689
Hyperloop One to Shut Down After Failing to Reinvent Transit
(www.bloomberg.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
689 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
59598 readers
4015 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This gets misquoted all the time.
The purpose wasn't to delay the high speed rail, in favor of the hyperloop.
It was to delay/stop the high speed rail for something better as he didn't think the existing plan was high speed enough or would be cost effective and on time. Faster high speed trains were already being built and with all the delays this would (and has) faced, it'd be even further back by the time it was finished.
The difference there is pretty important, unless you fall into the conspiracy camp of the intent was to delay it so he could sell more cars and he actually doesn't want anything made.
But the goal was to stop it so they'd make it better than planned, not make a hyperloop.
Edit: and before people reply, it's fast enough, it doesn't need to be the best etc etc. That's fine if that's your stance. I'm just saying what was actually going on, and you don't have to agree with him.
Just because his lie was technically a slightly different one makes no matter, it was still a lie and it was still stupid that all those government regulators and legislators fell for it.
It's only a lie if you think his goal was to sell more cars.
Maybe it was or wasn't.
And you think Elon Musk, the man who owns a car making company, wasn't trying to sell more cars?
Well, one implies malice, and the other pushing for a better more futuristic future.
And he has a history of pushing for an idealistic futuristic future, with pushing spacex to figure out how to land rockets or how to make a profitable EV, so ya, I'm willing to say there's a likely chance he was honest in thinking it was a bad idea and California, the home of silicon valley and advanced technology could maybe come up with something better.
But we'll never really know.
I want some of what you are having, because you have a warped perception of reality.
Tom Nicholas has really good essay on this topic. Musk is not a futurism proponent. He is an apocalyptic visionaire. His view is not preparing a better future for all humans, instead he's about using tech for rich people surviving the end of the world whilst retaining their privileges. His futurism is fake.
Yeah, he probably wasn't, but that means there's a chance he was. The person you're replying to isn't saying he was or wasn't. You want to start an argument over that, this is all you. All you're doing, without proof that Musk absolutely is fake in this one instance, is just changing the percentage, but not making it certain.