What he (Dolgov) is saying is a belief that stems from rationalization. It *seems* like it's a proof because that's how he's phrasing it, but in the final analysis he's a biased observer expressing an opinion and bolstering it with a rationalization.

It's what we get every time we ask an expert for advice about something they don't directly know. Ask a physicist about dark energy, or a doctor about your unusual symptom, or a nutritionist about what you eat, or an economist about whether the Fed should lower rates... you'll get a reasonable sounding answer backed by rationalization.

We don't have proof that a computer can self-drive using only cameras (and not "computer can do what a brain does", which is a much wider problem set), but we have abundant statistical evidence that it can.

Tesla claims claims (mid 2026) that self driving has about 1/7 of the collisions of human driving. Fully deployed FSD would reduce driving fatalities by 90%.

While not a proof in the inductive-logic sense, it's probably good enough to become general consensus. Given the enormous amount of data they train on (10 billion miles driven?), I suspect the p-value is astronomically small.

And of note, I recently purchased a Tesla with self driving. The system requires you to be attentive while it's active, but I can say with complete honesty that full self driving is here now.

And it works. It'll go into a crowded parking lot and back itself into a parking space, it'll correctly navigate lane closures and safety cone situations, and just yesterday it correctly stopped for a road worker holding a stop sign, waited, and then proceeded when he turned the sign to "slow".

The reason I got the car is because a friend kept badgering me about... of all things... getting old. Our population is aging, and old people driving is a constant source of problems. Having a way for them to get around without being a danger to others seems like a good thing.

Oh, and coming off a day hike or a day of physical labor or something and being really tired it's nice to be able to hit the "start self driving" and have the thing take me completely home because I'm really beat and not very attentive.

He's making fun of the original headline:

What was the headline supposed be? At first I thought they left out a hyphen, so there were 11-hour outages:

But no, the teams are talking about hosting clouds themselves, so they really just got the plural wrong:

I think by convention (if not by definition) I should expect to understand the headline without reading further.

This would be a good time to point out that every political argument has two sides and two points of view.

I've seen the arguments for both sides of this issue, and have come to the conclusion that there is merit for both. People should really look at the specific charges being made, with examples, before coming to any conclusion.

Every time someone tries to rein in the news media, it's received by shouts of first amendment, freedom of speech, chilling effects, and so on; and yet, this leads to insane situations. Google most egregious US media failures in the last 10 years for a list of incidents, and note how many of these affected major political events such as a presidential election or national policy.

Should a journalist be able to walk into a church during service and interrupt the proceedings, and not be held accountable because he's a journalist? Should a major news outlet be able to report something without at least a cursory check to see if it's accurate? Should an interview answer be swapped with the answer from a different question?

I've come to the conclusion that knee-jerk framing is on purpose, everyone wants to get "ahead" of an issue, and if an erroneous/misleading/false statement is made they will simply say "oops... I made a mistake" and there's no repurcussions... except that the lie went out to the audience and a small percentage got outraged in the right direction, regardless of whether the statement is true or not.

A "straw-man" argument is where you put your opponent's viewpoint in the most absurd terms and then attack the absurdity. A "strong-man" argument is where you put your opponent's viewpoint in the strongest possible terms and then try to attack it.

Choose the "strong-man" argument here. Find out what the administration is complaining about, and see if you can fault their logic.

Seriously? That guy is putting meaning into words that he doesn't even know is there, making tons of references to turner diaries, despite saying this:

More than that, he's making a ton of leaps in logic that amount to what is indistinguishable from a conspiracy theory. In fact, I'd say it IS a conspiracy theory. Chief among them being his commentary about an Elon post that just has the word "yes" in response to a picture of a guy holding a gun saying "traiters then invaders" which somehow relates to turner diaries. As for me personally, until I actually looked at the movie poster it came from, I would have had no idea where it actually came from. I think this is the most plausible explanation he has come up with in that entire article:

Unlike you, I don't entertain conspiracy theories. He's awkward. As somebody with ASD, this is something I can personally relate to, and I've literally had people (on here, no less) take something I said to mean something completely different than the actual intent. In my case, it's likely the difference between the way I speak in person, compared with my writing style, which tend to be very different in tone due to a lack of vocalization, which I tend to rely on a lot while speaking. When watching Elon's interview earlier, I can see how much of what he said would come out differently if it was written rather than spoken.

As for your second article, I basically stopped reading right around here:

That page they linked to explicitly says it's a projection. A projection isn't something that has already happened like they're stating matter-of-factly here, which is what they're making it out to be. Is Elon's claim inaccurate? I don't know for certain, but probably. But what they're doing here goes well beyond that. Even the onesie-twosie's they cite don't look conclusive to me either, rather that the possibility exists to the point where in my mind, it amounts to a probability. Just like you, they have no moral high ground. /thread

I mentally left this behind until I noticed the the Economist posted the entire interview, which I listened to, so now I can respond in more detail...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Where does this "meltdown" happen? At worst I've seen a case where he trips over his words, part of which is due to the modern lack of the word 'thou' in our vocabulary, and other parts look like my own ASD symptoms. The conversation heats up a little in parts, but no more than you'd see in a typical debate, and it's mutual between both speakers. Beyond that, he seems calm and collected throughout the whole thing. I like the part where she was complaining about how he owns Starlink, how that's too much for one person to have control over (Note: without him, nothing like that would even exist right now, for more reason than one, including the lawsuits he had to defend) so he asks "What would you have me do differently?"

I was somewhat taking your word for it, but you just reminded me of why I take your two-bit "hate Elon no matter what" fruity little club with less than a pinch of salt.

Not the first time I've heard anybody say that about another person. Shit, your friends always call me a "class traitor" even though I never signed up to be in your club to begin with. Just the mere fact that I won't sign up for it is why you guys do that.

So I'm trying to find out where this actually happened, and I'm not seeing it. From what I can tell, it originates here:

https://x.com/DougJBalloon/sta...

And guess what? That's a satire account. Congratulations, you've been had.

As for this:

In the Economist interview, I don't see what's racist about it. He was describing the schism between western culture and other cultures. He's not the only one who notices that. You probably took that to mean "it's racist because it's eurocentric, meaning non-westerners are brown!" in which case, how typical, but also...ah...no. We see the exact same thing with Russians, who I've been paying the most attention to recently. As Sarah Paine said "western culture is like battery acid on other cultures" and as an example she spoke about the large differences between westerners and middle-east cultures on women's rights. To many of them, we're "backwards" on that topic. He then was talking about how this is turning into a flashpoint in Britain, saying a civil war would happen if things continue as they are. I personally don't think it will reach that point, but at the same time, he's not wrong either. This HAS been an issue there. How big of one? I don't know, but I've heard this even from the BBC.

Nor do I want to take the side that "the west is right, others are wrong" as most westerners seem to do without even realizing it. Shit, in western sci-fi, especially Star Trek (which I'm a fan of, by the way) what are obviously westernized alien cultures are always the most "advanced" and morally in the right.

Earlier I said you were eating rsilvergun's shit. Well, I was wrong there, you are in fact full of it already, so that should have been past tense. So congratulations, you're already worse than whatever it is you think about Elon.

The premise of both of these is false. Not only is the commentary about spacex false, (again, this is based on absolutely nothing) but your posts didn't even talk about that. In case you've already forgotten:

You said it yourself.

Everything you're saying here is consistent with what I've heard from him in the past, dating at least as far back as 2018, and realistically much earlier. What "decline", specifically?

You know why that is? Because this is just a variation of exactly the same shit he has been repeating for years. All you've done here is contribute to disinformation about SpaceX, and for what? Just to satisfy your insecurities? Everything I've said is warranted.

Only to foreign nationals. From your link:

Had a look at the criminal complaint just to find out where the perpetrators had gone wrong.

Sending anonymous tweets and E-mails, they purchased pre-paid debit cards to send packages to their home, various harassment techniques such as ordering a pizza "pay on delivery" at 4:30 AM, and so on and so on... how on Earth did the NPD ever figure this out?

Turns out the perpetrators flew from California to Boston area (Natick) to put a GPS on the Steiners' car, which they couldn't do because it was kept in a locked garage, so they rented vehicles to surveil the Steiners, their license plates were noted and given to Natick Police Department (NPD), and the rental agency was contacted.

Once the eBay operatives were identified, they tried various misdirects and obfustication techniques, but NPD a) verified their statements, and so figured out they were lying, and b) contacted eBay directly, which had a security team respond in good faith, and the whole plan unravelled.

One, single mistake is all that stood between a long campaign of harassment and getting found out. One good local police department who took the trouble to look deeply into the problem and figure out the truth despite a torrent of misdirection and obfustication.

I wonder how many more campaigns of harassment are ongoing, led by people who know how to conduct vehicle-based surveillance, or encouraged by ineffective or lazy policing.

It's still evidence because it was on his person, even if it doesn't have anything useful to the investigation. That's why a warrant is required. Besides, all he had to do was invoke his right to remain silent and ask for a lawyer. They wouldn't have ever extracted anything from it -- all of the vendors the police use have stated (in leaked documents) that they can't do anything with grapheneos no matter what state it's in. And if they can't, it's unlikely anybody else can, which is exactly why I use it.

Unless he was using biometrics and they could obtain both a warrant AND do everything legally necessary to compel him to unlock it within 18 hours, they wouldn't have gotten shit either way. After that, you can't use biometrics. The 5th amendment doesn't protect you from being compelled to identify yourself, which is what biometrics do. But it does protect you from having to reveal your PIN. This, by the way, is why you shouldn't use anything passive like face unlock. They could point it at your face to unlock it, they just can't search it until they get a warrant, so all they have to do is keep it active until then.

Either way, I've never heard of any case law that protects you from obstruction after you've already obstructed instead of remaining silent.

Nor was your reply relevant.

I don't use Twitter or go around googling everything Elon does. So yeah, I didn't. I'm not in your club, nor would I care to be.

Just like slashdot. The same place where you only post anonymously. The same place where I've watched people literally praise murderers like Luigi Mangione and Tyler Robinson, and I've never seen anybody (save for me) call it out. Yet you're sitting here complaining about much less in a place where it isn't even relevant.

If this is all true, which I'm not denying, it's pretty fucked. I don't go out of my way to read his social media comments. It doesn't do me any favors. It obviously does to you, but not me. But what does this have to do with SpaceX? Retardedsilvergun pulled shit out of his ass, but at least it had some relevance, even though it's still shit. That you ate.

No, they shouldn't. Art and artist are not one in the same. What he's doing with SpaceX, Tesla, and especially Neuralink, are incredible. I can state, unequivocally, that they wouldn't have happened without him, and he's the best person to keep them going. Period. What he does in his personal life has no relevance to that.

Practically every polymath in history that you'd care to name, and who provided major advancements, has a similar story. Pick any one you'd like. Thomas Edison, Isaac Newton, and countless others. All have done things that would not survive today's cancel culture. The same cancel culture I've watched, right here on slashdot, wish bad outcomes on Neuralink patients just because hating Elon is much more important to them than patient outcomes. And you're sitting here trying to describe what's normal.

You think you have a moral high ground, but you don't. At all. None of your cancel culture does. I'd argue that you're much worse than anybody you set out to ruin. Cancel culture doesn't want justice, nor does it want what's best. It just wants to make a point, consequences be damned. If it held itself to the same standards that it holds its targets, it would have already cancelled itself a long time ago. This is probably why you're posting as AC -- good chance you're a victim of your own actions, and rather than learn from it, you want to keep doing it anyways. Insanity.

Hate Elon all you want. I couldn't care less. But you have no right to deny anybody else the benefits of what he's doing just because you're trying to make a point that you're even more of a petty asshole than he is. Only unlike him, you don't even have anything to show for it.

Neither is rsilvergun pulling shit out of his ass, but you obviously gobbled it up anyway, which also isn't normal by the way.

Umm...ok...

Aside from the sentence that came right before what you quoted, he isn't even making any point, he just keeps repeating different (read: inconsistent) variations of this claim multiple times, hoping people will believe it. rsilvergun is a fascist. This is what fascists do to get buy-in, and you've already bought in. Besides, I know more than enough about SpaceX to confidently say that what he's saying literally can't happen. What he's asking for requires a level of bureaucracy that simply doesn't exist at SpaceX.

What are you even basing all of this on? He literally uses the same coffee bars as every other employee. In fact, I'd be more concerned that anybody in their right mind would allow you anywhere near the IT department. Given how incredibly bad your comments on the topic are, you're likely to manage to break something just by looking at it.