But free speech!!
Split Thread Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla
- Status
But free speech!!
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Evidence that this is 'rotting from the head'?
I'm against all forms of racial misconduct and certainly wouldn't tolerate it in my own business, but this sounds more like a few individuals rather than corporate culture. I can't imagine management being happy with graffiti of any kind being scrawled on equipment or products either. I guess we will find out the real story when it goes to court.
dirtywick
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 10,318
well i can't think of any tesla management that would be involved of anything like that either
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
And yet
That absolutely sounds like corporate culture to me. It sounds like management was in fact so okay with the situation that they chose to fire anyone who threatened the status quo by complaining about it rather than correct it. Firing, after all, is a management decision; it's not done by the line workers or temps.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
The best intentions tend to get sidelined when bucket-loads of money are involved, and the most ardent socialists often change their tune when their own businesses are at stake.
Musk never said he was a liberal. His method of helping fight global warming was to create a market-based solution. And it worked. If it wasn't for Tesla, auto makers would still only be looking at producing just enough 'compliance cars' to greenwash their operations, hoping the EV fad would die out quickly so they could continue with business as usual.
But to cause that disruption Musk had to be a capitalist. He poured everything he had into Tesla and nearly went bankrupt before they could get their first cars off the production line. Then he continued to pour Tesla's profits back into building bigger factories and charging networks, which was vital to achieving the goal of making electric cars mainstream. Hardly surprising therefore that he became even more of a capitalist.
How Elon Musk Turned Tesla Into the Car Company of the Future
Musk hasn't lost sight of his goals, but that experience has changed him. Now the success of his company is everything, and that focus on business has driven him into the arms of conservatives and libertarians. During the covid lockdowns he suggested - like Trump - that it would shortly disappear. Why? Because having his factories shut down was hurting the business. It's sad to see someone do that, but many people in his position would do the same.
His flirt with Bitcoin was not surprising either. Musk made his initial fortune from an online direct bank he co-founded called X.com (which he sold to paypal for $165 million), so it's understandable that he might be attracted to the idea of Bitcoin. However, like many, he didn't realize its true environmental cost and what message that would send. He also didn't appreciate how many Tesla/Musk detractors are out there just waiting to jump on anything they can use against him. That's his fault for not being better informed, but not that surprising. Sure there was the occasional headline excoriating Bitcoin for its energy use, but who reads that stuff? There were probably many more articles bashing electric cars for reasons.
Musk pulled out of Bitcoin as soon as people starting complaining, which turned out to be fortunate because its 'value' dropped soon after - perhaps partly because people saw Tesla pull out and were disappointed by yet another failure to make it useful. Bitcoin's environmental costs would be a lot lower if it was mainly used to purchase expensive items like cars online, rather than primarily a distributed ponzi scheme to extract money from greater fools.
What really doesn't help is that being a republican these days means you have to be a Trump supporter. Not that long ago George W Bush was considered by liberals to be a far right shill for the oil industry. Now he's too liberal for the Republican party. In 2001 Bush said:-
Musk started investing in Tesla in 2004, with the stated mission being 'to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy'. So his goals aligned perfectly with the Republican administration of the day.
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
But we are only hearing one side of the story. Perhaps they treat all workers like that no matter what they complain about. Or perhaps it wasn't 'management' who made those decisions, but certain individuals.
I am also confused by the references to 'swastikas' and 'Non-Black' perpetrators. Seems hard to believe that Nazism is a part of Tesla's corporate culture, or that some perpetrators who by implication were not 'Non-Black' would be excluded for reasons.
Like I said, let's wait for the facts to come out in court before jumping to conclusions.
What? Are you kidding??? Never let a chance go by to put the boot in, whether it has merit or not!
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
If those certain individuals were managers, that's a distinction without a difference really.
As I said, only management can fire people.
dirtywick
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 10,318
there was never any practicality for doge coin, that was a textbook pump and dump
From the part you highlighted but didn't bolden: managers, supervisors, line leads, production leads.
According to many there is quite a flat management structure at Tesla so yes it includes the "heads".
From the details in the report claiming it is a "corporate culture" is an appropriate description.
It should also be recalled that Musk is a white South African, he was raised up in a culture that was and is still horribly and casually racist against black South Africans. If he still carries any of the racist baggage with him (which is not saying he is a racist by the way) he may simply not have thought any reports of racism - if any ever made them up to him - that serious that it needed anything doing. It could also be that his corporate culture does not encourage honest reporting upwards of problems. I have seen that in many companies, especially those headed by entrepreneurs, if the CEO/MD let's put it this way - doesn't have good "people skills" often their employees at all levels will try to avoid giving them anything but good news.
jeremyp
Philosopher
If you were the manager of a car company, would you tolerate those kinds of actions? I know for sure in my company that the management would not tolerate racist graffiti even from “a few individuals”, and if they did, the CEO would not tolerate them.
The fact that these few individuals felt they could deface even the company’s product, presumably without consequences is utterly damning.
jeremyp
Philosopher
Roger, you know Musk isn't going to give you a pony, right?
I agree, his goals being to stay the richest man on Earth by converting as much of it into electric cars as possible.
Not exactly true. X.com merged with the company that eventually became Paypal. Musk then got fired for being useless (and wanting to call the company by a stupid name: "X") but he kept his shares in Paypal and made a fortune when it was sold.
What? Musk, the real life Tony Stark, tech entrepreneur par excellence didn't know how Bitcoin works? Either he did know about the environmental cost but chose to ignore it, or he didn't know about the environmental cost and is therefore a bit of a thicky. The evidence of Twitter suggests the latter.
There was no excuse for an allegedly environmentally conscious company to invest in Bitcoin.
The cynic in me thinks Musk probably did some side deals and the Tesla move was part of a pump and dump operation. That's probably crediting him with more intelligence than he really has though.
Edited by Agatha:
Edited to remove rule 9 breach
He's not fighting global warming. He wouldn't be investing in cars at all if his concern was global warming. Cars, even electric ones, are not the answer.
Certainly did. He became the richest man on Earth, at least on paper. Job done.
And it was his fault, at least partly. He kept ordering pointless changes in the Roadster that made it more expensive and delayed its launch.
I agree, his goals being to stay the richest man on Earth by converting as much of it into electric cars as possible.
It should be surprising, if you believe the story that he is trying to save the Earth. Bitcoin is a disaster for attempts to curb global warming.
Not exactly true. X.com merged with the company that eventually became Paypal. Musk then got fired for being useless (and wanting to call the company by a stupid name: "X") but he kept his shares in Paypal and made a fortune when it was sold.
What? Musk, the real life Tony Stark, tech entrepreneur par excellence didn't know how Bitcoin works? Either he did know about the environmental cost but chose to ignore it, or he didn't know about the environmental cost and is therefore a bit of a thicky. The evidence of Twitter suggests the latter.
There was no excuse for an allegedly environmentally conscious company to invest in Bitcoin.
An actual tech genius would ******* know it. FFS I knew it.
Not really fortunate then. Bitcoin went up when Tesla announced it was going to invest in it and it went down when Tesla reversed its decision. Who could have predicted that?
The cynic in me thinks Musk probably did some side deals and the Tesla move was part of a pump and dump operation. That's probably crediting him with more intelligence than he really has though.
Last edited by a moderator:
You mean that Musk grossly exaggerated about one of his products ? Pass me my clutching pearls and lead me to my fainting couch.
This level of lying is SOP for Musk, Trump and all of their fellow travelers.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
You mean that Musk grossly exaggerated about one of his products ? Pass me my clutching pearls and lead me to my fainting couch.
This level of lying is SOP for Musk, Trump and all of their fellow travelers.
It's really not even that big of a deal, but Musk defenders seem to get their panties in a bunch of you point out the obvious, like that it's obvious that the Cybertruck looks like something rendered on a Sega Dreamcast for purely aesthetic, rather than practical, reasons.
Presumably some people like the look of it and luxury products are often intentionally strange looking as a means of communicating wealth. There's no accounting for taste I suppose, looks like a kitchen appliance to me.
jeremyp
Philosopher
I never really understood the meaning of the term "exoskeleton" with respect to car manufacture anyway. I think it's a term that should be reserved for arthropods and Ironman.
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
The interpretation of Musk's claims has largely been that he was describing monocoque construction. This is where the skin of the object supports the loads such as in airplane wings, rockets, and egg shells.
What it very much appears more traditional 'unibody' design. Now unibody is often referred to as a type of monocoque and it sort of is to a small degree. In unibody, the parts of the vehicle that weigh the most, the power train/engine, are mounted to the same frame that the skin is attached to. This is where semantics and terms of art can really start to blur things, because the 'body' of say a car, usually is not the 'skin' or 'body panels' when talking about construction of a car. However, the terms 'body work' and 'body' to the general public and in everyday conversation even among mechanics usually means the panels, and not the body that the body panels are mounted to. Sometimes some of the body panels are part of the the body and structural. This is most often seen with the roof but also the rear pillars. You know those rear pillars on the various Prius that are kind of wide? They're part of the body (or they were when I toured the Aichi plant a decade ago). That is closer to a 'monocoque' build, but because the panels that are structural are so few compared to those that aren't, it's still generally considered a kind of 'unibody'.
'Body on frame' is a slightly heavier and older construction method where the powertrain is mounted to it's own frame, the chassis, on which the frame for the body panels are still mounted. It's still the common method for most full sized trucks. My Silverado has some body panels that are in need of replacing from rust, but I could literally take them and the sub frame they're on off and the vehicle would still work, assuming the frame I took off was not the one holding the steering suit and seats. Some cars are a combination with sub frames. My old Subaru had a rear sub frame that kind of worked as a chassis but not for the power train which would have made getting the gas tank out to find the minuscule leak a pain. 'Luckily' I blew the engine first.
Basically the more separate 'frames/bodies/chassis' you're attaching together and the less it uses the panels for structure, the more 'body on frame' it is, the fewer differences in them leads into 'unibody', and the more the panels or 'skin' is used structurally the more of a 'monocuque' it is.
It very much appears that the Cybertruck is mostly a unibody with one structural panel making it less of an 'exoskeleton' than a decade old Prius.
EDIT: To be clear, the accusation being floated is that instead of the thing they have been calling 'structural skin' being part of the structure, it's just an unusually large body panel, which only makes the vehicle more difficult to repair and maybe some other drawbacks, but is not actually being used structurally. The drive train chassis seems independent of it.
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Pathetic.
If you look at the construction of a Ford F150 for example you will see that the body adds zero structural strength to the chassis. The cab and deck are separate parts that are mounted to the chassis on rubber bushings, so they are floating and only held down loosely by bolts going through the bushings. If the frame rusts out the truck can 'break its back' in an alarming manner. The aluminum panels don't add much strength to the body either.
The Cybertruck is completely different. Those thick stainless steel panels are rigidly attached to the frame to provide significant strength in the skin, certainly more than a Prius with its eggshell-thin steel panels that rely on their curved shape to avoid buckling.
You may argue that this construction makes the body harder to repair, but it's probably not going to need repair like a soft aluminum truck body or car with steel so thin that you can dent it just by leaning on it too hard.
But hey, don't let that stop us from 'interpreting' Musk's description of the Cybertruck's construction as something we can then accuse of being lame and stupid. Is this a truck are talking about, or a straw man?
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
As if other trucks aren't styled more for aesthetics than practicality.
It's been explained to you a million times that the Cybertruck wasn't designed that way just to make it look futuristic, yet you still refuse to get it. Why? We know why. MDS.
Kitchen appliances are intentionally strange looking as a means of communicating wealth? You contradict yourself.
But the phrase 'communicating wealth' is telling. Why are you not excoriating Ford or GM for 'communicating wealth' with their ostentatious designs? We know why. MDS.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Of course, I even have a thread about Killdozers and how the aggressively styled, high hood height of typical American trucks is an aesthetic choice that has disastrous consequences when it comes to crash safety.
None of these explanations withstand even the tiniest bit of scrutiny. There is no practical reason why the cybertruck could not be made with normal curved panels.
I do, in fact, frequently criticize the ridiculousness of other car and truck designs. Over in the Killdozer thread you'll see plenty of comments from me mocking the notion that so many Americans have a practical need for giant pickup trucks, and it's quite obvious that these large vehicles are in fact little more than status symbols. The Cybertruck is in good company in the American truck market when it comes to wildly impractical designs that are little more than macho status symbols.
Last edited:
- Status