Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick added to Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum
56 replies, posted
[QUOTE]US President-elect and environmental foil Donald Trump set up a Strategic and Policy Team on December 2nd made up of business leaders and chaired by Stephen Schwarzman Chairman, CEO, and Co-Founder of Blackstone Financial Services. Most of the people on the original board were folks from traditional American “Blue Chip” companies including Mary Barra, Chairman and CEO, General Motors.
Today, Along with Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi, untraditional transportation leaders were added to the list: Tesla/SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and Travis Kalanick, CEO and Co-Founder Uber were announced via press release
...
The Forum, which is composed of some of America’s most highly respected and successful business leaders, will be called upon to meet with the President frequently to share their specific experience and knowledge as the President implements his economic agenda. The Forum will be chaired by Stephen A. Schwarzman, Chairman, CEO, and Co-Founder of Blackstone.
[/QUOTE]
[url]https://electrek.co/2016/12/14/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-added-to-president-elect-trumps-strategic-and-policy-forum/[/url]
I swear, the people being picked are either something sent by god himself, or sent from the bogs.
I hope to god this means Trump wont try to use political power to attack Tesla/SpaceX to "stop Elon from failing again"
[QUOTE=Amplar;51528556]Self driving uber Teslas
Yes[/QUOTE]
Self-driving taxis will sure as fuck fulfill his promises of creating jobs in America. :v:
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;51528659]Self-driving taxis will sure as fuck fulfill his promises of creating jobs in America. :v:[/QUOTE]
[I][B]REMOTE-CONTROLLED[/B] self-driving tesla taxis ![/I]
[I]Would not that be great to sit on a couch at home while driving a cab? is it great, i think it's wonderful idea[/I]
The world continues to place its burdens on Musk. Hopefully he can get a word in about climate change, alternative energy, and space travel.
But with his nationalism being already as strong as it is, I'm worried he'll start to slump.
Atleast something good. Atleast one ceo in there who isnt just after money.
The turd has a silver lining after all.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;51528659]Self-driving taxis will sure as fuck fulfill his promises of creating jobs in America. :v:[/QUOTE]
Let's hope that he would regulate technology use in the industry. Technology should be used for common life, not to directly replace labor. That is, if he were to fulfill his promise on keeping American jobs.
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51528653]gross[/QUOTE]
In terms of casualties to the march of progress, I think People Who Miss the Vroom Sounds are among the more acceptable losses.
[QUOTE=PsycheClops;51529538]Technology should be used for common life, not to directly replace labor.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Roman emperor Vespasian - he once refused an invention to enable low cost transportation of heavy goods, saying "You must allow my poor hauliers to earn their bread."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Elizabeth I who refused to patent a knitting machine invented by William Lee, saying "Consider thou what the invention could do to my poor subjects. It would assuredly bring them to ruin by depriving them of employment, thus making them beggars."[/QUOTE]
I hate this attachment to menial tasks people have. If advancement results in suffering then it's probably the society, not the advancement, that is undesirable.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;51529675]In terms of casualties to the march of progress, I think People Who Miss the Vroom Sounds are among the more acceptable losses.[/QUOTE]
Is it really a progress if the other side regresses?
True progress is where progress is bilateral, benefiting both sides from their personal problems.
It doesn't just apply to this situation, it applies to many others. However, I will argue that Vroom Sounds may be important for pedestrians, especially blind people, who rely mainly on sounds to ensure the safety of crossing the road. [URL="http://www.rnib.org.uk/campaigning-current-campaigns/transport-0/silent-cars"]According to Royal National Institute of Blind People, hybrid cars are 40 percent more likely to collide with pedestrians than conventional cars[/URL]. Sure, we can blame the driver, but will we just accept this as just an acceptable loss? I wish of well being for both sides, not just one.
EDIT: My sources are oudated. [URL="http://www.nhtsa.gov/About-NHTSA/Press-Releases/nhtsa_quiet_car_final_rule_11142016"]NHTSA has recently made the requirement of hybrid cars making noises at low speed.[/URL] This is, in my opinion, an example of true progress. There are no "acceptable losses" in this situation now. Both sides may remain safe.
[editline]14th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Viper_;51529715]I hate this attachment to menial tasks people have. If advancement results in suffering then it's probably the society, not the advancement, that is undesirable.[/QUOTE]
The difference I would say, is that the technology you present still require human labor interaction of some sort. Technology on its own would require very little of it, only relying on engineers to do the job even rarely. Let me rephrase: Technology is supposed to make labor and life easier, not replace it.
[QUOTE=PsycheClops;51529798]Is it really a progress if the other side regresses?
True progress is where progress is bilateral, benefiting both sides from their personal problems.
It doesn't just apply to this situation, it applies to many others. However, I will argue that Vroom Sounds may be important for pedestrians, especially blind people, who rely mainly on sounds to ensure the safety of crossing the road. [URL="http://www.rnib.org.uk/campaigning-current-campaigns/transport-0/silent-cars"]According to Royal National Institute of Blind People, hybrid cars are 40 percent more likely to collide with pedestrians than conventional cars[/URL]. Sure, we can blame the driver, but will we just accept this as just an acceptable loss? I wish of well being for both sides, not just one.
EDIT: My sources are oudated. [URL="http://www.nhtsa.gov/About-NHTSA/Press-Releases/nhtsa_quiet_car_final_rule_11142016"]NHTSA has recently made the requirement of hybrid cars making noises at low speed.[/URL] This is, in my opinion, an example of true progress. There are no "acceptable losses" in this situation now. Both sides may remain safe.
[editline]14th December 2016[/editline]
The difference I would say, is that the technology you present still require human labor interaction of some sort. Technology on its own would require very little of it, only relying on engineers to do the job even rarely. Let me rephrase: Technology is supposed to make labor and life easier, not replace it.[/QUOTE]
are you trying to make a serious case against adopting electric vehicles based on the vroom sound? Speaker systems to emulate car engine sounds have been around forever anyway.
That's also a quite naïve view of what technology is supposed to do.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;51529898]That's also a quite naïve view of what technology is supposed to do.[/QUOTE]
Until we establish some sort of safety net first for those who will be out of the job due to technology, I will not tolerate technology replacing the jobs. Without such, I believe we will be repeating another Great Strike or Civil Union movement of some sort. And should we ignore these grievances? Tell them to get used to it? We are against Social Darwinism, and yet some of us evidently seem to speak of it ourselves.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;51529898]are you trying to make a serious case against adopting electric vehicles based on the vroom sound? Speaker systems to emulate car engine sounds have been around forever anyway.
That's also a quite naïve view of what technology is supposed to do.[/QUOTE]
in 2019 US requires any electric car sold to make noise thru that way anyway.
I think facepunch idolizes Elon Musk a little too much.
[QUOTE=PsycheClops;51529953]Until we establish some sort of safety net first for those who will be out of the job due to technology, I will not tolerate technology replacing the jobs. Without such, I believe we will be repeating another Great Strike or Civil Union movement of some sort. And should we ignore these grievances? Tell them to get used to it? We are against Social Darwinism, and yet some of us evidently seem to speak of it ourselves.[/QUOTE]
Yeah no it definitely sucks for the people out of jobs but I don't want technological progress, especially technologies that have a chance at improving our abysmal climate situation, to be halted just for people who might have to explore a new job sector afterwards. New technologies have always displaced jobs, people have always complained and resisted, then people have always moved on. Nobody cares whether or not *you* will tolerate it, nor do I care about your social darwinism rhetoric.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;51530047]Yeah no it definitely sucks for the people out of jobs but I don't want technological progress, especially technologies that have a chance at improving our abysmal climate situation, to be halted just for people who might have to explore a new job sector afterwards. New technologies have always displaced jobs, people have always complained and resisted, then people have always moved on. Nobody cares whether or not *you* will tolerate it, nor do I care about your social darwinism rhetoric.[/QUOTE]
That's a strawman, I was never against technological progress. I also was never against hybrid cars, I was against the fact they were silent. I am for technological progress to the extent that the technology or a plan for it guarantees the safety of both sides.
You misunderstood me very badly.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51529999]I think facepunch idolizes Elon Musk a little too much.[/QUOTE]
You think?
[QUOTE=PsycheClops;51529538]Let's hope that he would regulate technology use in the industry. Technology should be used for common life, not to directly replace labor. That is, if he were to fulfill his promise on keeping American jobs.[/QUOTE]
You're know this is almost exactly what critics of the cotton gin said. You know how dumb it would have been to scrap the cotton gin because someone said it'd replace jobs lol
[QUOTE=Mingebox;51529675]In terms of casualties to the march of progress, I think People Who Miss the Vroom Sounds are among the more acceptable losses.[/QUOTE]
"People who miss the vroom sounds"? People who like the vroom can just keep the vroom so I don't understand what you're even trying to say.
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51530331]"People who miss the vroom sounds"? People who like the vroom can just keep the vroom so I don't understand what you're even trying to say.[/QUOTE]
Some people here on Facepunch and out in the world actually claim that electric vehicles suck because they don't 'sound as cool'. Yes, this is what people actually believe.
[QUOTE=Riller;51530397]Some people here on Facepunch and out in the world actually claim that electric vehicles suck because they don't 'sound as cool'. Yes, this is what people actually believe.[/QUOTE]
I don't like electric cars for many subjective reasons such as that (vroom sounds, gears and lightness being three of the reasons) but I don't think they "suck", they're great vehicles for city folks due to how efficient electric motors are at low speeds and how cheap the "fuel" is, I just don't like them, don't plan on buying one and I absolutely don't agree with bullying people in cities into getting an electric car instead of their diesel or whatever, like some people on here disgustingly seem to support.
[QUOTE=Riller;51530397]Some people here on Facepunch and out in the world actually claim that electric vehicles suck because they don't 'sound as cool'. Yes, this is what people actually believe.[/QUOTE]
I despise the vroom sounds. Silent cars are the best cars.
[QUOTE=Monkah;51530441]I despise the vroom sounds. Silent cars are the best cars.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately for you, silent cars doesn't seem like a plausible future considering pedestrian safety. Electric cars will, by law, have to emit some kind of vroom-like sound at low speeds.
Electric cars are already set to have to do that by 2017.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.