←back to thread

Elon Musk on How to Build the Future

(www.ycombinator.com)
1106 points sama | 2 comments | 15 Sep 16 18:05 UTC | HN request time: 0.465s | source
Show context
soufron[dead post] ◴[15 Sep 16 18:53 UTC] No.12508752[source]▶
Since when did entrepreneurs decided to speak in scifi-bullshit? "We have a digital tertiary self in the form of out email capabilities, our computers, phones, applications."

And also, arrogant to the point of being funny? "Interviewer: Do you think people that want to be useful today should get PhDs?Elon: Mostly not." LOL.

TeMPOraL ◴[15 Sep 16 19:01 UTC] No.12508835[source]▶
> Since when did entrepreneurs decided to speak in scifi-bullshit? "We have a digital tertiary self in the form of out email capabilities, our computers, phones, applications."

It's not sci-fi, it's a legitimate view. It's basically the opposite of the common "omg children today are spending too much time with computers, this is unnatural, they should communicate more face to face instead of texting so much" bullshit. The idea is that our tools are a part of us, extensions of our bodies, not something "weird" or "unnatural".

> And also, arrogant to the point of being funny? "Interviewer: Do you think people that want to be useful today should get PhDs?Elon: Mostly not." LOL.

That seems like a sane view of the current state of scientific process. There are way too many career-PhDs. So many that a lot of research is bullshit. I thought this is widely recognized as an issue.

replies(1): >>12509034 #
soufron[dead post] ◴[15 Sep 16 19:25 UTC] No.12509034[source]▶
The way you say it is a legitimate view. The way he says it is just pontifying. As for the idea that our tools and thoughts are a part of us, it goes way back.

As for the PhD thing, I just wanted to mention how arrogant he is. He could at least have some respect for these poor losers.

1. hx87 ◴[15 Sep 16 19:37 UTC] No.12509137[source]▶
I'll bet he has plenty of respect for the "poor losers" but little for those who took advantage of them (PhD programs).
replies(1): >>12509656 #
2. soufron ◴[15 Sep 16 20:42 UTC] No.12509656[source]▶
If that's the thing, then I am with it.