Elon Musk goes to court . . .

Status
Not open for further replies.
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
12,085
Location
London, UK
None of which would exist without huge government subsidy, funny that, corporate welfare is good, anything else is gulags.

SpaceX gets a lot of money from NASA for its Dragon cargo missions to the ISS and soon the Crew Dragon. This money was crucial to SpaceX early days when they moved from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9. Although I certainly wouldn't call it a subsidy. It is actually saving NASA money as they don't have to spend the money developing space craft and they no longer pay Russia for Soyuz.

Elon seems an odd character as a lot of geniuses are. His comment were stupid. I'm sure it won't be the last stupid thing he says. I do love his tech though, although I can't afford to buy any of it. SpaceX has changed space travel. People laughed at him when he said he'd create a reusable rocket. They aren't laughing now. Fingers crossed we'll see Starship in orbit soon.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
He has a degree in physics and owns an electric car company as well as a company that puts rockets into space, I think he might know a few things about engineering. Just stop taking utter rubbish

And his main expertise is publicity. Regardless of any work he might do in engineering. Or what companies he owns. Owning a company has no relevance to what product or service the company makes or provides, so that's just some more rubbish you're talking.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,805
And his main expertise is publicity. Regardless of any work he might do in engineering. Or what companies he owns. Owning a company has no relevance to what product or service the company makes or provides, so that's just some more rubbish you're talking.

Your original post strongly implied, or very poor choice of words if you were questioning it, that you thought his abilities other than publicity were likely not genuine...

I find it amusing how Musk seems to trigger some people probably on the basis that they don't think he should be successful. This whole thing with Unsworth largely seems to have blown up because Unsworth doesn't like his face so to speak rather than real concerns about what Musk was doing and seeing it as a chance to have a pop at him.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Posts
8,401
Location
United Kingdom
There are quite a few jealous/angry people lashing out in this thread. I'm all for discussion in GD but when it keeps going back and forth over the same petty remarks it gets old fast.

Agree to disagree and move onto the next thread.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
14 Apr 2017
Posts
3,511
Location
London
Musk repeated the accusation afterwards, very publically, and publically stated that Unsworth was a child abuser unless he sued Musk. Musk's apology was (like his defence in court) a lie.

That sounds a bit far fetched, but if true, then Unsworth was virtually goaded into suing him.
I have no experience in legal matters of this kind, but I’d hazard a guess that Unsworth didn’t come up with that astronomical amount for damages, it was probably arrived at by the lawyer(s) advising him.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Jun 2005
Posts
3,046
Location
The South
And his main expertise is publicity. Regardless of any work he might do in engineering. Or what companies he owns. Owning a company has no relevance to what product or service the company makes or provides, so that's just some more rubbish you're talking.

vloJqru.jpg

As a matter of interest, would you say the same of Bill Gates?

If @Angilion thinks Musk is an "expertise in publicity", then it'll be interesting to know what he thinks of Job's? Probably says Job's was an engineer :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
Your original post strongly implied, or very poor choice of words if you were questioning it, that you thought his abilities other than publicity were likely not genuine... [..]

I wasn't questioning it or implying anything - I was dismissing it as irrelevant. Everyone can do more than one thing to some extent, often well. For some reason, the example that came to my mind first was Caroline Herschel. She was an astronomer, very well known in her lifetime and still fairly well known today. Not much is said about the fact that she was a singer before becoming an astronomer and continued to sing after becoming an astronomer. She was a very good singer, but her primary area of expertise was astronomy. She was also a very good mathematician, good enough for Laplace himself to know of her and comment favourably on her ability as a mathematician. But you won't find her listed as a mathematician because her primary area of expertise was astronomy.

As a matter of interest, would you say the same of Bill Gates? [..]

Not really, though he had to have or acquire enough expertise in the field to be able to be the front person for a large company. He wasn't on Musk's level in publicity, though. Not even close. Musk is extremely skilled in publicity.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,805
I wasn't questioning it or implying anything - I was dismissing it as irrelevant.

No real need to have a pop about might be lying if your intention was simply to dismiss that factor as irrelevant.

"He might do engineering as a sideline. He might be lying about that."

Maybe it wasn't your intention but no real need to mention things like might be lying otherwise if your intention was just to dismiss that factor as not relevant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom