Hacker News Reader

Comment by Gargoyle | Hacker News Reader

Edit- NM. Have at it.

While unseemly, Elon is as much a part of the tapestry of the story, as the side show is a part of the circus.

It’s been discussed to death, and every time the discussion is the same. There’s no intellectual satisfaction in a noh play of hyper-partisan bickering between people who think that Musk is a charlatan, or a prophet.

Meanwhile the article here is full of good information. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m amazed this rescue ended with only a single death, and learning about how it was pulled off and discussing that with a bunch of technically inclined people is a lot more promising than another round of Musk.

I have sympathy for that position, but Musk did work hard to attach himself to this story.

Edit: going over to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17537018

Has Elon Musk lost his marbles, or has his broad public platform just magnified his, to be frank, strange personality? I remember that footage of him getting delivery of some million dollar car and thinking that this guy is kinda off center:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb3pmifEZ44

I get the heebie-jeebies watching this. And knowing he then crashed this car. Without insurance. Showing off.

Maybe he's not, Savior of the World material?

I'm no fan of Musk, but its not unusual among the super rich to not have insurance. They frequently post a bond with the state in lieu of insurance. Perfectly legal in fact in California.

So is this another example how the super rich can sideline laws that need to be followed by the not super rich? Like for example, anything that's not allowed, but the only repercussion is a fine? (let's say, littering, just as a concrete example) If I'm super rich, that basically means I can do it, but a poor person would think twice.

Also see companies dealing in business malpractices that only receive a pittance of a fine as the outcome of losing the legal trial. ie: "cost of doing business"

No, it's not.

Insurance requirements are for liability -- the other car and driver.

In California for example, You post the bond in the amount required by the state (35k), that acts as your certificate of insurance. Purchase a surety bond from a company licensed in California, or file a certificate of self insurance (only for motor carriers, and requires a 300-750k deposit), or you can purchase traditional liability insurance.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast...

But why would one do that, rather than pay insurance? What's the benefit to the driver?

In the long run, its cheaper - if you have the initial capital.

So it's an example of, "being poor is more expensive than being rich"

Any other pluses to doing it this way?

One less thing to worry about, you file the bond once, and its good forever

He is absolutely a part of the story of the rescue though, he made sure of that himself by loudly proclaiming his pie in the sky solutions and then getting pissy when the actual domain experts rejected them.

Sometimes the simple solutions are the best.

But, why would you think this? Musk is a founder of some of the most successful tech startups ever. This is HN, and that's quite on-topic.

There's currently a thread discussing this angle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17537018

Reply on news.ycombinator.com