• someguy3@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      7 months ago

      I saw a presentation from one of them about the founding of Tesla, impressive stuff. Elon just takes their talking points, that’s why he can’t deviate far from a couple points.

    • Conyak@lemmy.tfEnglish
      0·
      7 months ago

      I would prefer to read that he lost all of his money and is now homeless. I’m not a fan of wishing even the worst people dead.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        7 months ago

        Down for an equitable & fair (based on societal support of/contributions to his empire) redistribution of his wealth especially if it comes with a significant deplatforming, since he can’t stop spewing such vile opinions.

        He can have a one-bedroom apartment no problem, heck even a house if he decided to ever see any of his million kids.

        Certainly not a desirable fantasy, jumping straight to wanting somebody dead, unless that were the only way someone’s brutality could conceivably be stopped.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        7 months ago

        Nah, fuck that.

        Some people, the greatest gift they can give to society and the species, is their removal from the gene pool.

      • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
        0·
        7 months ago

        What’s sad is that even if he’s gone in body or in wealth, some other jackasses will still be around to ruin everything for us.

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          7 months ago

          What percentage are estate taxes? What if the solution to wealth inequality is just murdering the 0.1% and heirs until the money has all been collected back by the government…

      • Anderenortsfalsch@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        0·
        7 months ago

        What a shit guy who cares more about people who live in thousands of years than people who live today:

        https://netzpolitik.org/2023/longtermism-an-odd-and-peculiar-ideology/

        https://aeon.co/essays/why-longtermism-is-the-worlds-most-dangerous-secular-credo

        Why do I think this ideology is so dangerous? The short answer is that elevating the fulfilment of humanity’s supposed potential above all else could nontrivially increase the probability that actual people – those alive today and in the near future – suffer extreme harms, even death. Consider that, as I noted elsewhere, the longtermist ideology inclines its adherents to take an insouciant attitude towards climate change. Why? Because even if climate change causes island nations to disappear, triggers mass migrations and kills millions of people, it probably isn’t going to compromise our longterm potential over the coming trillions of years. If one takes a cosmic view of the situation, even a climate catastrophe that cuts the human population by 75 per cent for the next two millennia will, in the grand scheme of things, be nothing more than a small blip – the equivalent of a 90-year-old man having stubbed his toe when he was two.

        Bostrom’s argument is that ‘a non-existential disaster causing the breakdown of global civilisation is, from the perspective of humanity as a whole, a potentially recoverable setback.’ It might be ‘a giant massacre for man’, he adds, but so long as humanity bounces back to fulfil its potential, it will ultimately register as little more than ‘a small misstep for mankind’. Elsewhere, he writes that the worst natural disasters and devastating atrocities in history become almost imperceptible trivialities when seen from this grand perspective. Referring to the two world wars, AIDS and the Chernobyl nuclear accident, he declares that ‘tragic as such events are to the people immediately affected, in the big picture of things … even the worst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life.’

        This way of seeing the world, of assessing the badness of AIDS and the Holocaust, implies that future disasters of the same (non-existential) scope and intensity should also be categorised as ‘mere ripples’. If they don’t pose a direct existential risk, then we ought not to worry much about them, however tragic they might be to individuals. As Bostrom wrote in 2003, ‘priority number one, two, three and four should … be to reduce existential risk.’ He reiterated this several years later in arguing that we mustn’t ‘fritter … away’ our finite resources on ‘feel-good projects of suboptimal efficacy’ such as alleviating global poverty and reducing animal suffering, since neither threatens our longterm potential, and our longterm potential is what really matters.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longtermism

        He does not care about us, why should anyone care about him? Unfortunately other rich people are also into this, because it helps them to ignore the worlds problems and to do whatever they want to the people living now.

      • Strykker@programming.dev
        0·
        7 months ago

        The man is an asshole and stain on society, his death would likely marginally improve the world’s future outlook.

  • Hjalmar@feddit.nu
    0·
    7 months ago

    No! Not rest in pieces! It took me soo long to realise that rip stands for rest in peace and not rest in pieces

    • Igloojoe@lemm.ee
      0·
      7 months ago

      Correct! He sued his way into being called a founder.

      I cant say I know what this shithead has contributed to society if anything but a place for toXicity to grow.

      • toffi@discuss.tchncs.de
        0·
        7 months ago

        I think he contributed to how we see billionaires now. The little money grabbing idiots which contribute nothing to society.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        0·
        7 months ago

        We don’t have to do this. Not everything is black and white. Tesla would not be where it is today without his intervention. I expect SpaceX wouldn’t either.

        He’s also a Nazi enabler and promoter.

        A person can do both good and bad.

        • gila@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          7 months ago

          I don’t think it’s about whether what he did with Tesla is good (it is at least debatable whether it is unilaterally good given they are anti-competitive in the EV market). It’s rather about the pretense for the good thing. Elon isn’t driven to help the environment. The sum purpose of Tesla’s operations isn’t environmentalism, else they’d not be selling carbon credits to ICE manufacturers, incentivising them to avoid EV production.

          And it’s not even just that “the good” was only to make money, it’s that it’s as a member of the landed gentry he had the opportunity to throw many things at the wall that failed before the Tesla takeover stuck; his ‘intervention’ is simply a VC success story by happenstance.

          Taking this at face value, is what he did with Tesla really laudable at all? It is a lucky byproduct of elitism.

          • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
            0·
            7 months ago

            Add “born privileged, into wealth” to Nazi enabler.

            You’re right to critique his motivations.

            Privileged Nazi enabler & promoter L Musk has accomplished some genuinely impressive achievements in some of the worst ways for the wrong reasons

            How’s that?

            • gila@lemm.eeEnglish
              0·
              7 months ago

              The Nazi enabler part being the bad side, you’re saying we should to reconcile this with the good side. I’m saying the good side is actually just some good shit that happened. Attributing it to Elon would be a mistake because of all of the times he did the same thing with the same intent and it never amounted to anything. For the truly good person, their opportunities to do good things would have been well exhausted before the Tesla opportunity arose. If we’re trying to balance the perception of how good we are it should be a function of the proportion of the things we do that are good vs. bad, not a function of how many things we have the means to try.

        • skulblaka@startrek.website
          0·
          7 months ago

          Tesla would not be where it is today without his intervention.

          Yeah, I might have actually bought one without his intervention.

  • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
    0·
    7 months ago

    I’m sure there’s a deadman’s switch on all the Teslas, Neuralinks and SpaceX/Starlink so we’d all know for sure he was dead.

    If we live that long.

    • Ohi@lemmy.world
      0·
      7 months ago

      No doubt he’s a egotistical dick, but to say the world would be a better place without him is categorically false on many grounds.

      • The man popularized electric vehicles like no car manufacturers have ever been able to do.
      • SpaceX’s achievement in reducing the cost per pound and reusable rocket tech will have profound implications on our species survival over the long run.
      • Starlink coverage now provides relatively affordable internet to far more remote areas of the world.

      So while I think recent years of criticism is fair based on his behavior (why the hell is he wasting precious time on Twitter again?) to say the world would be better off without him is to overlook the substantial contributions he has made towards technological advancement and global connectivity. It’s important to separate the individual’s personal flaws from the broader value of their work. Just my 2 cents.

      • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
        0·
        7 months ago

        Yay, electric vehicles are popular! Only bring loads of issues, cost a lot of rare earth metals which are mined by slaves and children, run on fossil fuel electricity (many coal plants and bio gas which are burned forests) and they are too heavy for the roads we have and electricity network, causing both to require many more replacements and maintenance, which costs loads of co2 emissions.

        SpaceX is awesome! Costs less materials, so much easier to launch way more rockets into the sky! Like for starlink for example. Luckily the fuel used for it has zero emissions /s

        But starlink is nice. Loads of space junk and coverage in most places is where already a different and faster network is, but it’s nice to have connectivity in hard to reach places. But is it worth all the emissions and space junk? And child labor for all the rare earth metals?

        • root_beer@midwest.socialEnglish
          0·
          7 months ago

          That connectivity in hard-to-reach places—much like free speech absolutism—is conditional upon whether he (or the dictator of an invading force, with whom he agrees) will allow it

  • Horrible_Goblin@lemmy.world
    0·
    7 months ago

    Can we please rebrand ‘X’ as ‘The website formerly known as twitter’?

    Also, best post here in a while

    Also, don’t get my hopes up -.-