Wednesday, 18 July 2018

News React

Ben Davis

They are all very good points. On either side of the argument. Therein lies the dilemma. Yes, Country over Self, precedent, fairness to other young men who serve, who put their dreams on hold, all that is valid.

Similarly, window of opportunity, short career, chance of a lifetime, talent, a dream to chase. All equally valid and compelling arguments.

Whatever his decision, I shall not fault him. I have not the talent to face that dilemma at his age. He has to live his life, he has to make a choice, and he has to live with his decision, whatever he decides.

I hope he makes the best decision he can, and I hope he finds happiness with his decision, and I hope he does not pay too high a price for his decision. 

(Ben is considering renouncing his Singapore Citizenship to pursue his dream.)

Mahathir disappointed over cool response to Second National Car

(Malaysians cool to the idea of trying to start a second National Car, Mahathir's pet project.)

Seeing Mahathir so despondent, so depressed, so disappointed... make me soooo... HAPPY! :-)

Malaysians are rational and reasonable.

Mahathir? Not so much.

Malaysia's economy catching up with Singapore's

I believe in prosper thy neighbour. Grow Malaysia, grow.

Also, a Strong Malaysia is a less insecure Mahathir.

World Cup - Lessons from Croatia

So someone's takeaway from the World Cup Final was that if a small country like Croatia could make it to the World Cup final, then why can't Singapore? Where is our sporting culture?

People who want Singapore to have a sporting culture are the same as the people who want Singapore's hawker culture to stay alive.

First ask yourself, will you tell your son (let's leave daughters aside for now) to be a professional footballer in Singapore? Will you ask your children to be a hawker in Singapore?

And if you are young enough, have you considered football, or any other sports, or hawkering as a career?

So when you say, Singapore should have a sporting culture or a hawker culture, you mean OTHER SINGAPOREANS should pursue sports or hawkering as a career, right?

If you think those are not prudent career choices for your children, why do you think other parents would want that for their children?

(And of course this question was hijacked for the Ben Davis issue. Not inappropriately.)

Elon Musk calls Thai Cave Rescuer a "pedo".

Classy. But he has his supporters, who claim Musk is a humanitarian, despite the lack of evidence.
All too often, a high net worth is seen as a proxy for intelligence, success and even virtue.  
The Cave Rescuer (Mr Unsworth) has gone on record to say that Musk's mini sub had absolutely no chance of working.

What has Musk achieved?

He made his billions from Paypal. His forte is software. Not hard engineering.

What was his next success? Tesla. An electric supercar. How does that help the world? He didn't invent the electric car. he didn't invent batteries. Yes, Tesla is a success. I guess people with a need for speed, but with a green conscience would like to indulge in their selfish need for speed while assuaging their guilt about the cost to the environment. Tesla served that need. Hence, success.

How has he revolutionised spaceflight? Again, he seemed more determined to serve the billionaire market. 

[Addendum: One "Musketeer" breathlessly noted that Musk had sent a Tesla into orbit with his SpaceX. Apparently, this was impressive to the Musketeer. The sheer waste of this "achievement" was lost on this fanboy. But it reflects Musk's value and priorities. Instead of perhaps "donating" the space flight to put a satellite into orbit for some less-endowed country, he chooses to put his product into space as a publicity stunt for maximum media coverage. ]

What other brilliant ideas has he come up with?


His lack of technical expertise shows.

And when the rescuers declined to use his tax deduction the mini-sub he left in the cave (littering like a tourist), he said the head of the cave rescue was not a "subject matter expert on cave rescue".

Right. like he is?

So what "million times more good for humanity" (quote from his supporter) has he done?

Or have you been dazzled by his PR merchanthood?

He has been lucky - with PayPal. With Tesla. He knows his market (for Tesla).

His SpaceX is flashy, but what has he achieved with it?

As for his tax deduction - i mean, Mini sub, if you were running for your life and you were 2/3 of the way to safety, and someone came along in a car and offered you a ride, you would take it, I'm sure.

Those ungrateful rescuers did not use the sub at all!

I wonder why? Elon Musk still claimed that the sub was eminently suited to the task!

And he has defamed someone by implying that the person is a pedophile... For him to accuse someone of having sex with children... you're still okay with that? (Directed at a Musketeer).

[Addedum 2: Another defence of Musk goes along the lines of "He's a visionary. He's a genius. He's done amazing things for humanity/society/the children trapped in the cave."

Well, first of all, no. He has not done any of the things his "Musketeers" claims he has done. But that is actually irrelevant.

I think my mistake was to argue on the terms chosen by the Musketeers. I mean if the Musketeers are impressed by his grandiose act of sending a Tesla into orbit and thinks that it is great for humanity to have another hunk of junk orbiting earth, that is their opnion right? 

The correct approach would be to focus on Musk's egotistical behaviour in this incident. Has he built an impractical "sub" and then insist that it was practical? Have the boys and the coach been rescued with strength, sinew, determination and guts, while his impractical and useless sub lay unused? Has he been upset and embarrassed by the rescuers not using his "invention"? And has he lashed out irrationally, calling the head of the rescue operations a non-expert, and calling a diver who had called Musk's "invention" impractical, a "pedo" without ANY basis or evidence? Has he acted like an entitled spoilt brat instead of a rational, reasonable adult?

But I see the trap. Now. I had been focusing on the impracticality of his "invention" and how his insistence that it is useful is unreasonable. His defenders, unable to defend the practicality of his "invention" had to become "character witness" and drag in his other dubious "achievements". Which I had to debunk. I should have stayed on the relevant aspect of how impractical his "invention" was. And subsequently, how infantile his lashing out at the actual rescuers was.]

No comments: