LogFAQs > #984143513

willythemailboy posted...

It does seem to be entirely on-brand with how Musk operates in other ventures, though. Much like how SpaceX tests rockets by launching them and seeing when and how they explode rather than doing more extensive testing on the ground; his MO for this seems to be "shut it all down, see what breaks, and then fix ONLY the stuff that broke" without bothering to look at what might break in the medium-to-long term rather than what immediately blows up.

Some things you can get away with testing that way, but most government functions probably don't belong on that list.

Indeed not. "Move fast and break things" isn't a totally invalid philosophy for R&D, especially when you're breaking a lot of new ground and there isn't much precedent available to research that would support a more conservative approach, but when it's a complex structure that you understand very little about, that will be extremely difficult to repair once broken, and when actual lives are on the line, it becomes not only stupid but outright irresponsible. There's a reason Musk's only successful companies are ones where other people handle all of the management decisions (though arguably Twitter was less meant to be a successful business and more meant to be a tool to manipulate the election in Musk's favour, and in that regard it was successful). He's got a head for recognizing decent ideas and the financial backing to be able to take risky investments, but he's got no sweet clue what he's doing when it comes to actually running anything.