We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Journalist Peter Fenn takes incompetence to new depths Rand Simberg pointed out this article. The level of incompetence shown by ‘professional journalist’ Peter Fenn is simply breathtaking to those who know the subject matter.
When I read something like this, it lowers my already sub-basement level of trust in professional media. If they are this bad on things where I know what is going on, what might they be feeding me in areas where I lack such inside knowledge?
It is really quite scary.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Agreed. I’d be interested in *why* he’s written such a misleading article. You don’t get that much wrong by accident.
Similarly, this is interesting:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-08/23/danish-manned-spacecraft(Link)
Somehow, amid all the snarky comments about Musk’s divorce, Fenn neglected to mention that SpaceX didn’t just stumble into that $1.6B NASA contract, or receive it through some affirmative action minority set-aside; they earned it. SpaceX has a demonstrated record of achievement (something which probably doesn’t matter to Fenn because of his demonstrated lack of it). And as to all those “20- and 30-somethings who are launching rockets”, doesn’t that describe perfectly NASA in its halcyon Apollo days?
Whatever the relevance of Tesla Motors to SpaceX (precisely, none), the last I heard there was a one-year waiting list for their sports cars. Not exactly consistent with Fenn’s assertion that “few want to buy it.”
Laird wrote:
‘Whatever the relevance of Tesla Motors to SpaceX (precisely, none), the last I heard there was a one-year waiting list for their sports cars. Not exactly consistent with Fenn’s assertion that “few want to buy it.”
No, these two things may both be entirely true and entirely consistent. They may merely be a reflection of a situation in which Tesla is producing less cars than the number of people who want to buy one. But that number may still be ‘few’ – probably is, at $100,000+ for an exotic, handbuilt new-technology vehicle of unknown durability and questionable reliability. Total production of Tesla vehicles as of today’s date is about 1200, or about 500 a year.
A long waiting list and low demand are not incompatible. The ultimate expression of this would be the sorts of ‘supercars’ that we’ve seen lately, which have a total market of perhaps 50 units but which are sold out immediately on announcement. Just because Jay Leno has to have one, doesn’t mean that any more than a very few will ever be sold. The Tesla is another such – a niche market vehciel at best, and once the tiny niche is filled . . . .
Based on their revenues of about $50 million pa, total losses since startup of more than $250 million, and no serious prospects for long-term growth or profitability, they don’t look like a good prospect in any sense, which is probably why their stock is so lacklustre and they are cap-in-hand for US government funding. But that doesn’t mean that a very small group of people can’t be found who are ever-so-keen to buy their product.
llater,
llamas
I guess it depends upon one’s definition of “few”, doesn’t it? Anyway, I still maintain that the relevance to SpaceX is non-existent.
Incidentally, Musk is also Chairman of a solar power company which seems to be doing quite well. I would suggest that all the evidence indicates that he’s a pretty fair entrepreneur and manager. Not qualifications to be sneered at by a second-rate journalist.
Laid – you had me agreeing with you, right up until you revealed that solar-power company connection.
Solar power, as presently practiced, for all but the most unusual applications, is a hopelessly-uneconomic boondoggle, the primary purpose of which seems to be to part investors from their money and milk government subsidies by a combination of direct cash payments and strenuous rent-seeking. And it doesn’t look like changing anytime soon.
So now we’ve identified at least two major business ventures with which Mr Musk is assciated which make little-to-no economic sense for consumers and which lose both investors’ and taxpayers money at a staggering rate.
I guess we’ll have to diverge in our opinions of Mr Musk’s skills, although I guess that running ventures such as those described does require considerable managerial and entreprenurial talent. But so do many other ventures – but it doesn’t make them a good thing to do.
llater,
llamas
If they are this bad on things where I know what is going on, what might they be feeding me in areas where I lack such inside knowledge?
Exactly the same stuff, it’s just harder to spot. Remember, these people didn’t go to J-school because being an engineer was beneath them.
There are now multiple and credible sources out there that Elon Musk has a rather “special” relationship with facts when it comes to his own businesses. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, he’s a businessman after all. But based on the stuff I’ve seen about his Tesla wranglings he’s skirting the drain when it comes to acceptable standards in disclosure for investors. He’s got a knack for saying what investors want to hear at the right time. This is a pretty important skill, but it carries risk.
There are a lot of rules on investment and not all of them are necessarily good, but they’re there all the same and Musk does have a reputation for bending them to breaking point. He did this around the recent Toyota deal to keep worried investors onboard when he was out of cash.
There’s no question that he’s doing amazing stuff with SpaceX, but I think the questions being asked are completely legitimate of a large company being awarded multi-billion dollar tax payer contracts.
The journalist is doing EXACTLY what journalists should do – ask hard questions and put them into the public domain. If you don’t like this guy’s position, what about Owen Thomas of Venture Beat?
http://venturebeat.com/2010/07/09/tesla-motors-elon-musk-truth/
He details at length and not behind a pay wall a number of detailed, documented and, in my opinion, serious, questions that haven’t been answered.
Daveon, thanks for the link to the VentureBeat article; I hadn’t read any of that before. You’re right; those are questions the Tesla Motors investors should be asking. How relevent any of them are to SpaceX is another matter, though, and while Musk’s (alleged) tendency toward hyperbole may be a legitimate issue even there the fact remains that SpaceX has a demonstrable record of achieving its goals. I still maintain that it has earned that NASA contract (and no, I don’t own stock in SpaceX or any other Musk venture).
But as to the Peter Fenn article which is the core of this thread, it’s merely a mean-spirited and contentless ad hominem attack on Musk. It asks no “hard questions”, or really any questions at all. For the most part, it seems little more than an excuse to use the cutesy phrase “space cadet” in the title, and in my opinion doesn’t rise to the level of “journalism”. It certainly doesn’t merit your (or anybody else’s) defense.
Fenn has written a blog post asking awkward questions for Musk fans. I don’t see it as any more mean spirited or ad hominem than anything I see here regularly or in many other Blogs, even those by paid Journos.
Questioning Elon Musk’s abilities: as a business man, a leader, a husband, a manager of money, a securities risk – are all absolutely open targets IMO. Just because he is successful and doing something REALLY cool doesn’t excuse him from the kind of scrutiny that anybody else with his track record would have.
As to whether or not SpaceX has a demonstrable record – I’m still waiting to see. As with any aerospace endeavour it really is too early to tell.
Surely you’re familiar with the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.
Michael Crichton:
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
“In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
I read Fenn’s piece; it is pure snark. Fuck him for the loser he undoubtedly is.
In my experience, when you know a lot about a subject, and you see outsiders write about something and make multiple errors or come out with plain lies, it is pretty sobering. That is one of the reasons why no-one should rely on Wikipedia as a main source of information on anything.