LogFAQs > #979364603

LurkerFAQs, Active Database ( 12.01.2023-present ), DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Do you think Elon Musk is smart/intelligent?
adjl 03/14/24 12:18:48 PM #51:	ZayKayWill posted... Apparently there are some people speculating that he doesn't even know how to program or engineer stuff and that the people he hired are the ones doing all that? If that's true, my question is how someone would even fucking know that without knowing him personally. Anecdotes from people that have worked with him, evaluating stuff he's said to make inferences about how much he understands (for a concrete example of this happening with somebody else, Trump's question about injecting bleach to cure Covid suggests that he understands very little about medicine)... By and large, that's also just how corporations work: CEOs are not CEOs because they know anything about the work being done, they're CEOs because they know how to manage money. ZayKayWill posted... If he really was as stupid as people make him out to be, why not replace him with someone who could actually do the job better? Because people actually working with him rarely have the authority to replace a CEO. If that's possible (depending on how he took ownership of the company, it may actually not be), that falls to the company's board of directors, and they tend to just look at the company's bottom line. They generally aren't connected enough with the frontline operations of the company to be able to assess whether the company's performance is because the CEO knows what he's doing or because the workers are able to produce a good return on investment despite that. Even when replacing the CEO is on the table, finding a new major investor isn't exactly the easiest thing to do, especially if a company is struggling and therefore not overly appealing as an investment (even if that struggle is entirely due to the incompetence of the CEO they're looking to replace). There's a reason Twitter jumped at Musk's offer: The company was losing money, and the prospect of anyone buying such a struggling company for enough money for the owners to turn a meaningful profit on the whole ordeal was pretty much unfathomable. This is also why Musk tried to back out as soon as he realized he was in deep enough for it to have real consequences instead of just being a matter of showing off. Nobody with half a brain would have bought Twitter for $45 billion, so the fact that Musk offered was beyond Twitter's wildest dreams as far as exit strategies went. Musk, in turn, didn't actually plan to do it, but Twitter ended up with the legal upper hand and he was forced to go through with it. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:979364603] in Do you thi... [t:80720680]...</cite> <quote>ZayKayWill posted... </cite><quote>Apparently there are some people speculating that he doesn't even know how to program or engineer stuff and that the people he hired are the ones doing all that?If that's true, my question is how someone would even fucking know that without knowing him personally.</quote>Anecdotes from people that have worked with him, evaluating stuff he's said to make inferences about how much he understands (for a concrete example of this happening with somebody else, Trump's question about injecting bleach to cure Covid suggests that he understands very little about medicine)... By and large, that's also just how corporations work: CEOs are not CEOs because they know anything about the work being done, they're CEOs because they know how to manage money.ZayKayWill posted... </cite><quote>If he really was as stupid as people make him out to be, why not replace him with someone who could actually do the job better?</quote>Because people actually working with him rarely have the authority to replace a CEO. If that's possible (depending on how he took ownership of the company, it may actually not be), that falls to the company's board of directors, and they tend to just look at the company's bottom line. They generally aren't connected enough with the frontline operations of the company to be able to assess whether the company's performance is because the CEO knows what he's doing or because the workers are able to produce a good return on investment despite that. Even when replacing the CEO is on the table, finding a new major investor isn't exactly the easiest thing to do, especially if a company is struggling and therefore not overly appealing as an investment (even if that struggle is entirely due to the incompetence of the CEO they're looking to replace).There's a reason Twitter jumped at Musk's offer: The company was losing money, and the prospect of anyone buying such a struggling company for enough money for the owners to turn a meaningful profit on the whole ordeal was pretty much unfathomable. This is also why Musk tried to back out as soon as he realized he was in deep enough for it to have real consequences instead of just being a matter of showing off. Nobody with half a brain would have bought Twitter for $45 billion, so the fact that Musk offered was beyond Twitter's wildest dreams as far as exit strategies went. Musk, in turn, didn't actually plan to do it, but Twitter ended up with the legal upper hand and he was forced to go through with it. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1