7 ms·

Which three? Cause Tesla wasn't founded by him, neither was Twitter.

by wtdo 1y ago

nickff 1y ago
I’d argue that he did found the Tesla as it exists now, but if you want to discount that, you could choose XAI, SolarCity, or OpenAI.
- pkasting 1y ago
  Musk did not found SolarCity; that was Peter and Lyndon Rive. I don't know what "found the Tesla as it exists now" means. Founding and leading are distinct. Musk has been a key leader at Tesla; he was not a founder of it or any merged or acquired company.
  - nickff 1y ago
    Founding is not the same as incorporating or being the first to work on. For example, the founding fathers of the USA were not the first people to live in the thirteen colonies, and many of them were only involved with some part of the origination of the country.
    - kttjoppl 1y ago
      I have to imagine you know that isn't what anyone else means by "founding a startup" and that the original 13 colonies weren't the United States (that's why they had to "join or die," they viewed themselves as separate and independent states, even in competition with one another). You've invented a new definition to suit your rhetorical purpose. I think you can make your argument without this frankly dishonest tactic. I've seen people make the same point here on HN many times.
- kttjoppl 1y ago
  I think Musk is a grifter but even I think those picks are unfair to him. Respectively that's a company with no significant accomplishments yet (it's only two years old so I don't think that's even a knock against it), a company he didn't found but purchased under shady circumstances and has had a lot of scandals, and a company he "founded" a lot like he "founded" Tesla. If you want to showcase a company he unambiguously founded which is unambiguously successful, why wouldn't you pick SpaceX?
wagwang 1y ago
Pedantry, this counterfactual idea that tesla or EVs would be as big as it is in America without Musk is just absurd. The company was bought when it had like 3 people and a 250k concept car which was completely redesigned and rebuilt under Musk. The real reason why tesla is important is because it was the first one to execute big on charging networks, no other manufacturer had the balls to even conceive of a nation wide network.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  > Pedantry You took a lot of words to agree that Musk didn't found Tesla. That other stuff would better be argued with someone else who is disputing it, because the person you replied to was talking about founding companies.
  - madmountaingoat 1y ago
    I believe the pedantry label was sufficient acknowledgment of fact, while also pointing out that in the context of the larger conversation we are really talking about whether his leadership decisions led to success.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

Which three? Cause Tesla wasn't founded by him, neither was Twitter.

by wtdo 1y ago

Which three? Cause Tesla wasn't founded by him, neither was Twitter.

I’d argue that he did found the Tesla as it exists now, but if you want to discount that, you could choose XAI, SolarCity, or OpenAI.

pkasting 1y ago
Musk did not found SolarCity; that was Peter and Lyndon Rive. I don't know what "found the Tesla as it exists now" means. Founding and leading are distinct. Musk has been a key leader at Tesla; he was not a founder of it or any merged or acquired company.
- nickff 1y ago
  Founding is not the same as incorporating or being the first to work on. For example, the founding fathers of the USA were not the first people to live in the thirteen colonies, and many of them were only involved with some part of the origination of the country.
  - kttjoppl 1y ago
    I have to imagine you know that isn't what anyone else means by "founding a startup" and that the original 13 colonies weren't the United States (that's why they had to "join or die," they viewed themselves as separate and independent states, even in competition with one another). You've invented a new definition to suit your rhetorical purpose. I think you can make your argument without this frankly dishonest tactic. I've seen people make the same point here on HN many times.
kttjoppl 1y ago
I think Musk is a grifter but even I think those picks are unfair to him. Respectively that's a company with no significant accomplishments yet (it's only two years old so I don't think that's even a knock against it), a company he didn't found but purchased under shady circumstances and has had a lot of scandals, and a company he "founded" a lot like he "founded" Tesla. If you want to showcase a company he unambiguously founded which is unambiguously successful, why wouldn't you pick SpaceX?

wagwang 1y ago

Pedantry, this counterfactual idea that tesla or EVs would be as big as it is in America without Musk is just absurd. The company was bought when it had like 3 people and a 250k concept car which was completely redesigned and rebuilt under Musk. The real reason why tesla is important is because it was the first one to execute big on charging networks, no other manufacturer had the balls to even conceive of a nation wide network.

pessimizer 1y ago
> Pedantry You took a lot of words to agree that Musk didn't found Tesla. That other stuff would better be argued with someone else who is disputing it, because the person you replied to was talking about founding companies.
- madmountaingoat 1y ago
  I believe the pedantry label was sufficient acknowledgment of fact, while also pointing out that in the context of the larger conversation we are really talking about whether his leadership decisions led to success.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]