ElonMuskovites and MaidSafe


Thank you for sharing this awesome video. Mind blown and may this lost knowledge continue to spread. I appreciate the comments at the end regarding letting nature be our guide and teacher. Reminds me of similar comments made by @dirvine and how the safe network design is inspired by ants.


@macroevolution it’s fair enough to raise the question I think, because “magical science” is a thing IMO - I borrow the term from Robert Newman’s interview today where he berates a tendency of scientists to dehumanise (my word) or make claims about humans that lack evidence but serve to aggrandise science and the speaker by pretending that everything can be explained and reduced to some common denominator that science can determine. That’s an assumption because there’s no way to know one way or the other.

This I think is the same kind of ill informed, narrow minded, faith that’s behind the technological hubris you are concerned about. Technology may continue to push back the next mass extinction event, or not, but it certainly isn’t gauranteed just because it’s worked for a few thousand years.

I’m not sure if Musk is really that narrow minded, but he did say some things that I think are not tenable (those universe almost certainly a simulation comments fit well will the kind of rubbish Newman complains about I think). But don’t we all have daft thoughts? I’m just lucky that mine don’t tend to spread further than this forum :slight_smile:

Also, I don’t think it is generally either/or. At least, that can be as much in the observer as the observed.

Regarding David Irvine or MaidSafe in general, yes the project is the result of visionary ideas, but also with feet firmly grounded in humanity, so I don’t think the project suffers from the hubris you are concerned about though it is always good to be reminded of the polarities we can fall into without realising. So good post :slight_smile:


Loved your post and largely in agreement with your thoughts. I like the appropriate technology thinking, but do think more Capital intensive projects have their place. The Large Hadron Collider for example can help us understand the nature of our reality and is great science in my view.

Lol…yes, he causes me many sleepless nights too. :wink:
I wouldn’t worry too much about it, he has some ideas I would class as whacky too, but as long as he can build what he says he can, then I don’t see it as a problem. He’s on the low end of the whacky spectrum on this forum in any case. If it’s whackiness you want, you need to check this guy out… :wink:[quote=“happybeing, post:22, topic:13320”]
“magical science” is a thing IMO

Lol…just joking. In fact I’d say I’m about the only sensible person on here - a tranquil oasis of non-contentious calm rationality in a sea of utter whackiness… :smile:


Very nearly correct. <add padding


You talk as if being a bit whacky is a bad thing :wink:


Canny beat a bit of whacky baccy


Hmmm, perhaps some research on that @Warren will change your mind. I am no expert by any means and have not drawn conclusions but there are some questions on Musk about where his money comes from and how he uses it.


@jm5 Yes its probably true that he got some of his money from US defense and from waiving or loosening suppression of methods, IP and tech on storage and maybe some automated tech where all that stuff was suppressed to protect petrol and that this happened under Obama. Sorry but I don’t have a problem with that because petrol is a piece of sht that has been raping the world with bailouts, subsidies, terror and war to bring us back to idiotic hereditary rule. I want the the power and money behind fuel/energy petrol stripped away in a reparational way with interest yesterday. What we’ve had is a petrol holocaust. I remember a video of Musk at a party where he had been drinking, with a mic in his hand he said “F### oil!” And that sums it up. And now hes trying to engage Trump and says Tillerson is a great exec. I can imagine a conversation between Musk and Tillerson where Tillerson says I knew and we knew petrol was coming to an end in 1978 over ensuing climate caused instability but you know America first and a power down strategy looked feasible for a while, but the 08 petrol bailout showed us the financials won’t support a full power down strategy and we need a plan B.


Yeah, I am tired. Your statement is hard to read and understand but i am used to that :wink: From what I have read and understood Musk is doing not much but lining his pockets. If someone does something for the greater good which in turn benefits himself does that make his something really for the greater good? He is using the the name of Tesla if you understand what that means… I have heard no publicized opposition on his part about his “greatness”. I have not listened to David’s talk about flying cars so I cannot comment on that, I would have to do more research on my part. My point was; are you sure he seems to use money in ways that are “CALCULATED” to benefit humanity. Myself, I highly doubt. IMO, if you are in the spotlight, there are questions as to why you are there. IMO David is not in the spotlight, SAFE is.


There’s definitely some truth to that.

I have no idea who Elon is really or why he does what he does. I agree that the world needs more people like Sepp. But it looks from the outside like Elon is just a crazy kid with a lot of energy and big dreams. I much prefer the likes of him to most of the super rich. Is he really the one to pick on? I’d much rather get involved in some hating on the Koch brothers or something :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


I think @dirvine is a busy man but could possibly address this? Sorry to call you out.


Ya, i guess it is the passionate that refuse to research that irk me. It seems rather mainstrream to me. Apparently it us, the taxpayers that pay for his “big dreams”. I could use some of that leaving my name out of it.


I am not sure what “this” is here. I see a general post that Elon Musk may be a bit crazy or self obsessed. I really do not know much of him, but like he pushes the envelope. I also read he is over $400million in personal debt, so I am unsure he is lining his own pockets. I have no evidence either way, I am glad though he does push the envelope and self driving electric cars could be seen as crazy, same with solar, never mind reusable rockets etc.

In terms of these revolutionaries or ego maniacs, I like to separate the ego part and even if they are a bit bonkers I don’t mind, as long as they do something or at least make us question things. However I have seen some stories about some dodgy business practises and strange legal positions, although I have no deep knowledge, that concerns me a bit. I would hope they operate for all of us, but again, many people moving us forward have the weight of naysayers on their back. I think of Copernicus and many early boners folk who believed there may be more than a universe going round us. Same with Einstein, Tesla and many many others. So I am hesitant to believe the stories but glad to see results if possible.

Long and drawn out answer that concludes very little :wink: As for me, well I am interested in many many things, some mad, over unity machines, speed of light debates and many more. I always think we accept limits to easily and conclude possibilities only on our own limited knowledge.

TL;DR, I am a curious Engineer and little else, who believes that our first principles are probably/likely wrong, I like to poke at “facts” and am drawn to what people consider impossible. I realise how terribly hard that is and the weight of “formally trained” or traditional people can be overwhelming at times. So I am not sure how to answer the question or add much to the conversation, except to say "Here’s to all the crazy ones, the … :wink: " we need them, but lets not allow evil practices to pervade alongside such ideas. I really do think core vision is important though and needed to drive through all the good and bad you face trying to change things you think are for the best.


Ah yes, that brings it all back to me. I used to be one of them…too old now. :smile:


I think that perhaps it is that “core vision” that @macroevolution was questioning.


@polpolrene made me aware of this https://youtu.be/Kxryv2XrnqM

Its your research and I’ve done enough of it. The thing with Musk is, the things I’ve wanted to see I’d be thinking about and find he’s doing them or advocating them. Gate says stuff like even the US can’t afford a GAI (but can afford people like Gates.) whereas Musk says it inevitable.

It may be likely that the US handed over some defense developed single stage rocket stuff to Musk and co but the result is the first viable non defense commercial space company- private space firm even- not bad for tax spend. As for the cars they knocked Mercedes and BMW on their buts in US stealing more of their ego driven top end then they had in combined market in two years and did something similar in the EU. These are pretty much the best cars that you can buy right now. And the start up loan was paid off early.

As for tax payer money what is the comparison? Would it be petrol subsidies and bailouts. That is idiocy. Petrol is obsolete and their bailouts and subsidies are pretty much evil. Cat is getting out of the bag that the banks bailed out failing petrol and govenments in turn bailed out the banks. Spending a tiny bit of money to help make sure we don’t do that again and descend into wide spread war both global and civil seems worth it. That’s the right kind of defense spending.

I’d like to see my tax dollars spent investigating and criminalizing and actually locking up domestic petrol criminals along with confiscating their stolen wealth that sounds like a great use of tax dollars.

But at the OP and jm5, digging ditches may save the world but it doesn’t mean petrol can continue, not willing to do ever more work today, (50 years after a moon landing) than was done in the hunter gatherer period to serve petrol as a means to taking us back to useless hereditary rule. Musk’s legetimacy comes from apparently doing something to over throw that BS. Not much stomach for more phoney work either. From the right its insane that they don’t get that petrol is already over, it has no profit horizon. They think Trump or Hillary can save it when they can’t do anything about the death of petrol and can’t revive it anymore.


@Warren I’m sorry, that is way too all over the place for me. [quote=“Warren, post:36, topic:13320”]
digging ditches may save the world but it doesn’t mean petrol can continue, not willing to do ever more work today, (50 years after a moon landing) than was done in the hunter gatherer period to serve petrol as a means to taking us back to useless hereditary rule. Musk’s legetimacy comes from apparently doing something to over throw that BS. Not much stomach for more phoney work either. From the right its insane that they don’t get that petrol is already over, it has no profit horizon. They think Trump or Hillary can save it when they can’t do anything about the death of petrol and can’t revive it anymore.

Is this even a conversation? How do I address that… from hunter gatherers to Hilary… and apparently Musk is legitimate to overthrow the BS which has something or other to do with petrol… phoney work. I mean seriously.


Well the idea is that green stuff is a waste of tax payer money. And that Musk and co is bunch of gimicry that can’t for instance justify top valuation of among US car makers. Its a shil thesis being put forward like a right side talking point.

Watch the Tony Seba video above and see if its still just fluff and a waste money and spin. Video doesn’t spend much time on Tesla or Musk and its just a gateway to this info

But this should probably be moved off the main page it seems like a way for right side investors types to try to discredit SAFE and David by linking the community to Musk as some sort of left side litmus. It reminds me of the open bazarre people coming over trying to criticize SAFE for the use of GPL3.


I think that David Irvine replied quite well and it should be left in plain site. I would add that I think we perhaps presume David’s “core vision” based on his technology. The truth will come eventually. Concerning Musk, it seems you have some information behind all this but again it is hard to follow and i see contradictions, so yeah. The OP could be a troll but it does address a question that we don’t truly know the answer to.


Gimmicks are necessary to be commercially viable.
Without bells and whistles, nothing sells.
Food without flavor doesn’t sell regardless of how supernutritious it may be.
And if it doesn’t sell, you don’t have money, and without money you can’t fund R&D on the things that matter.

Form and substance must go hand to hand.
What Elon Musk has accomplished is outstanding from a business perspective and as an engineering feat, and whoever diminishes his achievements have no idea of what they are talking about.

If you think Elon Musk is doing this for profits, you have no freaking idea of how close he was to lose it all. Hindsight is 20/20. The bets he made on impulsing the electric vehicle industry by himself, a startup competing against giant brands in century old industry dominated by petroleum lobbyists, with the added cost of educating the public to revert the overall extremely negative reputation for electric vehicles (which public consensus had the perception of being weak and slow like golf carts). Do you really think it was a no brainer to enter into that business? It was suicide.
The only thing that justifies risking his personal fortune in an endeavor like that is his principles, not profits. The likelihood of anyone succeding there was less than 1%.

And do you think that proposing to be the a private aerospace startup would be a safe no-brainer investment?
That had even less probability of succeeding.

He invented two industries at the same time, and managed to keep them afloat. That alone is remarkable.
What are the chances of being simultaneous CEO of two disruptive companies and not spontaneously combusting himself in the process? Do you know how freaking hard is to manage ONE startup?

Traditionally all these traits are flaring red flags in the VC community, and add to that the personal difficulty of being a horrible public speaker, he has no presence on stage, and he wouldn’t be able to sell a can of cola with that insecure stuttering. The likelihood of such projects succeding with all the aggregated difficulties is ZERO.

And yet he managed to make them successful becoming a serious threat in both industries he is disrupting with his revolutionary approaches. That is remarkable. And this is one of the very few times that the word “revolutionary” is not hyperbolically used.
If you can’t see that his end game is YOUR endgame, you aren’t seeing the whole picture.

PS: This type of debate reminds me the old nerd war that diminishes the accomplishments of Steve Jobs vs. Wozniak. Or those who think that Bill Gates has no merits.