Well, I can't speak for scientists or engineers. But the reason he (and his kind) are irritating to me is because they amass their wealth spouting bullshit that dupes people into giving them money. Then, of course, when you spend a hell of a lot of money, *something* good will come of it. It's like all the spinoff tech from the Star Wars program.
Citing "Musk" all the time is just more celebrity business networker marketing nonsense. The good that comes from amassing and spending lots of money comes from the people who execute, not the celebrity. The celebrity that conned people out of the money in the first place might be given some credit. But then how do we distinguish between Musk and, say, Gwyneth Paltrow? Or worse, Musk and quacks like Joseph Mercola? Paltrow and Mercola have done just as much good for the world as Musk has. Tech dorks simply deify Musk over Mercola because of their focus on tech. But it's all snake oil. Oprah Winfrey is a better example, I guess. We can see her conman offspring in Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil. And the good that's come from that wealth accumulation is, perhaps, clearer than that from the Star Wars program. But there's plenty of bad there, too. I feel sorry for those who identify the good that's done with the celebrity, then refuse to identify the bad that's done with that celebrity. On 1/28/22 09:05, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I can sort of see why Musk is annoying to scientists because he tends to use ideas and technology that already exist. So, what is he really adding? Neuralink is in this category. That company is making the technology work at a larger scale and at lower power and making the surgery repeatable. The company (not him) is making it practical and approaching it like a product. Some scientists are prone to thinking that engineering is a not a thing or that a product mindset is just superficial. Or even that money doesn't matter. I'm less enamored with Musk's futurism than I am appalled at tunnel vision, overspecialization, and risk aversion of so many others. The annoyance people have at Musk can only be because they must acknowledge his influence. And seeing that influence they conclude he is somehow responsible for the world in the way that, say, Joe Biden is responsible for the world. Or as Feynman put it, “You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect me to be. It's their mistake, not my failing.” What would be the point of being a billionaire if you couldn't at least be the dork you want to be? Before Space X had customers and a track record, there were all the NASA old fogies saying he'd be killing people and he could not possibly do it. Am I glad to see them so wrong? Yes. It is not because he is the best or some Tony Stark. It is because they are the worst.
-- glen Theorem 3. There exists a double master function. .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
