The way he looks at the audience, expecting a positive reaction, it seems to me that the memes have really got into his head and he thinks people still love him for being so edgy and 'funny'. Instead, he comes across as a dangerous lunatic with too much power and money.
No, not since The Tweet(tm). He fell from Nerd Jesus to Nerd Satan in one day, so armchair pathologizing or insulting Musk has been highly encouraged on HN since that day.
Elon has claimed to be slightly autistic, as the parent of an autistic kid I believe him, perhaps we all are to some extent.
He is an extremely busy man, and the same set of skills that lead to his success at engineering don't translate at all to success in the social realm. To simplify his social interaction decision making he looks for huristics, such as the tried and true: woke = bad!
So increasingly in following a simple heuristic he seems to have outsourced much of his personal philosophy to the Joe-Rogan-O-Sphere, and all the anti vax, transphobic, supplement pill pushing, pizzagate conspiracy believing, Jew-baiting quackery that entails.
The macho attitude of doubling then tripling down on unforced blunders works well if you are a contrarian podcast host "just following the questions...", but less so when you are CEO with obligations not to rock the boat, not to become a clown presiding over a circus.
It's worse than I expected. Musk is out of his gourd. I don't know if it's the drugs or actual insanity but I don't just see an asshole but someone losing touch with reality. It's not autism or even "outsourcing his politics", he is barely coherent. This man will likely need institutional help.
As an autist myself, I’ve never acted like Musk. My autistic family and friends have not either. Musk may be autistic but he is also extremely narcissistic and egotistical, that much should be clear. Let’s maybe focus on that instead of autism causing his bad behavior.
trojan13 says >"The way he looks at the audience, expecting a positive reaction, it seems to me that the memes have really got into his head and he thinks people still love him for being so edgy and 'funny'."<
No, it did make an impression on me he does constantly say something edgy or (an attempt at being) funny and then looks around for approval, that isn't there.
This is no surprise. Aside from his Twitter bubble, he's in a bubble even offline. Tesla presentations are full of people profiting off Tesla YouTube videos, selling investment "lessons", crypto bros, and fanboys.
They DO laugh at all his jokes. They DO clap at everything edgy he says. And so he, almost reasonably, believes the rest of the world is like that, and the mass media just hates him for dropping heavy truths with a hammer.
He admits the company will die if advertisers pull out, and his solution is to document it and let the world know that the advertisers were the reason the company died.
He seems to contradict himself. On one hand he says “fuck you“ to anybody pulling advertising like he’s throwing caution to the wind because he just doesn’t care, but on the other hand, he says the company is doomed if advertisers pull out, and that seems to really upset him.
So… Twitter is shutting down? There’s really no other plan other than blaming advertisers for pulling out, and ranting about how earth will judge them?
I think I’ve figured out what he’s doing. He knows Twitter is going to flop due to its tremendous debt, dwindling audience and the failure of his paid premium subscription scheme.
But this way, when it happens he gets to blame all of that on “woke corporations“, rather than on himself.
I would hope it was blatantly obvious that was exactly what he is doing. It doesn't require any particular skill to decipher that he's engaging in blameshifting, he's flatly stating it.
Yep. He didn't want to buy it in the end. Once he was forced to, he fired almost everyone to lower overhead as much as possible. He also pulled some heroics in doing so, if you read about the "moving the servers" fiasco, which was an impressively intrepid bit of "getting your hands dirty" getting shit done.
I don't know to what extent he has made or could make it profitable, but I don't think he wants it to die. It dying, though, isn't the worst thing, and here he can turn it into a Braveheart moment to boot, winning hearts and minds -- like mine. I see what he's doing, but I love it; fuck advertisers. They've ruined the Internet. Or, rather, monetization in the abstract has.
It's disgusting to me how he was asked about trying to bend the knee to suits like Iger, turning the platform into some anemic, anodyne corporate candy world of devout Good Behavior, an eternal kindergarten where we're all trapped forever with the advertisers as our mental jailors, since that's how profits can flow most frictionlessly.
What he's doing is stupid -- people's 401ks are on the line. But it's wild how it doesn't seem to bother anyone how that's an argument for spinelessness. It's a New Hampshire license plate "live free or die" moment, and 90% of posters here are advocating for content slavery with tone policing and personal attacks.
He was NEVER forced to buy twitter. At any point he could have cut a check for a billion dollars and walked away. He just couldn't swallow his goddamned drug fueled pride.
This is such an instructive story in how social media messes up discourse. Yes, fine-tuned shadow banning of stuff one does not like politically is BS (point taken, Musk). But promoting a bunch of randos with personal endorsement so they run important debates is also a very questionable service to democracy (see https://www.cip.uw.edu/2023/10/20/new-elites-twitter-x-most-...). Overreacting to some of the stuff that then floats to the top on the part of advertisers and commentators is again not right, but calling this reaction "blackmail" is probably a little over the top. So what have we learnt? Make time for reading paper books and sniffing the flowers sometimes maybe?
"[C]alling this reaction 'blackmail'" isn't "a little over the top," it's petulant and incoherent. The basic idea of blackmail is "I know a secret about you and I'll reveal it if you don't give me money."
Musk's present position is that he keeps saying and promoting repulsive stuff in public and so some advertisers prefer to stop supporting or being associated with his business. This isn't remotely like "blackmail": the repulsive stuff is all public to begin with.
The Sorkin guy said maybe advertisers don’t want to be associated with it, and he said “let’s see what the courts say“.
So he’s going to sue people for not advertising with him? How can anyone who says this kind of thing claim to believe in free markets, libertarianism or capitalism?
Correct, and the basic pattern persists: Someone in a larger group of people does something objectionable, and this is then attributed to one "side" in the debate (fundamental attribution error). This transgression of the "side" is then interpreted as being indicative of its intentions (ultimate attribution error). The imagined intention is then being fought with polemic and exaggerations. I'll stick with my flowers and I appreciate your correction.
The person I most feel sorry for is Linda Yaccarino, CEO and head of advertising at X. She was sitting in the audience when he did this. Imagine how awkward her near-term conversations with advertisers who were with X as of last week will be.
> The person I most feel sorry for is Linda Yaccarino, CEO and head of advertising at X.
Why? It's not like she was at Twitter when Musk bought it. She knew what she was signing up for. If she didn't, she's a moron. I feel sorry for all the H1B engineers getting the short end of the deal now that the tech job market is shit. Linda is going to be fine.
Uh. It's not like she suddenly found herself in the middle of this nonsense like those H1-B employees. She explicitly chose to be part of the shitshow. She is the person requiring the LEAST sympathy here.
Are we all ignoring the part of the interview where he gets the reporter's name wrong after calling him a "good friend"? Personally I think that's way more interesting. Like, who does that?
I find it sad that almost nobody is willing to take a nuanced view on Elon. I can highly recommend people to read Isaacson‘s biography of him. You don’t have to like him (you won’t), but it’s good to have a well formed opinion.
We spend too much time thinking about celebrities in general. Irrespective of your opinions on Musk, Zuckerberg, Sam Altman etc, it's probably healthier to spend time thinking about your friends and family instead.
I have a reasonably nuanced view on him and admire his ability to cut through bullshit and build, but he needs to stop visiting the website formerly known as Twitter and go back to working on real concrete problems.
Twitter is this thing he's most ill fitted to be on and work on and also what he can't get away from. Hope it isn't his undoing because that would be a pathetic end.
One, that book is filled with BS (https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/1/23895069/walter-isaacson-...). Second, I don't care if Elon had a tough childhood or is autistic or is high on ketamin all the time. He's got too much power, too much wealth and is displaying alarming behavior.
I flagged the post because it's extremely unlikely to lead to a worthwhile discussion in any way or form. There will be some who support Elon and will state so. There will be some who don't and will also state so. Both of those people will flame each other in various capacities.
For example, if I suggested that the world would be better if he hadn't basically done a right wing radicalization speedrun, didn't endorse people with hateful ideologies, didn't act in ways that even made his trans daughter want nothing to do with him, or if he was just nicer in general. That point of view is known, yet doesn't add much, aside from grounds for disagreement in the eyes of some.
As for the actual impact of running a company like Twitter/X is run, a few years are probably needed to gather all the facts - then it can be used as an example of what not to do in business school, or how big/small the impact of certain choices actually is. I look forwards to this being reposted in maybe 2026.
I really hate flagging. What is the point of a discussion forum where you're not allowed to discuss things just because a minority of people are experiencing cognitive dissonance every time they get in their Tesla?
If you claim it won't be a "worthwhile discussion", what exactly qualifies as a worthwhile discussion to you? Are we changing the world when we talk about Rust or the latest Nvidia GPU?
And how is it not worthwhile for the HN community to reason about the impact of a quarter-trillionaire who insists on putting himself in the center of EVERYTHING from kids trapped in mines, to Ukraine/Russia, to Israel/Palestine, to climate change, to space exploration?
If getting a handle on this guy isn't worthwhile, what is?
Readit News
To you (and me) he comes across that way.
But we're not his target audience.
He is an extremely busy man, and the same set of skills that lead to his success at engineering don't translate at all to success in the social realm. To simplify his social interaction decision making he looks for huristics, such as the tried and true: woke = bad!
So increasingly in following a simple heuristic he seems to have outsourced much of his personal philosophy to the Joe-Rogan-O-Sphere, and all the anti vax, transphobic, supplement pill pushing, pizzagate conspiracy believing, Jew-baiting quackery that entails.
The macho attitude of doubling then tripling down on unforced blunders works well if you are a contrarian podcast host "just following the questions...", but less so when you are CEO with obligations not to rock the boat, not to become a clown presiding over a circus.
It's worse than I expected. Musk is out of his gourd. I don't know if it's the drugs or actual insanity but I don't just see an asshole but someone losing touch with reality. It's not autism or even "outsourcing his politics", he is barely coherent. This man will likely need institutional help.
You can read minds then?
I think you are exaggerating further beyond the line than one (likely autistic) man swearing in frustration.
Of all the dangers in the world today
This is no surprise. Aside from his Twitter bubble, he's in a bubble even offline. Tesla presentations are full of people profiting off Tesla YouTube videos, selling investment "lessons", crypto bros, and fanboys.
They DO laugh at all his jokes. They DO clap at everything edgy he says. And so he, almost reasonably, believes the rest of the world is like that, and the mass media just hates him for dropping heavy truths with a hammer.
He's deluded.
Curse you advertisers for ruining his company!
So… Twitter is shutting down? There’s really no other plan other than blaming advertisers for pulling out, and ranting about how earth will judge them?
One can only hope!
> "If somebody is going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money? Go fuck yourself,"
His team is probably trying to figure out how to spin everything even as we write here.
On a positive note, he's reacting a lot like the rest of us and not like a totally gone sociopath - there's a human inside that billionaire!
So he fails on that too.
But this way, when it happens he gets to blame all of that on “woke corporations“, rather than on himself.
I don't know to what extent he has made or could make it profitable, but I don't think he wants it to die. It dying, though, isn't the worst thing, and here he can turn it into a Braveheart moment to boot, winning hearts and minds -- like mine. I see what he's doing, but I love it; fuck advertisers. They've ruined the Internet. Or, rather, monetization in the abstract has.
It's disgusting to me how he was asked about trying to bend the knee to suits like Iger, turning the platform into some anemic, anodyne corporate candy world of devout Good Behavior, an eternal kindergarten where we're all trapped forever with the advertisers as our mental jailors, since that's how profits can flow most frictionlessly.
What he's doing is stupid -- people's 401ks are on the line. But it's wild how it doesn't seem to bother anyone how that's an argument for spinelessness. It's a New Hampshire license plate "live free or die" moment, and 90% of posters here are advocating for content slavery with tone policing and personal attacks.
Musk's present position is that he keeps saying and promoting repulsive stuff in public and so some advertisers prefer to stop supporting or being associated with his business. This isn't remotely like "blackmail": the repulsive stuff is all public to begin with.
So he’s going to sue people for not advertising with him? How can anyone who says this kind of thing claim to believe in free markets, libertarianism or capitalism?
Deleted Comment
It is compelling him to behave in an involuntary manner, thus coercion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
Advertisers are attempting to gain benefit via coercion, so it is extortion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion
So far as we know, they are not threatening to air secrets, so it is not blackmail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail
So it was a bad choice of language, but frankly it doesn't seem "incoherent," just off by a hair.
It also does not seem petulant, though telling advertisers to F themselves through that sneer of his certainly is.
> he keeps saying and promoting repulsive stuff
Yes, and the responses to him seem repulsive, too. Chicken? Egg? I don't care.
Yaccarino was apparently at NBC for 12 years. This leads me to suspect that 30 Rock was a documentary.
Probably adequate to put up with this for a bit.
I’d have quit months ago.
But no one gave you the chance. Why not, pray tell, since you were by far the better choice?8-))
Why? It's not like she was at Twitter when Musk bought it. She knew what she was signing up for. If she didn't, she's a moron. I feel sorry for all the H1B engineers getting the short end of the deal now that the tech job market is shit. Linda is going to be fine.
Deleted Comment
He's occupying enough brainspace as it is and I've had enough.
Dead Comment
https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/1/23895069/walter-isaacson-...
I searched for "Isaacson hagiography" and grabbed the first article from a major outlet...
Dead Comment
For example, if I suggested that the world would be better if he hadn't basically done a right wing radicalization speedrun, didn't endorse people with hateful ideologies, didn't act in ways that even made his trans daughter want nothing to do with him, or if he was just nicer in general. That point of view is known, yet doesn't add much, aside from grounds for disagreement in the eyes of some.
As for the actual impact of running a company like Twitter/X is run, a few years are probably needed to gather all the facts - then it can be used as an example of what not to do in business school, or how big/small the impact of certain choices actually is. I look forwards to this being reposted in maybe 2026.
If you claim it won't be a "worthwhile discussion", what exactly qualifies as a worthwhile discussion to you? Are we changing the world when we talk about Rust or the latest Nvidia GPU?
And how is it not worthwhile for the HN community to reason about the impact of a quarter-trillionaire who insists on putting himself in the center of EVERYTHING from kids trapped in mines, to Ukraine/Russia, to Israel/Palestine, to climate change, to space exploration?
If getting a handle on this guy isn't worthwhile, what is?
A change in behaviour towards irrational aggression could be due to extreme stress, lack of sleep, drugs, a brain tumour, bipolar disorder, etc.
My questions:
1. Has his behaviour changed, or has he always been this unstable?
2. Are there any evidence of health problems?