I kind of feel like people know how to human, and how the humans around them human, but someone they've never met but only heard about or seen on TV or in meme posts? No clue at all.
Sure, we know the hotshot CEO of COMPANY_NAME_HERE has to put on his pants one leg at a time, but the similarity ends there. They're different, they won't fall for the stupid tricks we fall for. They don't have trouble getting out of bed or ever worry about what their kids are up to. They have CEO spouses that don't ask them to take out the trash or think about which yogurt to buy.
On the flip side, if they do something bad, that's because they're evil. A deep dark evil totally unlike the banal lameness of the people around us. They don't do stupid shit when someone jerks their chain and they get all worked up. Why would they, they're surrounded by money and other powerful people and have servants feeding them brilliant insights all day long. Everything they do is planned and calculated and they think through the damage they're doing to people in excruciating detail.
There's only one species of humans on Earth, and we're all dumb as shit.
> Sure, we know the hotshot CEO of COMPANY_NAME_HERE has to put on his pants one leg at a time, but the similarity ends there.
That’s probably because we know consciously or subconsciously that in order to get and maintain a position of power at a multibillion dollar firm the person either never had a moral compass or quickly had to find ways to justify ignoring or compromising it.
Any one of us who has worked for one of those companies is pretty confident the person running it views other humans not in the way you describe, but as numbers in a spreadsheet who can either justify their continued employment by other numbers in a spreadsheet or not.
Most of us can’t imagine viewing and treating our fellow humans that way.
You are still falling for the evil genius trap. The truth is all of us treat our fellow humans this way, see Singer's drowning child. We're simply not wired to care as much about even large groups of people when they are not people we regularly interact with.
Evil is boring because it is so usual. With the small power I’m given I choose not to recycle, I jaywalk, I say the “R” word in private conversation. If I were a line manager I would play favorites and skip mentorship opportunities if I were tired or busy. As a middle manager I might forget the names of some of my indirect reports and unwittingly pit teams against each other. As my power increases, the fallout of my human actions has larger and more “evil” sounding consequences.
Remember that 99.9% of people do not consider themselves to be the bad guy, yet more than 0.01% of people are bad guys. Almost no one identifies with evil, yet evil is a string that runs through every beating heart.
>Remember that 99.9% of people do not consider themselves to be the bad guy, yet more than 0.01% of people are bad guys. Almost no one identifies with evil, yet evil is a string that runs through every beating heart.
"estimate the prevalence rate of psychopathy in the general adult population at 4.5%." [0]
You do most of humanity a disservice by lumping them in with that cohort that may or may not identify themselves as evil (I have no idea) but are certainly capable of deliberately and with calculation behaving in ways that most of us would label with the "E" word.
It's the transparent subtext. Like, blindingly transparent.
GGP's comment is talking about how CEOs are special or different than we are. That is, that they're not just evil, but that they're evil geniuses. It's just Great Man Theory with a Snidely Whiplash costume.
"Mental Retardation" used to be a common term signed into law and documents but was removed in ~2010. Since then, it has become more of a slur than a description.
> The truth is all of us treat our fellow humans this way.
Nah, I think it is more common of a cultural thing in individualistic societies. I know plenty of people who are worried about the future outlook of others they have never met. For example what phones and social media is doing to our children, or the state of the economy for young people.
I don't think it has much to do with individualism/collectivism. A lot of people are worried about a lot of things beyond themselves; most eventually realize it's bad for mental health and grow out of it, some pick a cause or three and act to make things better, and then there's also the lot that signal worry because it makes them look good.
Of course this is a process, so especially with younger populations, you are going to meet a lot of people worrying about random issues big and small, because it takes time to process it and learn the coping strategies.
I really don't think the collectivist societies are that far ahead. People just invent out groups. India's castes, China's Uyghur's, Japan's castes and treatment of Korea and China, etc. Religious out groups, ethnic out groups, cultural out groups, linguistic out groups, etc. The list is just as long.
I think you'd need to present some stats that compare how much the ultra-wealthy and normal people donate to altruistic causes (adjusted for income) to make that argument
Uh, no. That you believe that is more indicative of your proclivities than anyone else's, and also indicates the people around you are such that haven't challenged you to disabuse you of the notion. It isn't normal. It isn't okay to treat people as just numbers or means to an end, and Dunbar's number is not a license to be a psychopath to people beyond the handful we actively maintain relationships with.
You should treat people empathetically. You should treat the failure to do so by people as something noteworthy and concerning. The fact we as a society seek to optimize for elevating psychopaths for personal gain is part of the problem we've created for ourselves, and to be quite frank, was probably hijacked as early as the founding of the United States into a really problematic, if value creating cornerstone of society that could probably use a good deal of sunlight being shone on it for disinfection and rot clearing purposes.
Two people see an opportunity to make money. One of them recognizes the venture would harm the people involved and decides not to.
The other either does not see the harm (so not a genius) or simply doesn't care (sociopath?). That person does the thing and makes the money.
That person is either some level of naive, some level of evil, but certainly not an evil genius.
> That’s probably because we know consciously or subconsciously that in order to get and maintain a position of power at a multibillion dollar firm the person either never had a moral compass or quickly had to find ways to justify ignoring or compromising it.
Maybe. But I suspect that we tend to view those people that way because they play the I Am A Special Human game in public, especially around those they want to impress / are afraid of, and they really aren't very different from the rest of us at any time. We do the same shit when we're around people we want to impress / are afraid of.
I do agree that the situations such people are in will influence them. They'll have to get used to making decisions that make a big impact on a lot of people's lives, and they'll start thinking that such things are more normal than you and I ever will. I just don't think it changes them all that much.
> Any one of us who has worked for one of those companies is pretty confident the person running it views other humans not in the way you describe, but as numbers in a spreadsheet who can either justify their continued employment by other numbers in a spreadsheet or not.
Okay. But I would do the same, and I'm farther from being a CEO than anyone I know. I can afford to care. If I were thrust into such a position, I would have to squash that caring in order to not cause a great deal of harm to those people I care about. Don't let a doctor operate on his/her own children.
But get me and the CEO sitting in comfy chairs and shooting the shit after work, and I don't think there'll be much of a difference between us. My jokes will be a little funnier, and he'll be more confident and less awkward. But that's just me, not blue CEO blood.
Tell you what. Give me a billion or two dollars and I'll go to a billionaire's hangout. I bet they'll make the same stupid wisecracks, talk about basically the same crap the rest of us do, and get indigestion from eating the too-rich food.
I don't exactly disagree with you. Power changes people. It is tempting and easier to become amoral and accustomed to some pretty messed up stuff. It just doesn't change everything about them. In particular, they have the same dysfunctional thought patterns, they make the same sort of cognitive errors, they struggle with the same shit.
> Most of us can’t imagine viewing and treating our fellow humans that way.
I can.
Perhaps it's not that I have a higher opinion of the CEO/billionaire class, it's that I have a lower opinion of all of us. Nazis were not uniquely evil. I think that's become even more obviously true of late. (Did I just invoke Godwin's Law? So be it.)
Your entire point of humans being clumsy and stoopid and not inherently evil is generally true but for this benign incompetence is why all the discrimination layers, from scool grades to referals, etc. exist.
Whould you give a physician making life-or-death decisions and opsi-budget before you walk away? No. Then where do you draw the line until this irresponsible behavior becomes evil? Evil is defined here not by the individuals intentions but by the outcome.
Would you agree with me, that all the decision makers and elites sabotaging renewable energies and sustainability are evil? Keep in mind, they all might have their clumsy excuses.
All your analysis does is ignore what folks' actual concerns are.
Of course everybody eventually has to take a shit and has dumb jokes.
You're just ignoring some very real differences in how folks relate because of their circumstances and declaring that those of us who understand those differences are dumb.
You're not a temporarily embarrassed billionaire. Having hung out with them, their concerns really are very different than say, the line cooks and journyman HVAC electricians.
While it's tautologically correct that the billionaires also have to have lunch at some point in the day, the specifics of it are vastly different. But more importantly, the ways in which they make their basic livings are fundamentally different in ways that lead them act differently.
That's the difference that folks are point out, and ignoring it just makes you look ignorant of some basic facts about the world.
I agree. It would be great if we were all to keep our guard up and recognise the Germans were fathers sisters and daughters as well, yet they were also consumed by evil.
From a distance I disagree with how Israel conducted itself in Gaza but I have no doubt any other western country would do the same if 1000s of their civilian citizens including children were kidnapped and murdered.
I always imagine what I would feel if some people in a music festival near Guadiana river (Portuguese Spanish border) went through what the Israeli citizens did. I would feel like being evil.
That is by the way why I don’t watch the news. I know all the far flung evil deeds are not for the “other”. They are in my heart and everyone around me.
After all Eischman was just following his moral imperative of obeying the law.
The US does not set out to capture civilians, while the hamas does. It matters. All the rest of the comment makes no sense in light of that.
Also you omitted the part where I said I disagreed with what Israel did. But as a human I believe we are evil like that, and I am really sorry about it.
I was part of CEO recruitment process (sadly not FAANG-like, so maybe it wasn't "so much"-level yet).
Amount of people who are both seriously willing to take the job(considering pressure) and have necessary skills is not very high. Tbh same is truth for any management job - a lot of competent people prefer calmer life.
Obviously for the very top compensation is bonkers and there's fair share of frauds that ended in the position for various reasons, but if you want someone reasonable pool shrinks quite fast.
I may not be _that_ competent, but the calmer life is worth sacrificing a fair few dollars for. For each job I've changed, I've gone to a lower paying position, such that I'm currently still on $10k (around 8%) less than I was earning... 5 years ago, two jobs ago, which was probably about the same as the job I left 6 years before that. All previous jobs were worth leaving.
Parenting, maintaining a long-term relationship, playing (two, kinda) sport(s), home-labbing, keeping up with the state of the world, all take time and I enjoy all of them. It allows me to enjoy the work I do too, to not resent it for all the other things I could have been doing.
I'm in a position of privilege to say any of this, but I've also been careful and relatively well planned with my finances in order to reach this point. I'd be kinda f'd if I was out of work for longer than 6 months, but I'm sure I could re-plan and re-organise priorities and spending to minimise the damage (but we'd definitely be f'd if we both were out of work...).
Have you considered being paid $20 million for one year, and then staying home with family for the next ten years? Even after taxes, you'd still have much more of both time and money than a career in, say, air traffic control.
Following Boeing example you given below - it's not like the guy was given offer to become a CEO out of the blue & had to endure year to be set for life.
He was slowly climbing through the ranks of huge organization over the span of almost 30 years. Given later revelations I certainly wouldn't call it easy or calm - likely even morally challenging sometimes (not admiring anything here - simply any position of power comes with this kind of issues - no matter you're playing for good or bad guys).
Taste of Boeing shareholders for execs is whole other discussion, but I really don't think there's huge crowd of people both willing and capable of filling those shoes.
Maybe, if that was even offered as an option. I doubt I'm that competent, however, and just the fact I have that doubt probably excludes me from the possibility.
Hell, I would gladly take any job where "failing upward" was the rule. Do it for a few years, fail, and then move on to the next higher level opportunity.
Most job levels fail downwards, but once you get to a certain level, for whatever reason, nearly everyone fails upwards. I think "director at a FAANG" and "VP at a medium sized company" are about the level where roles start defaulting to failing upward.
>Amount of people who are both seriously willing to take the job(considering pressure) and have necessary skills is not very high.
I don't believe that. The average CEO is going to have perhaps ten direct reports. I'm willing to bet nearly every one of those is capable and up for the job.
In my past I got high enough to barely touch the ceiling of a multi-billion dollar public company. I routinely had 1:1s with directs to the CEO. Not one of them would be willing or able to take that CEO job.
Just the amount of public facing interviews on CNBC would disqualify half and the other half wouldn't want to do it. They were already being paid very well.
If everyone actually came together and decided that they are not worth paying what they are paid now the compensation would likely normalize to a few multiples of other roles.
But lot of compensation is just magic money out of air that is stock valuations so the stock holder just gives slice of what they think they made. So as long as they financialised system exist so will extreme compensations.
Since most of it is magic money, I'm not sure how much sense is there in evaluating them on it. I.e. if I were suddenly worth $1B, but 90% of that was in a mix of assets I can't do anything with, and some bullshit Wall Street fake money that, at this scale, disappears the moment you look at it, then the actual money I could use would be much, much less.
They are just humans, but if they wield more power, more responsibility should be expected of them. Not just for the business they represent, but also for the society they have an outsized influence upon.
Yaay! I get a chance to bring up IOED - the illusion of explanatory depth [1]
We kinda know how something works, but if we had to draw it out, we’re stumped. The classic example is drawing a bicycle or explaining how a flush works. (You might be able to draw it, or explain it, but that doesn’t obviate the point)
I don't think the author read even the Wikipedia page on Napoleon's invasion of Russia? Napoleon _did_ have reasons for attacking Russia, he _did_ prepare logistics. His motives, rationale, and actions are well-documented and widely studied.
> watching an unchecked megalomaniac march 685,000 soldiers into a Russian winter without a fur coat in sight
Napoleon famously crossed the Neman River in *June*.
For some weird reason people like to simplify that war to "Napoleon vs. Russian winter", completely overlooking Kutuzov. Kutuzov was dealt a bad hand but he played his cards very well
The main parts that mattered were the european ones. And usually, capturing the enemies capital equals victory and Napoleon did capture Moscow. The russians just decided to keep the fight going, despite the chance that their capital burns down, which it did (allegedly on purpose to drive Napoleon out).
In general, Napoleon did not think the russians would use scorched earth tactics, meaning burning their own land, villages, food to deny the french army any supplies (and the russian peasants did not agree to this, but they were not asked).
Through a modern lenses and with hindsight and memes that follow from napoleons failed attempt we can say flippant things like this and say napoleon wasn’t a genius. But students of history and future generals will obviously investigate the facts and see things through the lenses and circumstances of the time rather than from the seat or the internet commentator.
but they have already, rhetorically, dealt with anyone that might come with some sort of context that does not agree with their conclusion:
>There’s a particular kind of person who can’t accept that story at face value, and you’ve met them. I am absolutely sure of it. They show up in every comment section and reply thread where someone powerful does something that looks, on its face, like a mistake - and their argument always runs the same way: you don’t understand, this is actually part of a larger plan, there’s a strategy here that you and I can’t see because we’re not operating at that annointed and elevated level…
Which is, of course, one of the things you have to do when dealing with shooting some bullshit in order to get to your next level of argument, you have to deploy arguments as to why the people who might show up to say hey that's bullshit are actually the stupid people who talk the bullshit, and not you.
As an example of the genre it's pretty tepid, they manage the "I'm telling you the truth part" and the talking down part of the message, but I personally find the best of this genre always includes a pithy little witticism that is just so bitchy and deliciously mean that nobody wants to make the bullshit accusation. At least that's my recommend!
I give it a C+/B- for effort.
on edit: I of course mean what the original article did, in making its flippant comments, not what Arainach did.
the larger plan people are not the historians, IMHO that's clearly a description of people who spent a bit too much time reading about conspiracy theories (and generally are too partisanal)
Napoleon thought the Russians would come out and fight him, instead of burning their country down in retreat and letting L'Empereur's army steal their stuff and rape their people
they chose scorched earth retreat, and history proved them right.
I intentionally didn't say "the population of Russia". Occupying an enormous land mass takes an enormous amount of time (arguably infinite) and resources.
OK, Napoleon is right and he's "conquered" Russia in a month. Are all of those troops being sent home before winter?
Napoleon was never going to go to Vladivostok. You do know that most of Russia is empty apart from the western part? So in effect if you capture Moscow and a few other major cities you are done.
TFA feels like a thinly veiled excuse to shit on Elon, I closed it the second I saw his name. It's not surprising he doesn't know what he's talking about
Something I've learned is that in a certain social strata when people do audaciously stupid, its rarely because they lack the common sense to have covered their tracks. Its because they've learned they don't have to. No one is working hard to try and catch them, and even if by some miracle someone does (and people believe them), no government or regulatory body is really interested in punishing them anyway.
This broadly goes for non-criminal acts too. Sometimes powerful people do seemingly dumb things because they are only dumb in the context of the incentive structures if one of us tried to do it. In their context, it would be stupid not to egregiously take advantage.
In my experience, people of every social strata sometimes do audaciously stupid things, and it's not because they get special treatment. It's often the people who have gotten in trouble the most that do audaciously stupid things the most frequently, despite experiencing past punishment.
Your observation matches what we would see if those people you speak of were just stupid for no reason and committed crimes that aren't caught as often. If a crime is only caught 10% of the time, they probably won't get caught the first few times. You can interpret that as them learning they can get away with it, but the person who just does stupid stuff for no reason will do the same thing, it isn't evidence one way or the other.
And they'd still be stupid the first time they committed the crime, before they've learned they can get away with it. And if they get convicted eventually, it was still stupid in the end. And if they don't get caught, we usually don't know about it, which makes it hard to argue that it's actually worth it for them to do these seemingly stupid crimes; we know of their failures but not their successes.
Well rather than our respective anecdotes, I cite page 252-253 of the Knapp Commission Report on Police Corruption in New York (1972).
>It is clear that the risks of severe punishment for corrupt behavior are slight. A dishonest policeman knows that, even if he is caught and convicted, he will probably receive a court reprimand or, at most, a fairly short jail sentence. Considering the vast sums to be made in some plainclothes squads or in narcotics enforcement, the gains from corruption seem far to outweigh the risks. Both William Phillips and Edward Droge said that they assessed the risk of meaningful punishment and determined that they had little to fear.
I've read enough reports of this nature and experienced enough regulators to be really convinced that where you see apparent stupidity you are also likely to see a table like the one on page 250 showing virtually no prosecutions prior to the Commission.
Neither Drodge nor Phillips were wrong in their calculation. I hate to say, your estimate of a 10% chance of getting caught was way too optimistic. Going by the data, it was much much lower than that.
(My axe to grind is not with the police in particular, reports on police corruption just happen to be the most available and easily understandable).
Conversely I didn’t understand incentives for junkies to steal bikes to sell those only for 10 or 20 bucks.
My incentive structure is nowhere near to theirs. It took a lot of mental effort and empathy for me to grasp what kind of environment they navigate in life to steal my bike I bought for $200.
So I also lack understanding of being a millionaire or a billionaire but I definitely lack empathy for those people.
The challenge with the world is that it requires nuance, ad hoc thinking, and effortful thinking. The human brain doesn't like putting effort into thinking. It's uncomfortable. It's easier for us to just have one rule, one heuristic, that we can simply apply to many similar situations. This is why ideology exists and is so powerful. You can always find people chanting the same phrase or slogan, over and over, regardless of the circumstance. Because it's easier for them to do that than it is for them to treat every situation as unique and to reason through it from first principles. Hell, sometimes that's just not feasible.
In this situation, yeah, sometimes powerful people do dumb shit. And ideologues come by and say, "You just don't understand the 4d chess!"
But also, sometimes it's the opposite! And the powerful person does something smart, but that's unclear or unfamiliar to the average person without massive wealth/access/power. And ideologues from the peanut gallery come by and say, "Another powerful person doing stupid stuff!"
And of course, the right (but alas more effortful) approach is to evaluate each situation individually, and reason through the factors, and also to wait to see how it turns out, before evaluating.
For example, the author evaluations Elon's purchase of Twitter as an irredeemably stupid decision. And I agree, many things about how that went down seem very stupid. But at the same time, dude has launched an AI lab that's gotten tons of press and exposure thanks in large part to X, combined it with his other companies, and is about to IPO for $1.5T+. Maybe you don't like it. Maybe I don't like it. Maybe there's lots to complain about here, but it's difficult to describe this as a "stupid" move.
Does that mean he was playing 4D chess? Also, maybe not! Maybe he just lucked into this situation. Maybe he didn't foresee it initially, but figured it out later. Or maybe, much more reasonably, he figured that he has tons of optionality and tons of leeway, so even if he doesn't have a good plan to begin with, he'll likely figure it out. Who knows.
It's tough to be a speculator judging from the sidelines with incomplete knowledge. And it's even tougher to avoid allowing our biases and ideologies to compel us to simply shout our beliefs rather than being objective and analytical.
Yeah, the Twitter acquisition wasn't obviously irredeemably stupid. I think it was a bad decision, but paying a 38% premium above market price for an acquisition of a public company is within the normal range. You can argue the markets were irrational and Twitter was overvalued, but you shouldn't argue it's obvious because it clearly isn't obvious to a huge number of investors. You could argue Twitter is a poor fit for Musk's goals, but that wasn't obvious either. Twitter didn't have to change radically to be worth its price. It just had to grow profits a bit and maybe help some of Musk's other projects (like Grok).
Recently an xAI recruiter reached out to me for a position at xAI. They mentioned that they had been impressed by my GitHub profile and wanted to fast track me to an interview.
Fun fact: I have not a single repository on my GitHub.
I think the position was about creating training data and realistic coding scenarios or something.
I though the 4D chess explanation was that he bought it (was forced to buy it by courts) because he was entering politics and wanted to be able to ensure the deaths of half a million children in Africa:
There is a better 4D chess explanation of why Alon bought twitter and i hate to bring it.
When he bought it, right wing publications all over world got excited because twitter was the global / official communications channel for alot of entities and largely considered left leaning. When your plan is to disrupt that bubble and amplify right leaning narratives (he helped trump1 getting elected with it), you better cover your tracks and make that purchase look like an accident.
The main goal of Napoleon's invasion of Russia was to beat their military in a decisive battle long before reaching Moscow, forcing Alexander to comply with the continental system - a European trade embargo created by Napoleon to weaken the British Empire who have been hostile toward France since long before the French revolution. Alexander signed this trade embargo during the treaty of Tilsit of 1807, and had been breaking the treaty for years by allowing trade with the British.
The Russians did intend to fight, and set up redoubts several times close to the invading army, but would always retreat when the Grande Armée approached. The military leadership in Russia was very indecisive, caught up in internal rivalries and disagreements. It didn't help that a large part of their military leadership was German. Aside from small skirmishes, they only gave battle once they were practically standing at the doorstep of Moscow, in the battle of Borodino.
The 400,000 dead soldiers died mostly to disease. Recent studies have found evidence of Borrelia Recurrentis which causes a form of relapsing fever. The western soldiers wouldn't have had any exposure to this bacteria before, so they were particularly weak to it. It was also exceptionally hot during the summer while they were invading (when the majority of soldiers died), which contributed to spread of disease and exhausting the horses. Disease and dying horses did way more damage to the Grande Armée than the Russian military did.
The campaign was a military disaster (though the people at home might not be aware, due to slow information flow and propaganda), but it was not without aim, and it was not obvious to anyone that 70% of the army would die to disease before a single major battle.
I appreciate that you at least didn't propagate the myth that Napoleon invaded in the winter, or that he lost because Kutuzov "outsmarted" him by giving him free passage to Moscow and burning it down.
> There’s a particular kind of person who can’t accept that story at face value
I would hope that the majority of readers here are taking the story with a huge pinch of salt. Napoleon's invasion of Russia is one of the most misunderstood events in modern history. Maybe that's why it's so popular to use it as an anecdote - because it can be molded to mean whatever you like, and people probably won't question you.
> The 400,000 dead soldiers died mostly to disease.
I believe that in every major war of the 1800s, more soldiers died from disease than from combat.
Consider the War of 1812. "fully three-quarters of the war deaths resulted from disease, most commonly typhoid fever, pneumonia, malaria, measles, typhus, smallpox and diarrhea" - https://www.nps.gov/articles/military-medicine.htm
Oh, hey - in the Franco-Prussian War more soldiers died of combat than from disease (for the Germans, 28,000 battle deaths vs 12,000 by disease, and for the French, 77,000 battle deaths vs 45,000 by disease) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War , so I was wrong! Though those numbers exclude "162,000 German[ civilian deaths] in a smallpox epidemic spread by French POWs" and "450,000 French civilians dead from war-related famine and disease".
You are completely right. Disease has been the major killer in most military campaigns of history. The original post stated that 400,000 soldiers died "mostly from starvation and exposure", which isn't correct. However, loosing over a third of an army to disease in 52 days, before any major battle solely to disease (Allen, B. M., https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA398046.pdf), is unusually high.
Starvation became a major problem later as supply chains broke down, and exposure became a major problem on the retreat. Though the retreat from Moscow included only about 100,000 people.
I think the age of social media has made the problem much worse. People are much more focused on how to gain fame and glory, but they can easily distance themselves from taking responsibility for the consequences.
Sometimes powerful people just do dumb shit, because they're still a human being like all of us.
It's easy to look at Musk and say, he's done some dumb shit when his dumb shit makes news. But very few of us have the same type of scrutiny that powerful people have. He's done dumb shit, but he's done a lot of pretty good shit across his lifetime.
Regular people do dumb shit and embarrass themselves at a barbecue. Powerful people do dumb shit and move markets, wreck products, distort public discourse, and still get a choir singing about their ‘pretty good shit across his lifetime.’ At some point it stops being nuance and starts being unpaid PR.
All due respect I don't really care much about Musk, but my point is that a powerful person can have a done a good thing and a dumb thing over the course of their career. The dumb thing doesn't nullify the fact they did a good thing.
As the article presents, Napoleon is considered one of the great military commanders in history. But he also did some pretty dumb shit leading the many deaths.
Nullification doesn't work when you're mixing up competence with character. Good versus evil is one axis. Smart versus dumb is another.
Someone can be smart and still be rotten. Someone can make money and still be a fraud morally.
But here, the myth of him as some singular genius falls apart the moment you look at how much of his reputation is built on other people’s work, lucky timing, and high-stakes gambling dressed up as vision.
The dumb stuff he does, but mostly the dumb stuff he says, does a good job of nullifying the 'smart' stuff.
So you’re romanticising a rich exploitative gambler who wouldn’t hesitate to sneer at 'ordinary' people, like us, as sheep.
people's character also changes over time, and everyone's work is built on other people's (of course usually people try to make sure those people are credited correctly)
he is more of an extremely driven and singularly lucky workaholic asshole with sufficient capacity to cram a lot of technical details (or drugs) into his head, which impressed and motivated technical staff (and investors), who then morphed into this Nazi creep as he got more populare he simply began to ignore negative feedback more and more (and obviously got addicted to the far-right echochamber)
>The dumb thing doesn't nullify the fact they did a good thing.
I mean, surely it depends on the exact nature of the two things. Also, contrasting good with dumb strikes me as odd. Something can be good and dumb, or bad and smart.
Mismanaging your household finances can ruin your livelihood and you might end up on the street.
Mismanaging a company which you didn’t build won’t ruin your livelihood. It might of the employees. It may weight heavy on your conscience but we’ve heard enough of those “I take full responsibility” phrases that we know how heavy is that.
I mean, I've never financed or platformed violent far-right politicians, nor caused thousands to die by callously "taking a chainsaw" to government institutions. But yeah, other than that, I guess we're pretty similar.
Oh yeah, I also don't run a breeding cult. Or beg notorious sex criminals to party on their private island.
"Probably the best statistical graphic ever drawn, this map by Charles Joseph Minard portrays the losses suffered by Napoleon’s army in the Russian campaign of 1812. Beginning at the Polish-Russian border, the thick band shows the size of the army at each position. The path of Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow in the bitterly cold winter is depicted by the dark lower band, which is tied to temperature and time scales."
> “The funny thing about ‘Veep’ is, we as people who worked in the White House always get asked, okay, what’s the most real? Is it ‘House of Cards? Is it ‘West Wing’? And the answer is, it’s ‘Veep.’ Because you guys nail the fragility of the egos, and the, like, day-to-day idiocy of the decision-making,” Vietor said.
Same vibe as "conspiracy theorists are optimists because they believe there is a great plan."
and the best thing is then the conspiracy theorists do not go after like the realy small set of things that actualy could be called a real conspiracy. Coughs in the trump files ft. epstein.
One thing I'd highlight is that the mechanism the OP notices in all the actors is a low-cost way of reducing uncertainty.
At each step, what does it cost to admit uncertainty or error vs what is gained from doing so? For a powerful person, appearing decisive often has a lower immediate cost than being indecisive. For a committed supporter, doubting the figure they've invested in has social, psychological and identity costs that outweigh any benefit of changing their beliefs.
When the local cost of uncertainty is higher than the perceived benefit of being right, people resolve toward certainty.
So the phenomenon could be seen as a cost-minimizing collapse where beliefs and actions settle on whatever preserves stability, even if it means denying something real.
So: Benefit(belief update) < Cost(belief update) => certainty collapse -> people believe weird shit
Some people are just really good at leveraging others. Leverage enough other people, and you can get rich and or powerful.
And the more you leverage, the more you get.
A lot of current powerful people got lucky at one key moment (often involving imaginary money and hype applied to the stock market). And once they got their big level up, they suddenly became visionaries. That includes some of the more outspoken people that many HN readers idolize.
Many of those people believe their own bullshit, partly because they naturally are insulated within a group of sycophants (who are either groupies or usually looking for a lift up to a level of stature they don’t deserve).
I suspect sycophancy has a lot to do with things . People with power attract those who want their favour and/or money who will align themselves to please the powerful rather than steer them to their best selves. Furthermore as the sycophants accumulate the genuine voices likely begin to sound out of place, like their _against_ the individual. Ironically paranoia gets deployed in the wrong direction to push out the true voices.
I worry this fate will become more common. Everyone can hit up an artificial sycophant at will who they've been told is super intelligent and yet claims their ideas are full of deep insight.
And sometimes people put out hit pieces about companies they don't like, while objectively much worse companies in the same industry are beloved. Who knows why people do things!
Kutuzov's genius of repeatedly pulling back until the Grande Armee was standing at the doorstep of their ancient capital, fighting one of the most stubborn battles in the Napoleonic era, yet loosing significantly more men than their attackers, and finally backing off, to behind their capital, allowing it to be plundered and burnt down during the occupation? (The city didn't burn down in a day, but a series of fires occurred almost every day until the Grande Armee left). Even when the attackers were retreating, he was still indecisive.
I agree with the thesis but i dont agree about elon buying twitter. That was really messy, but it was clear later on that he did it to manipulate the election for trump, and that bet paid off amazongly well for him in hindsight. Not only did twitter turn out to be ceitical in spreading misinformation (how many morons didnt vote for harris because they thought shed start a war in the middle east) but that then also gave him crazy access to the government. It fell out later, but it was probably the most effective 40bil anyone today could hope to spend
"The Wire" TV show portrays these things well. In it, the powerful people often have the least clue about anything. They are just playing the game and often winning by sheer luck. They also often do fuck up, but because they are powerful, are able to get other people to take the hit for them or build a narrative that hides the fuck up.
The older I get, the more I think that this TV show is actually the most realistic portrayal of how the real world works there is.
The Twitter example is a bad one. Elon Musk, at the time, was making hundreds-of-millions through crypto-market manipulation on Twitter. At that time he realized that having control over the entire Twitter platform would unlock many billions of dollars worth of profit opportunity. Attention is the most valuable and powerful currency in this world. Not only for manipulating markets, but also for political propaganda. The information we consume literally shapes the world. So yes, it was a 4D chess move.
I would actualy give the not so benefit of the doubt even to powerful people. Everyone does stupid shit all the time.
There is however a significant difference in how the fallout of this dumb shit affects people. Powerful people may do dumb shit and then due to the power sweep the consequences away from themselves. While everyone else would have had to face these consequences.
And thats the fundamental issue. Too much power allows dumb decisions to stand unchallenged, and removes the possibility for self correction (due to consequences). Which is fundamentally why the power of singular people needs to be limited.
While the premise is good and explains a lot of failures, I the Musk example is misplaced.
Musk bought Twitter. And then he succeeded - Trump became elected and he became his right hand. Is it, for Musk, a failure?
Sure, it is not 4D chess. It is just "some people lie as a tool to get their goals".
The same way when politicians introduce surveillance to "protect children" and it makes children less, it is not a failure. It is a win - more control, and more fuel for further campaigns.
I related to this. I think the 4D chess crowd are, like the "I did my own research" crowd projecting a dominance view in the moment, not actually providing a rebuttal.
It's the deux ex machina of our times. How can Elon be wrong about invading Moscow. You don't understand but I do
I disagree with the parts about Trump: he does know what he is doing. Not because it's a well crafted plan of 4D chess, but because he's deeply anxious/insecure and "lie with grandiosity" is a learned survival mechanism to protect his feelings from reality.
It's like expecting a fish to stop swimming - it feels like it's suffocating, it's going to panic and do everything it can to get back into the water, get moving again.
The fish isn't playing 4d chess, it's just flipping all over the place until it feels safe again, and then probably forget all of the chaos minutes later.
How much this is applicable to the other examples - Musk, Napoleon - unclear.
But saying they do "stupid" things without looking at why they might do stupid things is reductionist/overly simple/can PROBABLY be answered with psychology in most cases.
'Clever Hans was a horse that appeared to perform arithmetic and other intellectual tasks during exhibitions in Germany in the early 20th century.' - wikipedia
We should be able to hold 2 things in mind at the same time.: a leader (i.e. Elon Musk) can be extremally charismaric (in his specific nerdy way), can have a great talent in filtering ideas that people pitch to him - optimizing for coolness factor. He can even be able to speak about these ideas for hours in captivating maner. A skill in deal-making, getting financed, inspiring people is also real.
At the same time such person can be extremally narcissistic and impulsive + clearly addicted to public drama focused on him or her.
And these character tratis seem to control him, so this person will always choose the 'more power, more news, more controversy' path even when it clearly doesn't make sense.
Add to it a society with a strong cult of personality (a feature of US culture) and some of the lucky reckless charismatic people will get very powerful eventually and also get rewarded for doubling down on their worse decisions.
There’s a particular kind of influencer who follows the archetype I call “perpetual bull”.
They are highly cynical and show an immense confidence in their own predictions despite not being in the thick of it.
And usually it follows the same format: the ideology is that the elites are stupid and completely irrational, evil as well as extremely powerful (they can’t see the contradiction in this). So they attempt to “balance the narrative” by showing the other side.
In the past year or so I heard multiple things about A.I.:
I was kept being told that the AI bubble will crash any time soon. Still didn’t happen.
I was told ChatGPT is not here to stay. It’s one of the most downloaded apps in the world.
I was told that Elon firing 80% of staff will cause twitter to crash. It didn’t. It’s running perfectly fine.
The modus operandi seems to be that you may just be cynical about everything because civilisationally important discoveries happen only once a while
The post cleverly and preemptively disparages people who "show up in a thread and claim that everything is part of a larger plan". Posting a picture of Napoleon is cute, but does not prove anything. Those were different times.
- The Iran attack plans go back a long way. Netanyahu tried the same during the Obama administration and was rejected. There are Brookings Institute papers that outline all countries that need to fall before attacking Iran. The last one was Syria that fell in 2024.
- As is evident now, Trump is not MAGA. Vance was an anti-Trumper in 2016 and is the deepest of deep state via his Thiel sponsor. They are just executing the plans.
- The "pro-Russia" sentiment of Vance and Trump appears to be a ruse. They want to make the EU pay more but continue the Ukraine war.
- Vance's "support" for Orban was fake and achieved the intended goal: people voted for the opposite and $90 billion for Ukraine of EU money is unblocked.
- Vance deliberately torpedoed the Pakistan peace talks.
- Democrat protests are weak. Hillary Clinton only criticizes the (ostensible) lack of a plan.
The plan is to weaken Russia, China and the EU. The latter two are targeted by high energy prices and increased US dependencies in the case of the EU.
The problem is not lone commentators pointing all this out. The problem is that there is a concerted effort to blame all of this on Trump and Israel. Blaming Israel was forbidden prior to the Iran war, now it is a mainstream excuse promoted by mainstream media, left and right wing podcasts and almost all Internet commenters.
That is a deliberate strategy to distract from long term goals.
Your post is great example of 4D chess arguments. They seem believable at first glance but if you look deeper they either don't make sense (like vice president taking role of a clown to lower support of an ally) or are distraction (the Iran attack plans argument - lots of people predicted Hormuz problem, previous plans doesn't matter much here).
> like vice president taking role of a clown to lower support of an ally)
Your premise is that Orban is an "ally". He was an ally in the culture war distractions (anti-woke).
Hegseth told the EU to take over and pay for the Ukraine war in 2025. $90 billion supersede culture war issues. Vance already made a clown of himself by pivoting from Trump is a "moral disaster" and an "idiot" in 2016 to running with him in 2024.
Your post is a great example of sinking a post without any coherent arguments. It is impossible to discern what you even mean by the second "Iran" arguments. There are no premises and there is no logic.
Elons robot obsession is probably more 4d chess / hidden plan theory. At a time when Tesla sales are flagging in Europe despite an enormous surge in overall EV sales due to yet another energy crisis, he's turning Tesla factories into humanoid robot factories to make a robot that doesn't yet work that nobody asked for. I'm sure lots of Tesla fan boys will pay 20k for a robot butler, but an EV fills a need for the average family and an incompetent bipedal Roomba really does not. They should be focused on PR, it's such a short step from where they are now back to being on top of the EV market.
And how does the price Musk paid for Twitter look now? Sure, maybe it was really a dumb move and he just got lucky. But he's been lucky a hell of a lot.
He bailed out his Twitter investors by having xAi purchase Twitter, then he bailed out his xAi investors by having SpaceX purchase xAi, and how he is trying to bail out SpaceX by having the index funds be forced to purchase SpaceX.
Twitter valuation aside, there must be some intangible benefits to the purchase.
Lots of influential people use Twitter, he has amplified his reach, and the purchase seems to have moved the overton window in favor of his agenda.
SpaceX is a fantastic company full of the smartest engineers that has brought fast internet to the most remote regions on Earth. Even if it wasn't for index funds, investors would buy the shit out of it.
xAI has built an almost-frontier model. It's not Anthropic or OpenAI but it's also not valued like Anthropic or OpenAI either.
Twitter is doing OK, despite predictions. It found a niche with obnoxious right-wing assholes instead of obnoxious left-wing assholes. Twitter does seem to be less excited about getting people fired for wrongthink than before which is a societal improvement. It did succeed in buying Musk influence at the highest levels, but he threw it away. Mixed success.
I know Musk gets a lot of hatred on here for his behavior and beliefs, including from myself, but that doesn't imply that his businesses are all scams. Hugo Boss was a Nazi too and his business is doing fine.
Elon has made multiple comments in the past about how much keeping SpaceX private, makes it easier to run, and achieve it's goals of colonising Mars.
He has given up on that, he has abandoned the Mars goal, and he is sacrificing the company to the whims of the public markets, just so he can have a payday.
xAi raised $45 billion and Grok loses benchmarks to Chinese(GPU sanctioned) open weight models.
I'm overall positive about the Twitter acquisition, I mean it was terrible financially, and Elon has made a lot of unforced errors in it's management, but yes, it does feel like the idpol witch hunts have died down a bit since.
After the Musk acquisition, the identity politics ultras quickly moved to mastodon and bluesky. Regular people were slower to move if at all because of switching friction.
Social media is an amplifier: most of the users are passive consumers or retweeters, and only a smaller minority drive the conversation.
Traditional media also loves to get stories from social media in order to "get the pulse" of society and because journalists are lazy and desperate for narratives. A relatively small social movement can therefore use social media to catapult its message onto traditional media and thus onto society at large.
By isolating themselves from the amplifier, the identity politics ultras were no longer able to push their political message (and witch hunts) to such a large audience, the message stayed confined in spaces that were basically invisible to the average person, and the message faded away.
Yes it wasn't just because of the Musk purchase, but it was definitely a factor.
Absolutely horrible? He absolutely lost his ass on the purchase and is one election away from fraud charges.
I guess congrats you bought Twitter and then spent half a billion dollars just so you could temporarily dismantle the regulators who were preventing you from committing open fraud?
Or, you know, if you did manage to permanently dismantle the regulators it means you’ve destroyed your primary source of revenue.
I kind of feel like people know how to human, and how the humans around them human, but someone they've never met but only heard about or seen on TV or in meme posts? No clue at all.
Sure, we know the hotshot CEO of COMPANY_NAME_HERE has to put on his pants one leg at a time, but the similarity ends there. They're different, they won't fall for the stupid tricks we fall for. They don't have trouble getting out of bed or ever worry about what their kids are up to. They have CEO spouses that don't ask them to take out the trash or think about which yogurt to buy.
On the flip side, if they do something bad, that's because they're evil. A deep dark evil totally unlike the banal lameness of the people around us. They don't do stupid shit when someone jerks their chain and they get all worked up. Why would they, they're surrounded by money and other powerful people and have servants feeding them brilliant insights all day long. Everything they do is planned and calculated and they think through the damage they're doing to people in excruciating detail.
There's only one species of humans on Earth, and we're all dumb as shit.
> Sure, we know the hotshot CEO of COMPANY_NAME_HERE has to put on his pants one leg at a time, but the similarity ends there.
That’s probably because we know consciously or subconsciously that in order to get and maintain a position of power at a multibillion dollar firm the person either never had a moral compass or quickly had to find ways to justify ignoring or compromising it.
Any one of us who has worked for one of those companies is pretty confident the person running it views other humans not in the way you describe, but as numbers in a spreadsheet who can either justify their continued employment by other numbers in a spreadsheet or not.
Most of us can’t imagine viewing and treating our fellow humans that way.
You are still falling for the evil genius trap. The truth is all of us treat our fellow humans this way, see Singer's drowning child. We're simply not wired to care as much about even large groups of people when they are not people we regularly interact with.
Where did the above commenter say “genius?”
Evil is boring because it is so usual. With the small power I’m given I choose not to recycle, I jaywalk, I say the “R” word in private conversation. If I were a line manager I would play favorites and skip mentorship opportunities if I were tired or busy. As a middle manager I might forget the names of some of my indirect reports and unwittingly pit teams against each other. As my power increases, the fallout of my human actions has larger and more “evil” sounding consequences.
Remember that 99.9% of people do not consider themselves to be the bad guy, yet more than 0.01% of people are bad guys. Almost no one identifies with evil, yet evil is a string that runs through every beating heart.
>Remember that 99.9% of people do not consider themselves to be the bad guy, yet more than 0.01% of people are bad guys. Almost no one identifies with evil, yet evil is a string that runs through every beating heart.
"estimate the prevalence rate of psychopathy in the general adult population at 4.5%." [0]
You do most of humanity a disservice by lumping them in with that cohort that may or may not identify themselves as evil (I have no idea) but are certainly capable of deliberately and with calculation behaving in ways that most of us would label with the "E" word.
Sometimes being judgmental is ok.
[0]https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8374040/
> Where did the above commenter say “genius?”
It's the transparent subtext. Like, blindingly transparent.
GGP's comment is talking about how CEOs are special or different than we are. That is, that they're not just evil, but that they're evil geniuses. It's just Great Man Theory with a Snidely Whiplash costume.
whats the R word
"Retarded"
"Mental Retardation" used to be a common term signed into law and documents but was removed in ~2010. Since then, it has become more of a slur than a description.
> The truth is all of us treat our fellow humans this way.
Nah, I think it is more common of a cultural thing in individualistic societies. I know plenty of people who are worried about the future outlook of others they have never met. For example what phones and social media is doing to our children, or the state of the economy for young people.
I don't think it has much to do with individualism/collectivism. A lot of people are worried about a lot of things beyond themselves; most eventually realize it's bad for mental health and grow out of it, some pick a cause or three and act to make things better, and then there's also the lot that signal worry because it makes them look good.
Of course this is a process, so especially with younger populations, you are going to meet a lot of people worrying about random issues big and small, because it takes time to process it and learn the coping strategies.
I really don't think the collectivist societies are that far ahead. People just invent out groups. India's castes, China's Uyghur's, Japan's castes and treatment of Korea and China, etc. Religious out groups, ethnic out groups, cultural out groups, linguistic out groups, etc. The list is just as long.
I think you'd need to present some stats that compare how much the ultra-wealthy and normal people donate to altruistic causes (adjusted for income) to make that argument
Uh, no. That you believe that is more indicative of your proclivities than anyone else's, and also indicates the people around you are such that haven't challenged you to disabuse you of the notion. It isn't normal. It isn't okay to treat people as just numbers or means to an end, and Dunbar's number is not a license to be a psychopath to people beyond the handful we actively maintain relationships with.
You should treat people empathetically. You should treat the failure to do so by people as something noteworthy and concerning. The fact we as a society seek to optimize for elevating psychopaths for personal gain is part of the problem we've created for ourselves, and to be quite frank, was probably hijacked as early as the founding of the United States into a really problematic, if value creating cornerstone of society that could probably use a good deal of sunlight being shone on it for disinfection and rot clearing purposes.
Two people see an opportunity to make money. One of them recognizes the venture would harm the people involved and decides not to. The other either does not see the harm (so not a genius) or simply doesn't care (sociopath?). That person does the thing and makes the money.
That person is either some level of naive, some level of evil, but certainly not an evil genius.
> That’s probably because we know consciously or subconsciously that in order to get and maintain a position of power at a multibillion dollar firm the person either never had a moral compass or quickly had to find ways to justify ignoring or compromising it.
Maybe. But I suspect that we tend to view those people that way because they play the I Am A Special Human game in public, especially around those they want to impress / are afraid of, and they really aren't very different from the rest of us at any time. We do the same shit when we're around people we want to impress / are afraid of.
I do agree that the situations such people are in will influence them. They'll have to get used to making decisions that make a big impact on a lot of people's lives, and they'll start thinking that such things are more normal than you and I ever will. I just don't think it changes them all that much.
> Any one of us who has worked for one of those companies is pretty confident the person running it views other humans not in the way you describe, but as numbers in a spreadsheet who can either justify their continued employment by other numbers in a spreadsheet or not.
Okay. But I would do the same, and I'm farther from being a CEO than anyone I know. I can afford to care. If I were thrust into such a position, I would have to squash that caring in order to not cause a great deal of harm to those people I care about. Don't let a doctor operate on his/her own children.
But get me and the CEO sitting in comfy chairs and shooting the shit after work, and I don't think there'll be much of a difference between us. My jokes will be a little funnier, and he'll be more confident and less awkward. But that's just me, not blue CEO blood.
Tell you what. Give me a billion or two dollars and I'll go to a billionaire's hangout. I bet they'll make the same stupid wisecracks, talk about basically the same crap the rest of us do, and get indigestion from eating the too-rich food.
I don't exactly disagree with you. Power changes people. It is tempting and easier to become amoral and accustomed to some pretty messed up stuff. It just doesn't change everything about them. In particular, they have the same dysfunctional thought patterns, they make the same sort of cognitive errors, they struggle with the same shit.
> Most of us can’t imagine viewing and treating our fellow humans that way.
I can.
Perhaps it's not that I have a higher opinion of the CEO/billionaire class, it's that I have a lower opinion of all of us. Nazis were not uniquely evil. I think that's become even more obviously true of late. (Did I just invoke Godwin's Law? So be it.)
Your entire point of humans being clumsy and stoopid and not inherently evil is generally true but for this benign incompetence is why all the discrimination layers, from scool grades to referals, etc. exist.
Whould you give a physician making life-or-death decisions and opsi-budget before you walk away? No. Then where do you draw the line until this irresponsible behavior becomes evil? Evil is defined here not by the individuals intentions but by the outcome.
Would you agree with me, that all the decision makers and elites sabotaging renewable energies and sustainability are evil? Keep in mind, they all might have their clumsy excuses.
All your analysis does is ignore what folks' actual concerns are.
Of course everybody eventually has to take a shit and has dumb jokes.
You're just ignoring some very real differences in how folks relate because of their circumstances and declaring that those of us who understand those differences are dumb.
You're not a temporarily embarrassed billionaire. Having hung out with them, their concerns really are very different than say, the line cooks and journyman HVAC electricians.
While it's tautologically correct that the billionaires also have to have lunch at some point in the day, the specifics of it are vastly different. But more importantly, the ways in which they make their basic livings are fundamentally different in ways that lead them act differently.
That's the difference that folks are point out, and ignoring it just makes you look ignorant of some basic facts about the world.
> Nazis were not uniquely evil
I agree. It would be great if we were all to keep our guard up and recognise the Germans were fathers sisters and daughters as well, yet they were also consumed by evil.
From a distance I disagree with how Israel conducted itself in Gaza but I have no doubt any other western country would do the same if 1000s of their civilian citizens including children were kidnapped and murdered.
I always imagine what I would feel if some people in a music festival near Guadiana river (Portuguese Spanish border) went through what the Israeli citizens did. I would feel like being evil.
That is by the way why I don’t watch the news. I know all the far flung evil deeds are not for the “other”. They are in my heart and everyone around me.
After all Eischman was just following his moral imperative of obeying the law.
"I have no doubt any other western country would do the same if 1000s of their civilian citizens including children were kidnapped and murdered."
So this is how you expect the rest of the world to treat the US? Just torture and murder their civilians and erase their homes and culture?
The US killed, maimed and displaced many millions of iraqis, should we help the iraqis exterminate the US population?
The US does not set out to capture civilians, while the hamas does. It matters. All the rest of the comment makes no sense in light of that.
Also you omitted the part where I said I disagreed with what Israel did. But as a human I believe we are evil like that, and I am really sorry about it.
That's a weird lie. The US mainly targets civilians and irregular troops.
If they're not special, why do we have to pay them so much just to get out of bed?
I was part of CEO recruitment process (sadly not FAANG-like, so maybe it wasn't "so much"-level yet).
Amount of people who are both seriously willing to take the job(considering pressure) and have necessary skills is not very high. Tbh same is truth for any management job - a lot of competent people prefer calmer life.
Obviously for the very top compensation is bonkers and there's fair share of frauds that ended in the position for various reasons, but if you want someone reasonable pool shrinks quite fast.
> a lot of competent people prefer calmer life
I may not be _that_ competent, but the calmer life is worth sacrificing a fair few dollars for. For each job I've changed, I've gone to a lower paying position, such that I'm currently still on $10k (around 8%) less than I was earning... 5 years ago, two jobs ago, which was probably about the same as the job I left 6 years before that. All previous jobs were worth leaving.
Parenting, maintaining a long-term relationship, playing (two, kinda) sport(s), home-labbing, keeping up with the state of the world, all take time and I enjoy all of them. It allows me to enjoy the work I do too, to not resent it for all the other things I could have been doing.
I'm in a position of privilege to say any of this, but I've also been careful and relatively well planned with my finances in order to reach this point. I'd be kinda f'd if I was out of work for longer than 6 months, but I'm sure I could re-plan and re-organise priorities and spending to minimise the damage (but we'd definitely be f'd if we both were out of work...).
Have you considered being paid $20 million for one year, and then staying home with family for the next ten years? Even after taxes, you'd still have much more of both time and money than a career in, say, air traffic control.
Following Boeing example you given below - it's not like the guy was given offer to become a CEO out of the blue & had to endure year to be set for life.
He was slowly climbing through the ranks of huge organization over the span of almost 30 years. Given later revelations I certainly wouldn't call it easy or calm - likely even morally challenging sometimes (not admiring anything here - simply any position of power comes with this kind of issues - no matter you're playing for good or bad guys).
Taste of Boeing shareholders for execs is whole other discussion, but I really don't think there's huge crowd of people both willing and capable of filling those shoes.
Maybe, if that was even offered as an option. I doubt I'm that competent, however, and just the fact I have that doubt probably excludes me from the possibility.
Oh don't worry, even if you fail at the job, you can still receive a golden parachute worth more than your employees will earn in their whole careers.
https://www.manufacturing.net/aerospace/news/21109798/boeing...
Hell, I would gladly take any job where "failing upward" was the rule. Do it for a few years, fail, and then move on to the next higher level opportunity.
Most job levels fail downwards, but once you get to a certain level, for whatever reason, nearly everyone fails upwards. I think "director at a FAANG" and "VP at a medium sized company" are about the level where roles start defaulting to failing upward.
I genuinely don't think I'd be able to sleep at night.
It's fucking gross. If a person can live with it, they don't deserve to.
>Amount of people who are both seriously willing to take the job(considering pressure) and have necessary skills is not very high.
I don't believe that. The average CEO is going to have perhaps ten direct reports. I'm willing to bet nearly every one of those is capable and up for the job.
I don't think so, not even close.
In my past I got high enough to barely touch the ceiling of a multi-billion dollar public company. I routinely had 1:1s with directs to the CEO. Not one of them would be willing or able to take that CEO job.
Just the amount of public facing interviews on CNBC would disqualify half and the other half wouldn't want to do it. They were already being paid very well.
if they're directs to the CEO they're also C-levels and are getting pretty solid compensation.
CFO or CTO or CISO gets compensated, and they have significant challenges and stress.
Well, consider typical dev team - how many members usually are able to and want to jump to the staff level?
If everyone actually came together and decided that they are not worth paying what they are paid now the compensation would likely normalize to a few multiples of other roles.
But lot of compensation is just magic money out of air that is stock valuations so the stock holder just gives slice of what they think they made. So as long as they financialised system exist so will extreme compensations.
Since most of it is magic money, I'm not sure how much sense is there in evaluating them on it. I.e. if I were suddenly worth $1B, but 90% of that was in a mix of assets I can't do anything with, and some bullshit Wall Street fake money that, at this scale, disappears the moment you look at it, then the actual money I could use would be much, much less.
That's a good question, and although I think I have a good answer, I fear it would be too much of a tangent to speculate on here.
If we're not speculating, what are we even doing here?
They are just humans, but if they wield more power, more responsibility should be expected of them. Not just for the business they represent, but also for the society they have an outsized influence upon.
> They have CEO spouses that don't ask them to take out the trash or think about which yogurt to buy.
From 'Curb your enthusiasm', I've learnt that that's actually the only thing they ever do.
Yaay! I get a chance to bring up IOED - the illusion of explanatory depth [1]
We kinda know how something works, but if we had to draw it out, we’re stumped. The classic example is drawing a bicycle or explaining how a flush works. (You might be able to draw it, or explain it, but that doesn’t obviate the point)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_explanatory_depth
... no... you are just incredibly condescending.
It's almost like our material relations to others defines our primary concerns and thus our class interests and thus how we exist among other folks.
But that's just, like, such a 19th century communistic view on things.
We may all be in the same storm but we're not all in the same boats.
I don't think the author read even the Wikipedia page on Napoleon's invasion of Russia? Napoleon _did_ have reasons for attacking Russia, he _did_ prepare logistics. His motives, rationale, and actions are well-documented and widely studied.
> watching an unchecked megalomaniac march 685,000 soldiers into a Russian winter without a fur coat in sight
Napoleon famously crossed the Neman River in *June*.
For some weird reason people like to simplify that war to "Napoleon vs. Russian winter", completely overlooking Kutuzov. Kutuzov was dealt a bad hand but he played his cards very well
If you believe a war with a country the size of Russia will be over within 4 months you might not be a genius.
The main parts that mattered were the european ones. And usually, capturing the enemies capital equals victory and Napoleon did capture Moscow. The russians just decided to keep the fight going, despite the chance that their capital burns down, which it did (allegedly on purpose to drive Napoleon out).
In general, Napoleon did not think the russians would use scorched earth tactics, meaning burning their own land, villages, food to deny the french army any supplies (and the russian peasants did not agree to this, but they were not asked).
> usually, capturing the enemies capital equals victory and Napoleon did capture Moscow.
Too bad the capital was Saint Petersburg at that time.
That's why you should never trust a time traveler. They probably know as much about your time as you about theirs.
Through a modern lenses and with hindsight and memes that follow from napoleons failed attempt we can say flippant things like this and say napoleon wasn’t a genius. But students of history and future generals will obviously investigate the facts and see things through the lenses and circumstances of the time rather than from the seat or the internet commentator.
but they have already, rhetorically, dealt with anyone that might come with some sort of context that does not agree with their conclusion:
>There’s a particular kind of person who can’t accept that story at face value, and you’ve met them. I am absolutely sure of it. They show up in every comment section and reply thread where someone powerful does something that looks, on its face, like a mistake - and their argument always runs the same way: you don’t understand, this is actually part of a larger plan, there’s a strategy here that you and I can’t see because we’re not operating at that annointed and elevated level…
Which is, of course, one of the things you have to do when dealing with shooting some bullshit in order to get to your next level of argument, you have to deploy arguments as to why the people who might show up to say hey that's bullshit are actually the stupid people who talk the bullshit, and not you.
As an example of the genre it's pretty tepid, they manage the "I'm telling you the truth part" and the talking down part of the message, but I personally find the best of this genre always includes a pithy little witticism that is just so bitchy and deliciously mean that nobody wants to make the bullshit accusation. At least that's my recommend!
I give it a C+/B- for effort.
on edit: I of course mean what the original article did, in making its flippant comments, not what Arainach did.
the larger plan people are not the historians, IMHO that's clearly a description of people who spent a bit too much time reading about conspiracy theories (and generally are too partisanal)
but yes, including this snark seems unnecessary
Napoleon thought the Russians would come out and fight him, instead of burning their country down in retreat and letting L'Empereur's army steal their stuff and rape their people
they chose scorched earth retreat, and history proved them right.
I think the belief was probably taking Moscow and forcing a treaty.
Tell that to Germany in 1917
> country the size of Russia
density of population is not equal to land mass, you know
I intentionally didn't say "the population of Russia". Occupying an enormous land mass takes an enormous amount of time (arguably infinite) and resources.
OK, Napoleon is right and he's "conquered" Russia in a month. Are all of those troops being sent home before winter?
Napoleon was never going to go to Vladivostok. You do know that most of Russia is empty apart from the western part? So in effect if you capture Moscow and a few other major cities you are done.
The danger of pastiche.
TFA feels like a thinly veiled excuse to shit on Elon, I closed it the second I saw his name. It's not surprising he doesn't know what he's talking about
Something I've learned is that in a certain social strata when people do audaciously stupid, its rarely because they lack the common sense to have covered their tracks. Its because they've learned they don't have to. No one is working hard to try and catch them, and even if by some miracle someone does (and people believe them), no government or regulatory body is really interested in punishing them anyway.
This broadly goes for non-criminal acts too. Sometimes powerful people do seemingly dumb things because they are only dumb in the context of the incentive structures if one of us tried to do it. In their context, it would be stupid not to egregiously take advantage.
In my experience, people of every social strata sometimes do audaciously stupid things, and it's not because they get special treatment. It's often the people who have gotten in trouble the most that do audaciously stupid things the most frequently, despite experiencing past punishment.
Your observation matches what we would see if those people you speak of were just stupid for no reason and committed crimes that aren't caught as often. If a crime is only caught 10% of the time, they probably won't get caught the first few times. You can interpret that as them learning they can get away with it, but the person who just does stupid stuff for no reason will do the same thing, it isn't evidence one way or the other.
And they'd still be stupid the first time they committed the crime, before they've learned they can get away with it. And if they get convicted eventually, it was still stupid in the end. And if they don't get caught, we usually don't know about it, which makes it hard to argue that it's actually worth it for them to do these seemingly stupid crimes; we know of their failures but not their successes.
Well rather than our respective anecdotes, I cite page 252-253 of the Knapp Commission Report on Police Corruption in New York (1972).
>It is clear that the risks of severe punishment for corrupt behavior are slight. A dishonest policeman knows that, even if he is caught and convicted, he will probably receive a court reprimand or, at most, a fairly short jail sentence. Considering the vast sums to be made in some plainclothes squads or in narcotics enforcement, the gains from corruption seem far to outweigh the risks. Both William Phillips and Edward Droge said that they assessed the risk of meaningful punishment and determined that they had little to fear.
I've read enough reports of this nature and experienced enough regulators to be really convinced that where you see apparent stupidity you are also likely to see a table like the one on page 250 showing virtually no prosecutions prior to the Commission.
Neither Drodge nor Phillips were wrong in their calculation. I hate to say, your estimate of a 10% chance of getting caught was way too optimistic. Going by the data, it was much much lower than that.
(My axe to grind is not with the police in particular, reports on police corruption just happen to be the most available and easily understandable).
Conversely I didn’t understand incentives for junkies to steal bikes to sell those only for 10 or 20 bucks.
My incentive structure is nowhere near to theirs. It took a lot of mental effort and empathy for me to grasp what kind of environment they navigate in life to steal my bike I bought for $200.
So I also lack understanding of being a millionaire or a billionaire but I definitely lack empathy for those people.
The challenge with the world is that it requires nuance, ad hoc thinking, and effortful thinking. The human brain doesn't like putting effort into thinking. It's uncomfortable. It's easier for us to just have one rule, one heuristic, that we can simply apply to many similar situations. This is why ideology exists and is so powerful. You can always find people chanting the same phrase or slogan, over and over, regardless of the circumstance. Because it's easier for them to do that than it is for them to treat every situation as unique and to reason through it from first principles. Hell, sometimes that's just not feasible.
In this situation, yeah, sometimes powerful people do dumb shit. And ideologues come by and say, "You just don't understand the 4d chess!"
But also, sometimes it's the opposite! And the powerful person does something smart, but that's unclear or unfamiliar to the average person without massive wealth/access/power. And ideologues from the peanut gallery come by and say, "Another powerful person doing stupid stuff!"
And of course, the right (but alas more effortful) approach is to evaluate each situation individually, and reason through the factors, and also to wait to see how it turns out, before evaluating.
For example, the author evaluations Elon's purchase of Twitter as an irredeemably stupid decision. And I agree, many things about how that went down seem very stupid. But at the same time, dude has launched an AI lab that's gotten tons of press and exposure thanks in large part to X, combined it with his other companies, and is about to IPO for $1.5T+. Maybe you don't like it. Maybe I don't like it. Maybe there's lots to complain about here, but it's difficult to describe this as a "stupid" move.
Does that mean he was playing 4D chess? Also, maybe not! Maybe he just lucked into this situation. Maybe he didn't foresee it initially, but figured it out later. Or maybe, much more reasonably, he figured that he has tons of optionality and tons of leeway, so even if he doesn't have a good plan to begin with, he'll likely figure it out. Who knows.
It's tough to be a speculator judging from the sidelines with incomplete knowledge. And it's even tougher to avoid allowing our biases and ideologies to compel us to simply shout our beliefs rather than being objective and analytical.
Yeah, the Twitter acquisition wasn't obviously irredeemably stupid. I think it was a bad decision, but paying a 38% premium above market price for an acquisition of a public company is within the normal range. You can argue the markets were irrational and Twitter was overvalued, but you shouldn't argue it's obvious because it clearly isn't obvious to a huge number of investors. You could argue Twitter is a poor fit for Musk's goals, but that wasn't obvious either. Twitter didn't have to change radically to be worth its price. It just had to grow profits a bit and maybe help some of Musk's other projects (like Grok).
Yeah I don't buy that xAI story, musk would have gotten a popular ai lab even without Twitter if he wanted.
Except.. his ai lab is not popular. It has zero value and people only use it because it's on Twitter and they don't pay for it.
The fact that he had to merge it with a successful unrelated company tells you all you need to know.
Recently an xAI recruiter reached out to me for a position at xAI. They mentioned that they had been impressed by my GitHub profile and wanted to fast track me to an interview.
Fun fact: I have not a single repository on my GitHub.
I think the position was about creating training data and realistic coding scenarios or something.
I though the 4D chess explanation was that he bought it (was forced to buy it by courts) because he was entering politics and wanted to be able to ensure the deaths of half a million children in Africa:
https://www.impactcounter.com/dashboard?view=table&sort=inte...
It looks like he succeeded wildly at that.
There is a better 4D chess explanation of why Alon bought twitter and i hate to bring it.
When he bought it, right wing publications all over world got excited because twitter was the global / official communications channel for alot of entities and largely considered left leaning. When your plan is to disrupt that bubble and amplify right leaning narratives (he helped trump1 getting elected with it), you better cover your tracks and make that purchase look like an accident.
I think this is spot on. Poor man wanna be rich, rich man wanna be King, king ain't satisfied till he rules everything.
The main goal of Napoleon's invasion of Russia was to beat their military in a decisive battle long before reaching Moscow, forcing Alexander to comply with the continental system - a European trade embargo created by Napoleon to weaken the British Empire who have been hostile toward France since long before the French revolution. Alexander signed this trade embargo during the treaty of Tilsit of 1807, and had been breaking the treaty for years by allowing trade with the British.
The Russians did intend to fight, and set up redoubts several times close to the invading army, but would always retreat when the Grande Armée approached. The military leadership in Russia was very indecisive, caught up in internal rivalries and disagreements. It didn't help that a large part of their military leadership was German. Aside from small skirmishes, they only gave battle once they were practically standing at the doorstep of Moscow, in the battle of Borodino.
The 400,000 dead soldiers died mostly to disease. Recent studies have found evidence of Borrelia Recurrentis which causes a form of relapsing fever. The western soldiers wouldn't have had any exposure to this bacteria before, so they were particularly weak to it. It was also exceptionally hot during the summer while they were invading (when the majority of soldiers died), which contributed to spread of disease and exhausting the horses. Disease and dying horses did way more damage to the Grande Armée than the Russian military did.
The campaign was a military disaster (though the people at home might not be aware, due to slow information flow and propaganda), but it was not without aim, and it was not obvious to anyone that 70% of the army would die to disease before a single major battle.
I appreciate that you at least didn't propagate the myth that Napoleon invaded in the winter, or that he lost because Kutuzov "outsmarted" him by giving him free passage to Moscow and burning it down.
> There’s a particular kind of person who can’t accept that story at face value
I would hope that the majority of readers here are taking the story with a huge pinch of salt. Napoleon's invasion of Russia is one of the most misunderstood events in modern history. Maybe that's why it's so popular to use it as an anecdote - because it can be molded to mean whatever you like, and people probably won't question you.
> The 400,000 dead soldiers died mostly to disease.
I believe that in every major war of the 1800s, more soldiers died from disease than from combat.
Consider the War of 1812. "fully three-quarters of the war deaths resulted from disease, most commonly typhoid fever, pneumonia, malaria, measles, typhus, smallpox and diarrhea" - https://www.nps.gov/articles/military-medicine.htm
Consider the Crimean War. "death by disease exceeded the sum of "killed in action" or "died of wounds"" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War
Consider the US Civil War. "Of the nearly 700,000 soldiers who died in the Civil War, nearly two thirds or 467,000 died from sickness and disease." - https://www.nps.gov/gett/learn/education/a-nation-at-war-tra...
Oh, hey - in the Franco-Prussian War more soldiers died of combat than from disease (for the Germans, 28,000 battle deaths vs 12,000 by disease, and for the French, 77,000 battle deaths vs 45,000 by disease) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War , so I was wrong! Though those numbers exclude "162,000 German[ civilian deaths] in a smallpox epidemic spread by French POWs" and "450,000 French civilians dead from war-related famine and disease".
You are completely right. Disease has been the major killer in most military campaigns of history. The original post stated that 400,000 soldiers died "mostly from starvation and exposure", which isn't correct. However, loosing over a third of an army to disease in 52 days, before any major battle solely to disease (Allen, B. M., https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA398046.pdf), is unusually high.
Starvation became a major problem later as supply chains broke down, and exposure became a major problem on the retreat. Though the retreat from Moscow included only about 100,000 people.
What other campaigns had a 52 day march or longer before the first major battle?
Perhaps the Siege of Baghdad, or some other Mongolian campaign? Or Hannibal's route to Italy?
I can't think of a comparable from the 1800s.
I think the age of social media has made the problem much worse. People are much more focused on how to gain fame and glory, but they can easily distance themselves from taking responsibility for the consequences.
Sometimes powerful people just do dumb shit, because they're still a human being like all of us.
It's easy to look at Musk and say, he's done some dumb shit when his dumb shit makes news. But very few of us have the same type of scrutiny that powerful people have. He's done dumb shit, but he's done a lot of pretty good shit across his lifetime.
Nobody is infallible.
Regular people do dumb shit and embarrass themselves at a barbecue. Powerful people do dumb shit and move markets, wreck products, distort public discourse, and still get a choir singing about their ‘pretty good shit across his lifetime.’ At some point it stops being nuance and starts being unpaid PR.
All due respect I don't really care much about Musk, but my point is that a powerful person can have a done a good thing and a dumb thing over the course of their career. The dumb thing doesn't nullify the fact they did a good thing.
As the article presents, Napoleon is considered one of the great military commanders in history. But he also did some pretty dumb shit leading the many deaths.
Nullification doesn't work when you're mixing up competence with character. Good versus evil is one axis. Smart versus dumb is another.
Someone can be smart and still be rotten. Someone can make money and still be a fraud morally.
But here, the myth of him as some singular genius falls apart the moment you look at how much of his reputation is built on other people’s work, lucky timing, and high-stakes gambling dressed up as vision.
The dumb stuff he does, but mostly the dumb stuff he says, does a good job of nullifying the 'smart' stuff.
So you’re romanticising a rich exploitative gambler who wouldn’t hesitate to sneer at 'ordinary' people, like us, as sheep.
people's character also changes over time, and everyone's work is built on other people's (of course usually people try to make sure those people are credited correctly)
he is more of an extremely driven and singularly lucky workaholic asshole with sufficient capacity to cram a lot of technical details (or drugs) into his head, which impressed and motivated technical staff (and investors), who then morphed into this Nazi creep as he got more populare he simply began to ignore negative feedback more and more (and obviously got addicted to the far-right echochamber)
I've yet to see any evidence of Musk's workaholism or technical know-how.
I base my claims on this review of the 2015 Musk biography by Ashlee Vance:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-elon-musk
>The dumb thing doesn't nullify the fact they did a good thing.
I mean, surely it depends on the exact nature of the two things. Also, contrasting good with dumb strikes me as odd. Something can be good and dumb, or bad and smart.
but i have to wonder what powerful people actually bring to the table.
Leadership.
Most here won't want to hear it, but the average person does not want to lead. They want to be told everything will be alright.
Leading + consequences is difficult and stressful. Heck, just leading your own household is stressful, try doing it for someone else or 1000s.
Mismanaging your household finances can ruin your livelihood and you might end up on the street.
Mismanaging a company which you didn’t build won’t ruin your livelihood. It might of the employees. It may weight heavy on your conscience but we’ve heard enough of those “I take full responsibility” phrases that we know how heavy is that.
Capital or the ability to raise capital.
It’s easy to look at musk because he’s a piece of shit
I mean, I've never financed or platformed violent far-right politicians, nor caused thousands to die by callously "taking a chainsaw" to government institutions. But yeah, other than that, I guess we're pretty similar.
Oh yeah, I also don't run a breeding cult. Or beg notorious sex criminals to party on their private island.
Has Elon done dumb shit though? He's still winning, it couldn't have been that dumb.
Indeed I would bet he knew he would lose money on Twitter but did it anyway.
He tried to back out of the purchase after signing an agreement, but was forced to buy it for $44b in the end.
https://www.edwardtufte.com/product/napoleons-march/
Via Edward Tufte
"Probably the best statistical graphic ever drawn, this map by Charles Joseph Minard portrays the losses suffered by Napoleon’s army in the Russian campaign of 1812. Beginning at the Polish-Russian border, the thick band shows the size of the army at each position. The path of Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow in the bitterly cold winter is depicted by the dark lower band, which is tied to temperature and time scales."
For my mental model how White House politics work, this article was very influential: https://www.thewrap.com/obama-aides-say-veep-accurate-west-w...
> “The funny thing about ‘Veep’ is, we as people who worked in the White House always get asked, okay, what’s the most real? Is it ‘House of Cards? Is it ‘West Wing’? And the answer is, it’s ‘Veep.’ Because you guys nail the fragility of the egos, and the, like, day-to-day idiocy of the decision-making,” Vietor said.
Same vibe as "conspiracy theorists are optimists because they believe there is a great plan."
All gossip I hear about the extremely powerful leads me to believe that they’d be utterly unable to organise any sort of conspiracy themselves.
Most haven’t touched Google Calendar in a decade. They can’t call anyone without their assistant typing in the number first.
This might have more to do with their average age than anything though
and the best thing is then the conspiracy theorists do not go after like the realy small set of things that actualy could be called a real conspiracy. Coughs in the trump files ft. epstein.
One thing I'd highlight is that the mechanism the OP notices in all the actors is a low-cost way of reducing uncertainty.
At each step, what does it cost to admit uncertainty or error vs what is gained from doing so? For a powerful person, appearing decisive often has a lower immediate cost than being indecisive. For a committed supporter, doubting the figure they've invested in has social, psychological and identity costs that outweigh any benefit of changing their beliefs.
When the local cost of uncertainty is higher than the perceived benefit of being right, people resolve toward certainty.
So the phenomenon could be seen as a cost-minimizing collapse where beliefs and actions settle on whatever preserves stability, even if it means denying something real.
So: Benefit(belief update) < Cost(belief update) => certainty collapse -> people believe weird shit
Some people are just really good at leveraging others. Leverage enough other people, and you can get rich and or powerful.
And the more you leverage, the more you get.
A lot of current powerful people got lucky at one key moment (often involving imaginary money and hype applied to the stock market). And once they got their big level up, they suddenly became visionaries. That includes some of the more outspoken people that many HN readers idolize.
Many of those people believe their own bullshit, partly because they naturally are insulated within a group of sycophants (who are either groupies or usually looking for a lift up to a level of stature they don’t deserve).
I suspect sycophancy has a lot to do with things . People with power attract those who want their favour and/or money who will align themselves to please the powerful rather than steer them to their best selves. Furthermore as the sycophants accumulate the genuine voices likely begin to sound out of place, like their _against_ the individual. Ironically paranoia gets deployed in the wrong direction to push out the true voices.
I worry this fate will become more common. Everyone can hit up an artificial sycophant at will who they've been told is super intelligent and yet claims their ideas are full of deep insight.
And sometimes people put out hit pieces about companies they don't like, while objectively much worse companies in the same industry are beloved. Who knows why people do things!
He got a top social media platform reaching billions for around 5% of his net worth, that doesn't sound like a huge L to me.
1. Outcome bias. Just because a decision didn't pan out doesn't mean it was a bad decision at the time it was made.
2. Rich/successful people have a bias for big bets because big bets are how they got this far.
3. People get less sharp as they get older but are more confident because of the successes of their youth.
It wasn't the Russian winter, but Kutuzov's genius.
Kutuzov's genius of repeatedly pulling back until the Grande Armee was standing at the doorstep of their ancient capital, fighting one of the most stubborn battles in the Napoleonic era, yet loosing significantly more men than their attackers, and finally backing off, to behind their capital, allowing it to be plundered and burnt down during the occupation? (The city didn't burn down in a day, but a series of fires occurred almost every day until the Grande Armee left). Even when the attackers were retreating, he was still indecisive.
> standing at the doorstep of their ancient capital
Moscow was neither "ancient capital" nor current capital of Russia in 1812.
My apologies, I think I was misremembering a quote from War and Peace.
I actually went and found the passage that confused me: https://literaturepage.com/read/warandpeace-1228.html
Thank you for correcting me! Tolstoy meant it philosophically/culturally, not literally.
I thinknm we are missing one scenario - sometimes with their practically unlimited money they just buy something to destroy it
I've been following this guy on youtube since he started - cool to see him posted here
I agree with the thesis but i dont agree about elon buying twitter. That was really messy, but it was clear later on that he did it to manipulate the election for trump, and that bet paid off amazongly well for him in hindsight. Not only did twitter turn out to be ceitical in spreading misinformation (how many morons didnt vote for harris because they thought shed start a war in the middle east) but that then also gave him crazy access to the government. It fell out later, but it was probably the most effective 40bil anyone today could hope to spend
We ALL do dumb shit. The shit from powerful people just has more impact.
The "trick" is that cunning powerful people fail forward, so they keep on doing dumb shit with even more impact.
"The Wire" TV show portrays these things well. In it, the powerful people often have the least clue about anything. They are just playing the game and often winning by sheer luck. They also often do fuck up, but because they are powerful, are able to get other people to take the hit for them or build a narrative that hides the fuck up.
The older I get, the more I think that this TV show is actually the most realistic portrayal of how the real world works there is.
Which character is DJT? I think some combo of Carcetti & Burrell. Ability to play the game but all the gear and no idea.
The podcast purchase? Shades of Bari Weiss.
when someone so successful sometime they gained wrong trust in their selves and do not doubt themselves at all
The Twitter example is a bad one. Elon Musk, at the time, was making hundreds-of-millions through crypto-market manipulation on Twitter. At that time he realized that having control over the entire Twitter platform would unlock many billions of dollars worth of profit opportunity. Attention is the most valuable and powerful currency in this world. Not only for manipulating markets, but also for political propaganda. The information we consume literally shapes the world. So yes, it was a 4D chess move.
I would actualy give the not so benefit of the doubt even to powerful people. Everyone does stupid shit all the time.
There is however a significant difference in how the fallout of this dumb shit affects people. Powerful people may do dumb shit and then due to the power sweep the consequences away from themselves. While everyone else would have had to face these consequences.
And thats the fundamental issue. Too much power allows dumb decisions to stand unchallenged, and removes the possibility for self correction (due to consequences). Which is fundamentally why the power of singular people needs to be limited.
While the premise is good and explains a lot of failures, I the Musk example is misplaced.
Musk bought Twitter. And then he succeeded - Trump became elected and he became his right hand. Is it, for Musk, a failure?
Sure, it is not 4D chess. It is just "some people lie as a tool to get their goals".
The same way when politicians introduce surveillance to "protect children" and it makes children less, it is not a failure. It is a win - more control, and more fuel for further campaigns.
I related to this. I think the 4D chess crowd are, like the "I did my own research" crowd projecting a dominance view in the moment, not actually providing a rebuttal.
It's the deux ex machina of our times. How can Elon be wrong about invading Moscow. You don't understand but I do
I disagree with the parts about Trump: he does know what he is doing. Not because it's a well crafted plan of 4D chess, but because he's deeply anxious/insecure and "lie with grandiosity" is a learned survival mechanism to protect his feelings from reality.
It's like expecting a fish to stop swimming - it feels like it's suffocating, it's going to panic and do everything it can to get back into the water, get moving again. The fish isn't playing 4d chess, it's just flipping all over the place until it feels safe again, and then probably forget all of the chaos minutes later.
How much this is applicable to the other examples - Musk, Napoleon - unclear. But saying they do "stupid" things without looking at why they might do stupid things is reductionist/overly simple/can PROBABLY be answered with psychology in most cases.
I think you have to qualify what you think trump is doing knowingly or not.
Lie in every press conference? Sure.
Posting an image of himself as Jesus? The guy has dementia.
> The guy has dementia.
I think you're right, but it isn't as advanced as Joe Biden's was, by the end of his term.
Could you post a link to a video where Trump talks for 15 minutes coherently?
Trump is very vigorous, even in dementia! Interesting times ahead.
Not sometimes. Most of the time. Have you seen the news lately?
Powerful people operate on unchecked egos and surround themselves with sycophants.
Sometimes?
'Clever Hans was a horse that appeared to perform arithmetic and other intellectual tasks during exhibitions in Germany in the early 20th century.' - wikipedia
We should be able to hold 2 things in mind at the same time.: a leader (i.e. Elon Musk) can be extremally charismaric (in his specific nerdy way), can have a great talent in filtering ideas that people pitch to him - optimizing for coolness factor. He can even be able to speak about these ideas for hours in captivating maner. A skill in deal-making, getting financed, inspiring people is also real.
At the same time such person can be extremally narcissistic and impulsive + clearly addicted to public drama focused on him or her.
And these character tratis seem to control him, so this person will always choose the 'more power, more news, more controversy' path even when it clearly doesn't make sense.
Add to it a society with a strong cult of personality (a feature of US culture) and some of the lucky reckless charismatic people will get very powerful eventually and also get rewarded for doubling down on their worse decisions.
Better title: Sometimes people do dumb shit, even powerful people
There’s a particular kind of influencer who follows the archetype I call “perpetual bull”.
They are highly cynical and show an immense confidence in their own predictions despite not being in the thick of it. And usually it follows the same format: the ideology is that the elites are stupid and completely irrational, evil as well as extremely powerful (they can’t see the contradiction in this). So they attempt to “balance the narrative” by showing the other side.
In the past year or so I heard multiple things about A.I.:
I was kept being told that the AI bubble will crash any time soon. Still didn’t happen.
I was told ChatGPT is not here to stay. It’s one of the most downloaded apps in the world.
I was told that Elon firing 80% of staff will cause twitter to crash. It didn’t. It’s running perfectly fine.
The modus operandi seems to be that you may just be cynical about everything because civilisationally important discoveries happen only once a while
Here's a Paul Krugman quote on the Internet
"By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s"
"Sometimes"?
The post cleverly and preemptively disparages people who "show up in a thread and claim that everything is part of a larger plan". Posting a picture of Napoleon is cute, but does not prove anything. Those were different times.
- The Iran attack plans go back a long way. Netanyahu tried the same during the Obama administration and was rejected. There are Brookings Institute papers that outline all countries that need to fall before attacking Iran. The last one was Syria that fell in 2024.
- As is evident now, Trump is not MAGA. Vance was an anti-Trumper in 2016 and is the deepest of deep state via his Thiel sponsor. They are just executing the plans.
- The "pro-Russia" sentiment of Vance and Trump appears to be a ruse. They want to make the EU pay more but continue the Ukraine war.
- Vance's "support" for Orban was fake and achieved the intended goal: people voted for the opposite and $90 billion for Ukraine of EU money is unblocked.
- Vance deliberately torpedoed the Pakistan peace talks.
- Democrat protests are weak. Hillary Clinton only criticizes the (ostensible) lack of a plan.
The plan is to weaken Russia, China and the EU. The latter two are targeted by high energy prices and increased US dependencies in the case of the EU.
The problem is not lone commentators pointing all this out. The problem is that there is a concerted effort to blame all of this on Trump and Israel. Blaming Israel was forbidden prior to the Iran war, now it is a mainstream excuse promoted by mainstream media, left and right wing podcasts and almost all Internet commenters.
That is a deliberate strategy to distract from long term goals.
Your post is great example of 4D chess arguments. They seem believable at first glance but if you look deeper they either don't make sense (like vice president taking role of a clown to lower support of an ally) or are distraction (the Iran attack plans argument - lots of people predicted Hormuz problem, previous plans doesn't matter much here).
> like vice president taking role of a clown to lower support of an ally)
Your premise is that Orban is an "ally". He was an ally in the culture war distractions (anti-woke).
Hegseth told the EU to take over and pay for the Ukraine war in 2025. $90 billion supersede culture war issues. Vance already made a clown of himself by pivoting from Trump is a "moral disaster" and an "idiot" in 2016 to running with him in 2024.
Your post is a great example of sinking a post without any coherent arguments. It is impossible to discern what you even mean by the second "Iran" arguments. There are no premises and there is no logic.
That is the entire basis of the TV show - "The boys" - and the entire reason for no kings in America.
Elons robot obsession is probably more 4d chess / hidden plan theory. At a time when Tesla sales are flagging in Europe despite an enormous surge in overall EV sales due to yet another energy crisis, he's turning Tesla factories into humanoid robot factories to make a robot that doesn't yet work that nobody asked for. I'm sure lots of Tesla fan boys will pay 20k for a robot butler, but an EV fills a need for the average family and an incompetent bipedal Roomba really does not. They should be focused on PR, it's such a short step from where they are now back to being on top of the EV market.
And how does the price Musk paid for Twitter look now? Sure, maybe it was really a dumb move and he just got lucky. But he's been lucky a hell of a lot.
He bailed out his Twitter investors by having xAi purchase Twitter, then he bailed out his xAi investors by having SpaceX purchase xAi, and how he is trying to bail out SpaceX by having the index funds be forced to purchase SpaceX.
Twitter valuation aside, there must be some intangible benefits to the purchase. Lots of influential people use Twitter, he has amplified his reach, and the purchase seems to have moved the overton window in favor of his agenda.
> the index funds be forced to purchase SpaceX
SpaceX is a fantastic company full of the smartest engineers that has brought fast internet to the most remote regions on Earth. Even if it wasn't for index funds, investors would buy the shit out of it.
xAI has built an almost-frontier model. It's not Anthropic or OpenAI but it's also not valued like Anthropic or OpenAI either.
Twitter is doing OK, despite predictions. It found a niche with obnoxious right-wing assholes instead of obnoxious left-wing assholes. Twitter does seem to be less excited about getting people fired for wrongthink than before which is a societal improvement. It did succeed in buying Musk influence at the highest levels, but he threw it away. Mixed success.
I know Musk gets a lot of hatred on here for his behavior and beliefs, including from myself, but that doesn't imply that his businesses are all scams. Hugo Boss was a Nazi too and his business is doing fine.
Elon has made multiple comments in the past about how much keeping SpaceX private, makes it easier to run, and achieve it's goals of colonising Mars.
He has given up on that, he has abandoned the Mars goal, and he is sacrificing the company to the whims of the public markets, just so he can have a payday.
xAi raised $45 billion and Grok loses benchmarks to Chinese(GPU sanctioned) open weight models.
I'm overall positive about the Twitter acquisition, I mean it was terrible financially, and Elon has made a lot of unforced errors in it's management, but yes, it does feel like the idpol witch hunts have died down a bit since.
>yes, it does feel like the idpol witch hunts have died down a bit since.
You don't seriously believe that was because of the Twitter purchase and not due to a coinciding social shift, do you?
I think the causation is multivariate, but at least partially because of it, yes.
After the Musk acquisition, the identity politics ultras quickly moved to mastodon and bluesky. Regular people were slower to move if at all because of switching friction.
Social media is an amplifier: most of the users are passive consumers or retweeters, and only a smaller minority drive the conversation.
Traditional media also loves to get stories from social media in order to "get the pulse" of society and because journalists are lazy and desperate for narratives. A relatively small social movement can therefore use social media to catapult its message onto traditional media and thus onto society at large.
By isolating themselves from the amplifier, the identity politics ultras were no longer able to push their political message (and witch hunts) to such a large audience, the message stayed confined in spaces that were basically invisible to the average person, and the message faded away.
Yes it wasn't just because of the Musk purchase, but it was definitely a factor.
Terrible. Twitter is just now back to the valuation he bought it for, four years and lots of inflation later.
If the best you can do with $44B is break even after 4 years that is a piss poor investment.
Do you think Elon bought Twitter as an investment?
No. I'm just replying to someone else who is arguing that Elon buying Twitter was a good investment.
I'm saying I think he got his money's worth overall, not that it worked great when considered solely as a financial investment.
How to say you play 4D chess…
Absolutely horrible? He absolutely lost his ass on the purchase and is one election away from fraud charges.
I guess congrats you bought Twitter and then spent half a billion dollars just so you could temporarily dismantle the regulators who were preventing you from committing open fraud?
Or, you know, if you did manage to permanently dismantle the regulators it means you’ve destroyed your primary source of revenue.
> is one election away from fraud charges.
Nothing in my lifetime of experience in the US so far, or in the demeanor of the "opposition" party suggests he'll face real consequences for this.
"One election away from more fraud". Not fraud charges.