't have a strong opinion either way on how badly Musk has behaved relative to the Twitter acquisition, so there is no opinion of mine to even protect. Again, you don't seem to understand what the following statement means: "I don't trust what you're saying and will have to corroborate it with other sources". Because it definitely doesn't mean what you think it means.
Now this is just playing semantic games. Nobody has ever claimed Musk is building Tesla's cars or SpaceX's rockets by hand. Obviously those are built by the factories and the people employed their for that purpose.
There is no way browserman's point was legitimately something not contradicted by the quotes I linked.
> “He’s not afraid to get his hands dirty,” Mueller said. “He’s out there with his nice Italian shoes and clothes and has epoxy all over him. They were there all night and tested it again and it broke anyway.”
Again, maybe there's something in that 48-page thread that proves me wrong. I'm fine with that. But it makes no sense to swallow the article's simplified interpretation without first doing the homework.
reply