Nothing about this article actually refutes the claims made by the original article. At best, you elevate Elon's denial of his family benefiting from apartheid and his version of his origin-myth, while being unable to refute the claims made by his father. Somehow this is presented as dispelling some kind of myth when really you are begging the reader to believe one man's words over the other's.
What is perhaps worse is your downplaying of what kind of economic advantage $400k afforded those who yielded such wealth in apartheid era South Africa. This might just be a lack of familiarity with economic arguments — suggesting that $400k is "just a few Teslas" is downright laughable and ignores obvious issues like what kind of power $400k could yield in a country where income disparity between white-ruling class South Africans and black South Africans was incalculable. Making this claim is like suggesting that you aren't massively wealthy today if you possess $200,000 while living in the slums of Dharavi or Favelas of Brazil.
The rest of the article just reads as the regular hagiography we've come to expect from Musk apologists. Note how you question whether the words of Elon's father can be considered valid, but you present Elon's own claims about his origins as though they are true; Elon's claims about being given $2,000 and having no other support, his heroic rise against all odds — these are all published with deference, while all other claims are thrown out (could not be corroborated, and so on).
I'm going to ignore the apologism for the Paedo-Submarine fiasco because quite honestly, you do yourself a disservice attempting to engage in apologism for his behavior here. Not that you began the article with any semblance of neutrality (convinced of the myth from the outset) — but by the time we finish reading it's apparent that this is just blatant apologism masquerading as some kind of fact-based myth busting.
Amen brotha, I also found this article to be way too cushy of a tale and plunged into my interwebs detective getup. Turns out that Elon made a whoopsie as he outed himself before the woke culture came afoot.
He managed to get the internet scrubbed free of the interview, it seems, but I found a snippet from the interview (which is in the July 2014 magazine, I'd love for someone to dig that up).
JC: How do you handle fear?
EM: Company death—not succeeding with the company—causes me a lot more stress than physical danger. But I’ve been in physical danger before. The funny thing is I’ve not actually been that nervous. In South Africa, my father had a private plane we’d fly in incredibly dangerous weather and barely make it back. This is going to sound slightly crazy, but my father also had a share in an Emerald mine in Zambia. I was 15 and really wanted to go with him but didn’t realize how dangerous it was. I couldn’t find my passport so I ended up grabbing my brother’s—which turned out to be six months overdue! So we had this planeload of contraband and an overdue passport from another person. There were AK-47s all over the place and I’m thinking, “Man, this could really go bad.”
They did a damn good scrub because there's no archived snapshot of the interview's posting even on the web!
Edit: Would love for the author or Elon to rectify this - how on earth this AK-47 blazoned recollection coexist with the new narrative of "it was only a couple of emeralds!!!" 🙃
Elon literally is quoted saying he owned an emerald mine. Astonishing how they can scrub this entire narrative. Special thanks to everyone for posting an opposing viewpoint to the main author. I'm not suprised he's trying to make Musk out to seem independent (afterall if you write a hit piece on the guy you just interviewed; he probably wont interview you in the future). Really glad people can see the truth in all this.
Your link about emerald mine, Elon refers to his father Errol owning it. In this article its confirmed Errol owned an emerald mine. Owning an emerald mine was never denied. You just can't read.
Not sure what you're reading, Errol didn't own an emerald min, he had a stake in it - meaning he got some emeralds from the mine. Nowhere is it defined even how much of a stake - could be 1% or 10% or even 50% - but the total income made from said mine is at least guesstimated to be upto $400k - not clear how much of it was profit.
How can someone read a SINGLE sentence "... my father also had a share in an Emerald mine in Zambia" and go "Yep, Elon owned an Emerald mine and kickstarted his career with millions gained from it"? The words are literally there, how? How are people so maximally uncharitable to another person?
No he got millions in taxpayers money to become rich. But also in what world does "my father had a private jet" translate to "he was poor and had barely anything really". 400K in apartheid south africa is a lot of money. Stop being obtuse.
He got taxpayer money (which we all know actually means he went around and stole money bags from poor people and lied about it) after he already worked on 2 successful companies, his father had a private propeller plane (far cry from a jet one, in case you didn't know), and last, but not least, nothing you've said has anything to do with the topic at hand.
$400k is a lot, but also not really. I could give you 400k and I'd hear nothing back from you, ever, because you are nothing and you're just shitting on Elon for being successful.
Go out and touch some grass and think for yourself, at least for once.
"Nothing about this article actually refutes the claims made by the original article."
Then I guess you didn't read it or understand the points he was trying to make then. Errol himself in his facebook post claims to have been a city council and was against apartheid. He later Elon found his success on his own without Errol's help. https://www.facebook.com/errol.musk/posts/10218340000911015
"suggesting that $400k is "just a few Teslas" is downright laughable and ignores obvious issues like what kind of power $400k could yield in a country where income disparity between white-ruling class South Africans and black South Africans was incalculable.
He's referring to what $400k in the US which is 2 tesla roadsters.
"Elon's claims about being given $2,000 and having no other support, his heroic rise against all odds — these are all published with deference, while all other claims are thrown out"
How do you imagine one refuting a claim that had 0 objective evidence? What is there to refute from a anecdotal retelling of a 30 year old story from a single perspective?
While I will admit your appreciation of Elon and his astounding rise to success is clear, this is a very well written article and the “Why this is important” passage at the end struck a chord with me. There is so much mis-information that is being actively propagated by the “mainstream” news outlets that it leads to huge polarization between the left and right(which is really, really bad. I.E. political horseshoe theory). It reminds me of the philosophical idea of the “banality of evil”
I like that you really did a deep dive and clarified the apartheid claim, I definitely don’t think that has any merit whatsoever and was used merely to generate revenue/social justice rabble on Twitter.I don’t think everyone should rally to Elon’s defense because there are some tangible, problematic things he has done or said, but I agree he deserves the same fairness that should be applied to any public figure.
The polarization between supporters or the “musketeers” and the denouncers demonstrates beautifully how often people forget to think critically and rely on bias consciously and unconsciously(on both sides).
Thanks for the great article; we need more REAL investigative journalism. How can we be a free society when the media is more interested in profits than the actual facts of the situation?
I’m glad I found this because since there was no snopes.com article or in depth fact check all I really knew was that it started with an anecdote from Errol and I already began to doubt that because it was not substantiated, probably never can be, and Errol is definitely not a “reliable narrator”.
He contradicts himself often in the few interviews or comments he has given over the years, as Elon has called him out for being a scumbag.
Bravo! I will definitely consider donating to the site but money is right now because of the pandemic.
"people who leave home early without looking back generally do so for a reason" - struck a chord for me. I ran away from home when I was 13. My younger brother followed when he was 15 and I helped him get on his feet.
Elon's early frugality is also a familiar trait. I am now 71 and still frugal with my lifestyle and my spending. Is Elon like that too?
Hmm, I think it depends on the area of spending? His budgetary cuts at Twitter have been severe (by tech standards). And there are certain eras of his life, particularly early on, where he lived very cheaply to preserve cash for his businesses. But he's also one of the richest people in the world now so I'd imagine his personal spending is, uh, higher now?
Neither son reported remembering anything of the sort (in terms of a notable safe or unusual amounts of cash etc). And the anecdote itself is obviously hyperbolic on the physics.
Did Errol have a safe? He didn’t mention one to me. But most people in his position in that time and place would, sure. And perhaps at times he did keep not-small amounts of cash on hand for buying used boats or planes or what have you. The boys would have had no need to notice something like that. But based on what I understand his income range to have been, we’re not talking some Escobar situation.
Amazing article and the first of your pieces that I've read. I haven't searched any of your other articles, but what sacrifices are you making to make journalism like this possible? I don't mean the question to expect points to support martyrdom, but more along the lines of what temptations of wealth, convenience, having to defend your stance socially... etc do you have to overcome keep your integrity like this?
I really appreciate this question. Because it is tough, being honest. Being either a shill or a full-throated critic would be waaaay more profitable so far as money and social status go. Producing stories at this depth and in this tone is a definitely a losing proposition on both fronts (and takes many hours away from much better compensating consulting work).
But I'm stubborn in my belief that there's a better way to do journalism, and that we need better journalism with real urgency. So I reckon if I can help push some healthy changes through this project (especially the widespread adoption of corrections policies), then some relative income and career sacrifices will have been worth it. I want to be able to look back in a decade and say I tried my hand at something important. That has to be enough sometimes.
Thank you so much for doing this. I admire everybody that keeps his/her standards high in anything they do. I really hope others will follow you on this journey.
I think technology could help people better decide which information is trustworthy and which is of bad quality on a probability scale. The problem is we would need an independent system that is not in the hands of anyone and is extremely hard to manipulate.
The author has no structurally sound arguments, no evidence, and he entirely relies on several glaring fallacies as the foundation for every single erroneous and wildly impartial claim made.
Having read quite a bit about Musk over the years including a book a number of years ago that went into this to a lesser degree, it’s great to finally see a journalist making an attempt to set the record straight
I do hope in time people will be kinder
He’s human after all and in my view one of the 42 very best!
Well done! If all articles were like this I'd actually like journalism. I think another one of the problems is people's shortening attention span which is adding fuel to the fire.
Fact remains Elon Musk benefits from white privilege regardless of his pedigree. Even if he failed, he still had a safety net of family/relatives who he could rely on in US/CAN/SA.
Once Musk achieved wealth, he took insane risks on ventures that most in the industry thought were crazy, if not outright irresponsible, considering he had other mouths to feed. Only those who have grown up in an environment where all there material needs are met have the luxury to take such high risks without fearing the consequences.
White privilege is enjoyed by most in the west who either (A) live on and own stolen land or (B) had ancestors who pillaged resources from other countries. As a white Australian with a UK heritage, I'm guilty of both. At least in South Africa, land and businesses were returned to the indigenous people.
Are you saying he should not have taken on risk because he has white privilege? Or that because "most in the industry" thought the risks were crazy, that he should have not taken them? Also, I'm pretty sure he's feeding more mouths through jobs than he would have if he just never took risks for his businesses.
This is completely backwards from everything I've ever seen. In my experience, the people who are willing to risk it all are the ones that came from nothing and had to claw and build their way to what they had. Usually these types of people know that even if they lose it all, they can start over and rebuild it again because they know how. The fact that they have experienced the bottom, or close to it, and built their way out of it, removes a lot of the fear of being there again.
It's the opposite for those that came from wealth and have never experienced what it's like to scrape by. They are very hesitant to risk everything they have because they don't know what it's like to be at the bottom and never had to muster the fortitude to push through. They may be willing to bet a lot, but they're not the ones to put it all on the line when it comes down to it, because they wouldn't know what to do if they actually lost it all.
Musk bets on himself because he knows that when the chips are down, he will do whatever it takes to succeed, pushing himself way beyond the point of where most people would just throw in the towel and be done. I think that's pretty evident if you look at his past work habits and just the shear amount of hours he's dumped into the things he's built. In my opinion, that's what really sets people like him apart.
Thank you for publishing content worth reading. We need systems for incentivizing truth (or well intentioned efforts to uncover the truth) over clickbait. Switching topics, are you interested in meltdown proof designs for nuclear energy? https://www.peterwhelan.com/what-to-know-about-gen-iv-power/
As for nuclear, while I do write about energy from time to time, the complexities of nuclear are a bit too far outside my wheelhouse. My sense from the literature is that it's safe and cheap and very likely a good idea. Even so, the primary objection (e.g. that failures, in the rare cases they do happen, can be catastrophic) is a bit difficult to argue against. First, because it's a more an econo-ethical weighting than a scientific one. Second, because I'm not sure "meltdown-proof" is a binary quality so much as a far position on a spectrum?
Nuclear got understandably side tracked due to well publicized failures. The primary objections are solved at a technical level, but not in the minds of the public. It's already the safest form of power https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source However new designs have not come to market largely due to fear.
I live in Ontario Canada where CANDU has safely powered cities for over 40 years. Those plants were designed on paper by people using rotary phones. A lot has improved since then. Due to how the stories have been covered, nuclear's feet have been held to the coal fire. With balanced reporting, I believe coal and oil fired power plants would rightly be seen as far more dangerous than nuclear.
I think the concept of what a good journalist is has changed a lot over the years. I remember a few years back I had the impression that a journalist (at least working at a large respectable newspaper) is somebody that does a deep dive into any story they publish, risking their lives at times to do so. These days it seems everybody has accepted that a good journalist is somebody that recounts what's trending on twitter and writes articles in line with the political (or otherwise) requirements of their sponsors.
Yeah that's a tough one. Totally agree that one is formally correct and one incorrect (among lexicography types at least). But it's one of those things where formal precision makes for slightly worse reading. Because more readers think it's jives, and jibes will thus force more of them out of the story and into google. And it's also a fairly rare case where the so-to-speak wrong version actually kind makes sense intuitively (in the form of something like "dancing to the same beat"), making the wrongness somewhat philosophical.
Anyway, typos aren't covered in the corrections policy. But I do appreciate the flag, and I'll give this more thought. Maybe I should just avoid using either word altogether. I tend to get a comment or two whenever I do, and there is no other real winning solution here.
Don't care about the money (though that is a cool policy, it's obviously meant to be directed at substantive errors, not trivial stuff like this). Jibes is correct, historically speaking. Jives is not. Personally, I'm a descriptivist, but I like jibes better, probably because I understand the etymology of both words.
I'm sorry, but the fact that this article was published 4 YEARS PRIOR and the fact that Elon seems very determined on discrediting Errol's claims are enough for me.
I don't know about you, but I tend to value the word of Forbes, a very reputable major news publication, over something said by a nobody randomly calling others pedophiles for being in disagreement with them. Get a life.
You don't deserve the title 'The Save Journalism Committee' as your title is shameful itself, "I Talked to Elon Musk about Journalism and the Blood Emeralds Story" . What do you expect to get in answer from him, the truth , or whatever he wants to make you believe. Are you a true embodiment of Hypocrisy .
Nothing about this article actually refutes the claims made by the original article. At best, you elevate Elon's denial of his family benefiting from apartheid and his version of his origin-myth, while being unable to refute the claims made by his father. Somehow this is presented as dispelling some kind of myth when really you are begging the reader to believe one man's words over the other's.
What is perhaps worse is your downplaying of what kind of economic advantage $400k afforded those who yielded such wealth in apartheid era South Africa. This might just be a lack of familiarity with economic arguments — suggesting that $400k is "just a few Teslas" is downright laughable and ignores obvious issues like what kind of power $400k could yield in a country where income disparity between white-ruling class South Africans and black South Africans was incalculable. Making this claim is like suggesting that you aren't massively wealthy today if you possess $200,000 while living in the slums of Dharavi or Favelas of Brazil.
The rest of the article just reads as the regular hagiography we've come to expect from Musk apologists. Note how you question whether the words of Elon's father can be considered valid, but you present Elon's own claims about his origins as though they are true; Elon's claims about being given $2,000 and having no other support, his heroic rise against all odds — these are all published with deference, while all other claims are thrown out (could not be corroborated, and so on).
I'm going to ignore the apologism for the Paedo-Submarine fiasco because quite honestly, you do yourself a disservice attempting to engage in apologism for his behavior here. Not that you began the article with any semblance of neutrality (convinced of the myth from the outset) — but by the time we finish reading it's apparent that this is just blatant apologism masquerading as some kind of fact-based myth busting.
Amen brotha, I also found this article to be way too cushy of a tale and plunged into my interwebs detective getup. Turns out that Elon made a whoopsie as he outed himself before the woke culture came afoot.
He managed to get the internet scrubbed free of the interview, it seems, but I found a snippet from the interview (which is in the July 2014 magazine, I'd love for someone to dig that up).
JC: How do you handle fear?
EM: Company death—not succeeding with the company—causes me a lot more stress than physical danger. But I’ve been in physical danger before. The funny thing is I’ve not actually been that nervous. In South Africa, my father had a private plane we’d fly in incredibly dangerous weather and barely make it back. This is going to sound slightly crazy, but my father also had a share in an Emerald mine in Zambia. I was 15 and really wanted to go with him but didn’t realize how dangerous it was. I couldn’t find my passport so I ended up grabbing my brother’s—which turned out to be six months overdue! So we had this planeload of contraband and an overdue passport from another person. There were AK-47s all over the place and I’m thinking, “Man, this could really go bad.”
They did a damn good scrub because there's no archived snapshot of the interview's posting even on the web!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimclash/2014/07/28/elon-musk-tells-me-his-secret-of-success-hint-it-aint-about-the-money/?sh=67d6c59e435b
Edit: Would love for the author or Elon to rectify this - how on earth this AK-47 blazoned recollection coexist with the new narrative of "it was only a couple of emeralds!!!" 🙃
Where does it say it was only a couple of emeralds? It doesn't it says it earned him $400k in profits.
You can find it on wayback machine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140803172740/https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimclash/2014/07/28/elon-musk-tells-me-his-secret-of-success-hint-it-aint-about-the-money/
Elon literally is quoted saying he owned an emerald mine. Astonishing how they can scrub this entire narrative. Special thanks to everyone for posting an opposing viewpoint to the main author. I'm not suprised he's trying to make Musk out to seem independent (afterall if you write a hit piece on the guy you just interviewed; he probably wont interview you in the future). Really glad people can see the truth in all this.
Your link about emerald mine, Elon refers to his father Errol owning it. In this article its confirmed Errol owned an emerald mine. Owning an emerald mine was never denied. You just can't read.
Not sure what you're reading, Errol didn't own an emerald min, he had a stake in it - meaning he got some emeralds from the mine. Nowhere is it defined even how much of a stake - could be 1% or 10% or even 50% - but the total income made from said mine is at least guesstimated to be upto $400k - not clear how much of it was profit.
How can someone read a SINGLE sentence "... my father also had a share in an Emerald mine in Zambia" and go "Yep, Elon owned an Emerald mine and kickstarted his career with millions gained from it"? The words are literally there, how? How are people so maximally uncharitable to another person?
No he got millions in taxpayers money to become rich. But also in what world does "my father had a private jet" translate to "he was poor and had barely anything really". 400K in apartheid south africa is a lot of money. Stop being obtuse.
He got taxpayer money (which we all know actually means he went around and stole money bags from poor people and lied about it) after he already worked on 2 successful companies, his father had a private propeller plane (far cry from a jet one, in case you didn't know), and last, but not least, nothing you've said has anything to do with the topic at hand.
$400k is a lot, but also not really. I could give you 400k and I'd hear nothing back from you, ever, because you are nothing and you're just shitting on Elon for being successful.
Go out and touch some grass and think for yourself, at least for once.
"Nothing about this article actually refutes the claims made by the original article."
Then I guess you didn't read it or understand the points he was trying to make then. Errol himself in his facebook post claims to have been a city council and was against apartheid. He later Elon found his success on his own without Errol's help. https://www.facebook.com/errol.musk/posts/10218340000911015
"suggesting that $400k is "just a few Teslas" is downright laughable and ignores obvious issues like what kind of power $400k could yield in a country where income disparity between white-ruling class South Africans and black South Africans was incalculable.
He's referring to what $400k in the US which is 2 tesla roadsters.
"Elon's claims about being given $2,000 and having no other support, his heroic rise against all odds — these are all published with deference, while all other claims are thrown out"
His father says he only gave him $4,000.
How do you imagine one refuting a claim that had 0 objective evidence? What is there to refute from a anecdotal retelling of a 30 year old story from a single perspective?
While I will admit your appreciation of Elon and his astounding rise to success is clear, this is a very well written article and the “Why this is important” passage at the end struck a chord with me. There is so much mis-information that is being actively propagated by the “mainstream” news outlets that it leads to huge polarization between the left and right(which is really, really bad. I.E. political horseshoe theory). It reminds me of the philosophical idea of the “banality of evil”
I like that you really did a deep dive and clarified the apartheid claim, I definitely don’t think that has any merit whatsoever and was used merely to generate revenue/social justice rabble on Twitter.I don’t think everyone should rally to Elon’s defense because there are some tangible, problematic things he has done or said, but I agree he deserves the same fairness that should be applied to any public figure.
The polarization between supporters or the “musketeers” and the denouncers demonstrates beautifully how often people forget to think critically and rely on bias consciously and unconsciously(on both sides).
Thanks for the great article; we need more REAL investigative journalism. How can we be a free society when the media is more interested in profits than the actual facts of the situation?
I’m glad I found this because since there was no snopes.com article or in depth fact check all I really knew was that it started with an anecdote from Errol and I already began to doubt that because it was not substantiated, probably never can be, and Errol is definitely not a “reliable narrator”.
He contradicts himself often in the few interviews or comments he has given over the years, as Elon has called him out for being a scumbag.
Bravo! I will definitely consider donating to the site but money is right now because of the pandemic.
Appreciate all this. Much happier with good feedback than your money. Be well!
"people who leave home early without looking back generally do so for a reason" - struck a chord for me. I ran away from home when I was 13. My younger brother followed when he was 15 and I helped him get on his feet.
Elon's early frugality is also a familiar trait. I am now 71 and still frugal with my lifestyle and my spending. Is Elon like that too?
Hmm, I think it depends on the area of spending? His budgetary cuts at Twitter have been severe (by tech standards). And there are certain eras of his life, particularly early on, where he lived very cheaply to preserve cash for his businesses. But he's also one of the richest people in the world now so I'd imagine his personal spending is, uh, higher now?
Wait, any elaboration on the safe story? Is your statement it's impractical just from the original BI story?
Neither son reported remembering anything of the sort (in terms of a notable safe or unusual amounts of cash etc). And the anecdote itself is obviously hyperbolic on the physics.
Did Errol have a safe? He didn’t mention one to me. But most people in his position in that time and place would, sure. And perhaps at times he did keep not-small amounts of cash on hand for buying used boats or planes or what have you. The boys would have had no need to notice something like that. But based on what I understand his income range to have been, we’re not talking some Escobar situation.
I hit the end of the article and was still wondering- thanks for clearing that up!
Amazing article and the first of your pieces that I've read. I haven't searched any of your other articles, but what sacrifices are you making to make journalism like this possible? I don't mean the question to expect points to support martyrdom, but more along the lines of what temptations of wealth, convenience, having to defend your stance socially... etc do you have to overcome keep your integrity like this?
I really appreciate this question. Because it is tough, being honest. Being either a shill or a full-throated critic would be waaaay more profitable so far as money and social status go. Producing stories at this depth and in this tone is a definitely a losing proposition on both fronts (and takes many hours away from much better compensating consulting work).
But I'm stubborn in my belief that there's a better way to do journalism, and that we need better journalism with real urgency. So I reckon if I can help push some healthy changes through this project (especially the widespread adoption of corrections policies), then some relative income and career sacrifices will have been worth it. I want to be able to look back in a decade and say I tried my hand at something important. That has to be enough sometimes.
Thank you so much for doing this. I admire everybody that keeps his/her standards high in anything they do. I really hope others will follow you on this journey.
I think technology could help people better decide which information is trustworthy and which is of bad quality on a probability scale. The problem is we would need an independent system that is not in the hands of anyone and is extremely hard to manipulate.
My sense is that such a system is coming. AI just isn't quite there yet. But I'd be surprised if this isn't a thing within the decade.
The author has no structurally sound arguments, no evidence, and he entirely relies on several glaring fallacies as the foundation for every single erroneous and wildly impartial claim made.
A perfectly succinct criticism of the emerald mine allegation itself.
Excellent article
Having read quite a bit about Musk over the years including a book a number of years ago that went into this to a lesser degree, it’s great to finally see a journalist making an attempt to set the record straight
I do hope in time people will be kinder
He’s human after all and in my view one of the 42 very best!
Well done! If all articles were like this I'd actually like journalism. I think another one of the problems is people's shortening attention span which is adding fuel to the fire.
Fact remains Elon Musk benefits from white privilege regardless of his pedigree. Even if he failed, he still had a safety net of family/relatives who he could rely on in US/CAN/SA.
Once Musk achieved wealth, he took insane risks on ventures that most in the industry thought were crazy, if not outright irresponsible, considering he had other mouths to feed. Only those who have grown up in an environment where all there material needs are met have the luxury to take such high risks without fearing the consequences.
White privilege is enjoyed by most in the west who either (A) live on and own stolen land or (B) had ancestors who pillaged resources from other countries. As a white Australian with a UK heritage, I'm guilty of both. At least in South Africa, land and businesses were returned to the indigenous people.
Shut up big Schwanoma
Are you saying he should not have taken on risk because he has white privilege? Or that because "most in the industry" thought the risks were crazy, that he should have not taken them? Also, I'm pretty sure he's feeding more mouths through jobs than he would have if he just never took risks for his businesses.
clearly you are a tldr respondant... or a bot
yes he has white privilege, he inherited extremely high IQ and a curiousness about the world around him, as well as drive to improve it
This is completely backwards from everything I've ever seen. In my experience, the people who are willing to risk it all are the ones that came from nothing and had to claw and build their way to what they had. Usually these types of people know that even if they lose it all, they can start over and rebuild it again because they know how. The fact that they have experienced the bottom, or close to it, and built their way out of it, removes a lot of the fear of being there again.
It's the opposite for those that came from wealth and have never experienced what it's like to scrape by. They are very hesitant to risk everything they have because they don't know what it's like to be at the bottom and never had to muster the fortitude to push through. They may be willing to bet a lot, but they're not the ones to put it all on the line when it comes down to it, because they wouldn't know what to do if they actually lost it all.
Musk bets on himself because he knows that when the chips are down, he will do whatever it takes to succeed, pushing himself way beyond the point of where most people would just throw in the towel and be done. I think that's pretty evident if you look at his past work habits and just the shear amount of hours he's dumped into the things he's built. In my opinion, that's what really sets people like him apart.
So if someone is white, we should just discount their accomplishments immediately?
Thank you for publishing content worth reading. We need systems for incentivizing truth (or well intentioned efforts to uncover the truth) over clickbait. Switching topics, are you interested in meltdown proof designs for nuclear energy? https://www.peterwhelan.com/what-to-know-about-gen-iv-power/
Agreed.
As for nuclear, while I do write about energy from time to time, the complexities of nuclear are a bit too far outside my wheelhouse. My sense from the literature is that it's safe and cheap and very likely a good idea. Even so, the primary objection (e.g. that failures, in the rare cases they do happen, can be catastrophic) is a bit difficult to argue against. First, because it's a more an econo-ethical weighting than a scientific one. Second, because I'm not sure "meltdown-proof" is a binary quality so much as a far position on a spectrum?
Nuclear got understandably side tracked due to well publicized failures. The primary objections are solved at a technical level, but not in the minds of the public. It's already the safest form of power https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source However new designs have not come to market largely due to fear.
I live in Ontario Canada where CANDU has safely powered cities for over 40 years. Those plants were designed on paper by people using rotary phones. A lot has improved since then. Due to how the stories have been covered, nuclear's feet have been held to the coal fire. With balanced reporting, I believe coal and oil fired power plants would rightly be seen as far more dangerous than nuclear.
This is awesome. I had almost believed that apartheid story about Elon but seems it was bullshit
I think the concept of what a good journalist is has changed a lot over the years. I remember a few years back I had the impression that a journalist (at least working at a large respectable newspaper) is somebody that does a deep dive into any story they publish, risking their lives at times to do so. These days it seems everybody has accepted that a good journalist is somebody that recounts what's trending on twitter and writes articles in line with the political (or otherwise) requirements of their sponsors.
Re: corrections, it's "jibes", not "jives":
http://www.word-detective.com/122002.html
Yeah that's a tough one. Totally agree that one is formally correct and one incorrect (among lexicography types at least). But it's one of those things where formal precision makes for slightly worse reading. Because more readers think it's jives, and jibes will thus force more of them out of the story and into google. And it's also a fairly rare case where the so-to-speak wrong version actually kind makes sense intuitively (in the form of something like "dancing to the same beat"), making the wrongness somewhat philosophical.
Anyway, typos aren't covered in the corrections policy. But I do appreciate the flag, and I'll give this more thought. Maybe I should just avoid using either word altogether. I tend to get a comment or two whenever I do, and there is no other real winning solution here.
Don't care about the money (though that is a cool policy, it's obviously meant to be directed at substantive errors, not trivial stuff like this). Jibes is correct, historically speaking. Jives is not. Personally, I'm a descriptivist, but I like jibes better, probably because I understand the etymology of both words.
Haha we all have our things there. I have a dozen of my own (like hating the abuse of “literally”). Anyway thanks again for flagging. :)
I'd hate to be a party pooper, especially on such a well-written article, but I'm afraid it Musk be done...
I really resonated with this specific part of your article:
"A colorful anecdote sourced to only the father (which, if it happened as described, you’d have expected the sons to have mentioned over the years)"
See, the thing is: I completely agree. If either Elon or Kimbal happened to mention this prior, it would very likely make Errol's claims true, right?
*clears throat*
Elon in an interview with Forbes in 2014: https://web.archive.org/web/20140802011449/http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimclash/2014/07/28/elon-musk-tells-me-his-secret-of-success-hint-it-aint-about-the-money/
I'm sorry, but the fact that this article was published 4 YEARS PRIOR and the fact that Elon seems very determined on discrediting Errol's claims are enough for me.
"In my interview with Alan Joules he admits he is a pedophile.
Interviewer: Alan Joules are you attracted sexually to children.
AJ: Yes I am attracted sexually to children."
Undeniable truth right? Better just go ahead and turn yourself in, you gullible sausage.
INB4 something something reputable source.
Prove it.
I don't know about you, but I tend to value the word of Forbes, a very reputable major news publication, over something said by a nobody randomly calling others pedophiles for being in disagreement with them. Get a life.
Lol read you like a book. Too easy.
On to the next LITERALLY unprovable thing you will mindlessly lap up and base your worthless personality on.
You don't deserve the title 'The Save Journalism Committee' as your title is shameful itself, "I Talked to Elon Musk about Journalism and the Blood Emeralds Story" . What do you expect to get in answer from him, the truth , or whatever he wants to make you believe. Are you a true embodiment of Hypocrisy .
Thank you for writing this. The amount of incorrect information out there makes it so, so hard to know what's actually true.