This is the internet - people don’t change their opinions because of facts. Actually, you can strike those last three words.
He said… what?
Well, that’s what the man said. If Holzhausen believes stainless steel can’t be formed into compound curves, someone should tell him to take a look at his kitchen sink!
Maybe he was referring to some specific special type of stainless that was being used in the truck, or else the limitations may have been due to its thickness.
Yeah. I’d read that as:
The alloy & thickness we’d picked for [reasons] couldn’t be formed to the compound curves we wanted for [reasons] with the tooling we wanted to use for [reasons].
It must be an IT thing. There is no one in my company just faking it. I know because, while we have teams, every individual has their own work reviewed daily by everyone else in each team, with an eye to spotting mistakes. I have an almost subconscious ranking of everyone’s ability and it can’t really be questioned. You won’t even get your foot in the door without being better than ~80% of the applicants. Then there is the ongoing training and if you sink you get moved out.
What sort of work is it?
I think it’s more of a “business” thing than a specifically “IT thing”. In IT, on some level someone actually needs to know what they are doing, whether it’s building an app in java, deploying a cloud architecture, or whatever. Otherwise it simply won’t work. You can’t fake software not running.
You can fake selling, marketing, or strategizing about it. So what I’ve often seen in my career is companies hiring all sorts of layers of management and consultants and so-called experts until you actually get to the guy who actually knows how the shit works.
Oh OK, management nonsense, yes, you can fake that, and I’ve seen that too, but they rarely last.
I’m in IP law (drafting filing and prosecution) and translation of IP documents (patents, rulings etc.). It is immediately apparent if you don’t know what you are doing. We don’t hire managers, they just arise naturally out of the workers we have.
How? Either the product gets sold or it doesn’t.
Part of what sank Enron was “selling” a Nigerian energy barge operation to Merrill Lynch, and booking earnings as a result. It turned out to be considered a loan by securities authorities, which made it securities fraud.
I guess what I mean is that compared to actually building and / or fixing stuff, sales is more on the “soft” side of business that is often more abstract (and more highly compensated). And while salespeople often pat themselves on the back for being great relationship builders, negotiators, and whatnot (and many are), quite frequently they are only part of what gets a product actually sold.
For example, our realtor earned a 3% commission when we bought our condo. She didn’t really “do” much besides interact with the sellers realtor and help us handle some paperwork. We found the apartment in a building we knew we wanted to live in. She didn’t even price it all that well.
I faked it until I made it on my current assignment. I got hired to do PHP programming, and then moved to Angular/Typescript. Now, I told the manager when I hired him that I didn’t know those languages, but I have a good enough grounding in programming in general that a book and Google allowed me to learn on the job. He believed me and it was true - my contract expires in 3 days, they offered to extend me for the third time, but I’m tired of working.
Well, we’re coming up on a year. So far the vision is that
- Twitter became X
- X has lost over half of its advertising revenue year-over-year
- The acquisition is being investigated by the SEC
- A report from the European Commission found that X had the highest proportion of Russian disinformation of any of the major social media platforms
- Since it’s a private company, we don’t have a good way to estimate the change in market value.
I’m surprised that the company is still a going concern. Regardless, I see no evidence of “vision” here.
Actually we sort of do.
Short version: the company is giving stock to its employees. In doing so, the company represents its belief about valuation. This grant is based on an internal valuation of $19 billion. So the company’s current market value is seen by its own leadership as less than half of its purchase price a year ago.
Frankly that’s better than the outcomes of some M&A activity that a year or two later sell their recent acquisition for a nickel on the purchase dollar.
But for what was really just a change in CEO followed by business strategy revisions in the absence of material change in the competitive or regulatory landscape, this is probably a new world record for voluntary wealth destruction.
Wish like hell he’d just mailed the now-missing $25B to me. I’d have taken it off his hands with far less work & angst on his part.
I read today that Musk allegedly lowered the cost of launching space stuff by 90%. You could certainly argue about if Musk was personally responsible for this, if this has anything to do with business skill as such, or if someone else would have inevitably done this. But you can’t easily argue that this is an impressive decrease in cost, if the numbers are accurate.
This thread is baffling. Elon Musk became the richest man in the world because he was highly intelligent, savvy, and productive. He made a mistake buying Twitter. Big deal. Everyone who thinks Elon Musk is stupid and has a net worth 1% or higher than Musk’s, raise your hands. You’re all so smart I’m sure I don’t need to say this, but if your net worth is less than 2.5 billion dollars then put your hand down.
That figure is not accurate. The reduction in cost when you factor in the full payload processing and ‘special’ mission costs (instead of the advertised bare manifesting price), is more on the order of a 50% to 60% reduction over other American launch providers, and about in line with Russian commercial launches.
Nor is this particularly surprising; I worked on a study that showed that ULA launches could be done for 40% of the EELV contract cost without reducing any important services or oversight, and still with an adequate level of independent verification & validation (IV&V) with no design changes on the vehicle side, and only modest changes to ground support hardware and processes. Tory Bruno, CEO of ULA, later admitted after SpaceX won the right to bid on EELV missions that they could do launches for half of their contract cost, albeit not under FAR Part 15 information delivery requirements. (SpaceX operates under the ‘commercial’ FAR Part 12 requirements with some enhancements.)
A lot of credit is awarded to SpaceX on the basis of the ‘reusability’ of their first stage, but frankly the cost savings on bare hardware aren’t that great because the largest portion of cost is the ‘touch labor’ of integration and testing. Reusability has allowed for a higher launch tempo than having to build and fly a new first stage for every launch, but there is a lot of labor that goes into ‘reusing’ stages, including often having to swap out some engines and a lot of non-engine components. Nor is it the first launch vehicle to perform vertical landing, although it is the first to do so for an orbital vehicle. The real savings is having a streamlined processing flow and being able to maintain a high tempo, which amortizes the cost of all of the processing and launch facilities, and spreads the cost of maintaining a skilled labor base over more flights, which again are the largest operating costs for orbital space launch.
Stranger
He didn’t make a mistake buying Twitter. He made a spectacular series of mistakes after buying Twitter. He may be all that but his ego trumps it.
Heh, beat me to it. “He made a mistake buying Twitter.” Yeah, right, one mistake, and everything after that has been an endless parade of genius actions and decisions?