Category Archives: Elon Musk

Elon Musk has responded to a post shared by his parody account.

Elon Musk's spoof account on Twitter, Elon Musk (Parody), has been garnering a lot of attention on the Internet. This parody account is making waves amid the legal trouble between him and Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg.

Now, Mr Musk has responded to a post shared by his parody account. The tweet from the parody account came a day after Meta rolled out Threads, an Instagram app. It read, I spent $44 billion for this app and now Lizard boy just decided to hit copy and paste. It's personal now. See you in the cage, Zuck [Mark Zuckerberg].

Assuming that the tweet was shared by Elon Musk himself, the parody account managed to grasp more than 30 million views and around 60,000 retweets. In response to this, Elon Musk said, So many people think this account is me.

When YouTuber MrBeast asked, It's not? Mr Musk responded with a nope. MrBeast became the first person to reach 1 million followers on Threads. He reached the milestoneat 2:42 p.m. (BST) / 9:42 a.m. (EST) on 6 July, said Guinness World Records.

After Elon Musk's response, the parody account shared the screenshot of the tweets and wrote, Sometimes I forget to switch accounts when I post.

Earlier, Elon Musk's Parody account also wrote, I should just copy and paste Instagram and see how Lizard boy feels then. I mean, I could do it?

Meanwhile, Threads was threatened by a lawsuit, which claimed that this app violates Twitter's intellectual property right. In addition, Elon Musk's lawyer Alex Spiro has written to Mark Zuckerberg, accusing him of unlawful misappropriation of Twitter's trade secrets and other intellectual property.

Meta was also accused of hiring dozens of former Twitter employees, who continue to have access to Twitter's trade secrets and other highly confidential information. Alex Spiro's letter claimed that Twitter intends to strictly enforce its intellectual property rights.

In response to this, Meta claimed that the engineering team at Threads does not include any former Twitter employees.

See original here:

Elon Musk Responds To His Parody Account's "Lizard Boy" Tweet - NDTV

Twitters legal battle with Mr Musk engaged dozens of lawyers on both sides for months, some charging upwards of $US1000 ($1500) an hour leading Columbia University law professor John Coffee to speculate that total legal fees could have exceeded $US1 billion ($1.5 billion) if the case had gone to trial.

X Corp claims that by arranging to bill Twitter its hourly rates instead of taking the case on a contingency basis, Wachtell undertook absolutely no risk in obtaining its mammoth success fee. Moreover, the companys agreement with the law firm does not even specify the amount of the success fee, let alone any formula or percentage used to arrive at that figure, according to the complaint.

The suit also faults lame duck executives at the social media platform who went on a legal spending spree before Mr Musk took control.

Fully aware that nobody with an economic interest in Twitters financial wellbeing was minding the store, Wachtell arranged to effectively line its pockets with funds from the company cash register while the keys were being handed over to the Musk parties, according to the complaint.

Bloomberg

Link:

Musk sues law firm for $135m bill on Twitter deal - The Australian Financial Review

Twitter CEO Elon Musk is often in the headlines for various reasons. At times, his reactions to certain posts on social media make him the center of everyone's attention. Adding to the series of such posts, Musk's reaction to a photo of "Baby Elon" is going viral on social media now. Netizens are already enticed by the pictures of baby Musk is not hung up on his reaction to his childhood pictures. Reacting to his picture, the billionaire said that he looks "insane."

A Twitter user going by the handle K10 posted the image. The Twitter CEO seems to be grinning and with a glitter in his eyes in the very old sepia photograph. When the photo was taken, Musk appeared to be between 7 and 12 months old.

Also read:Meta's Twitter Rival 'Threads' Crosses 90 Mn Sign-Ups

cre Trending Stories

The post was shared on Twitter with the caption, saying, "The baby that would become the Inventor of the Car Fart, aim for Mars, & make Electric Cars an everyday sight seen on roads around the World .. Elon Baby." To which Elon Musk reacted, saying, "I look insane lol."

The baby picture of the billionaire is now viral with over 1.6 million views and continues to get more. Along with it, the post is getting a lot of reactions from the netizens. Commenting on the post, one of the social media users said, "Happy little fellow!" Another user said, "Adorable, the little Elon." While others made a light-hearted comment, saying, "He looks like someone who knows one day hell be the richest man in the world!"

In the meantime, Mr. Musk filed a lawsuit against the prestigious law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz to recoup the majority of the $90 million fee Twitter paid it for blocking his attempt to back out of his $44 billion acquisition of the social media giant.

Continued here:

`Insane`: Elon Musk Reacts To His Viral Baby Picture, Netizens Say This - Zee News

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg hasnt touched Twitter in over a decade, but he couldnt help himself on Wednesday night as millions of users flocked to his rival app, Threads. In his first tweet since January 2012, Zuckerberg seemed to taunt Elon Musk with a meme of two identical Spidermans pointing at one another. The launch of Threads comes after Musk made a series of controversial changes since taking over Twitter, including paid verification and paywalls, daily post restrictions, and content moderation updates that have caused hate speech to skyrocket. The goal is to keep it friendly as it expands, Zuckerberg wrote in a post on Threads. I think its possible and will ultimately be the key to its success. Thats one reason why Twitter never succeeded as much as I think it should have, and we want to do it differently. Musk has taken his own swipes at Zuckerberg, tweeting It is infinitely preferable to be attacked by strangers on Twitter, than indulge in the false happiness of hide-the-pain Instagram.

Read the original here:

Mark Zuckerberg Trolls Elon Musk Over Threads With First Tweet ... - The Daily Beast

Its becoming increasingly clear that the EV transition is a lot more fragile than automakers and policymakers are letting on. True, demand for electrified cars and trucks is generally up, but automakers, both legacy and new are struggling with selling electric vehicles profitably and overcoming the very real concerns EV intenders have about the public charging infrastructure. Its no longer all that hard to find an EV thats capable of driving well over 200 miles on a single charge, but it seems that the recharging experience is starting to crystallize as the make-or-break part of EV ownership. One brand has acted as a sort of measuring stick for the consumer EV experience Tesla.

Tesla Investor Day 2023 Was Pretty Great if You Ignored Elon

The Tesla charging experience is very good, and legacy automakers and EV startups alike are desperate to impart that goodness to their own products. If it will help them sell EVs in the short term, theyll make a deal with a devil to remove a big barrier to entry into EV ownership. If someone who would otherwise be interested in one of your companys EVs is being dissuaded by reports of nightmare charging experiences, youd be motivated to get them access to the good chargers. It seems like that access to the Supercharger network is dependent on a deal that involves switching to Teslas once proprietary plug, now called NACS.

Now that Tesla CEO Elon Musk is the very visible head of Twitter, the things that auto industry experts have been saying about him for years are becoming clear to the public and the media who havent been covering Tesla. Its hard not to wonder, then, if we are leaving the EV revolution in the hands of a CEO that could be called vindictive, volatile, and possibly worst of all unreliable.

Until 2020, I didnt use Twitter. I was solely an Instagram and Facebook guy, posting my thoughts to a curated audience of people I at least somewhat knew. Then, when I found myself working as a journalist, reporting on the initial impact of COVID, and later the globe-gripping George Floyd protests, I hopped on. Bar none Twitter was the place to get on-the-minute updates on incredibly volatile situations by people who were actually on the scene. It was a great place to query opinions, and get all sorts of background information; the things that form the building blocks of strong journalism. It wasnt perfect or complete, but it was a hell of a jumping-off point.

But thats kind of all gone now. Twitter somehow survived a barrage of changes, and a severe reduction of staff at the behest of owner Elon Musk. But, the ad-hoc town hall created over the sites decade-long tenure, where journalists, regular people, entertainers, and even governments and emergency services gathered in a single meeting spot, was gutted. The sites culture has changed for the worse, as pay-to-play style $8-per month users are boosted to the top of everyones replies and newsfeed, regardless of whether theyre insightful or entertaining. Then on July 1, the site really started to grind to a halt.

With no announcement or run-up, Elon Musk announced that every single user had been rate limited. Verified users could view 6,000 posts, but the literal millions of unverified users would be limited to a mere 600 posts maximum (later revised to 800). This means the site became absolutely broken for *millions* of Twitter browsers, in every single country where Twitter exists.

Now, as automakers herald the switch to Teslas NACS plug, I cant help but wonder: Is this the best idea? Are Twitters woes merely a precursor to what well experience as users of Teslas supercharger network? Are automakers prepared to deal with the potential fallout related to leaving the DC fast charging network, and in turn, probably the future of EVs as a whole, in the care of one brand and one man? Is NACS actually as agnostic as Tesla says?

Obviously, Twitters rate-limiting stunt went over about as well as a wet fart in a crowded elevator. Left, right, and center have come together to decry and complain about how horrible the site is to use now. But the conversation we should have isnt about his app-breaking, nor is it really about the shape of the NACS plug, either. Its about Elon Musk, who moves unilaterally, often breaking things. Its become clear that theres no real way to check him or hold him accountable. Hes about to be put more or less in control of American EV infrastructure. To make matters worse, weve somehow come to believe that NACS is inherently part of the Supercharging experience.

Lets get this off the jump here, theres nothing inherently wrong with NACS, per se. Similar to how Full-Self-Driving isnt actually self-driving, the North American Charging Standard, technically isnt an actual vetted standard certified by a third party, at least not yet. The SAE says it plans to vet and certify it, but that hasnt happened yet and likely wont for a little while.

Still, NACS is essentially the plug that Tesla has used since the original Model S. Because Tesla vehicles never had to accommodate the J1772 AC charging standard, the NACS plug is significantly sleeker than the CCS plug, which simply adds two DC fast charging leads underneath the J1772 plug, making the whole setup kind of ugly and bulky. The NACS plug also has fewer moving parts, and its capable of potentially delivering a full megawatt of power through its sleek plug, or so Tesla says.

Its not all perfect, though. The jurys out if the Tesla plug standard can handle bi-directional power. Tesla essentially says coming soon but there doesnt appear to be actual technical information on how to make the vehicle-to-grid capabilities advertised by Ford, GM, and Hyundai, actually work via an NACS port.

However, as tantalizing as the technical specs of the NACS plug are, they arent all that relevant to the conversation. Its the thing that the NACS plugs are attached to the Tesla Supercharging network. After a difficult start to the EV infrastructure roll-out, everybody wants to get their hands on that thing.

Tesla Superchargers are the gold standard in DC fast charging, and for good reason. Its all a seamless process with Tesla-branded cars, just pull up, plug in, and then unplug and drive away when the process is done. That is often not the case with non-Tesla chargers. The Tesla chargers are generally reliable too. Tesla cites a 99.95% uptime statistic, although thats kind of misleading. Tesla cites any Supercharger location that has at least 50% of its chargers working, as 100% up, which contributes to that great uptime number. Still, compared with the competition, Tesla Superchargers just work, and they return good charging speeds in the process. By comparison, the bevy of CCS-based DC fast-charging services are notoriously unreliable, and charging speeds routinely underdeliver for reasons that are mostly never explained to the end user.

Teslas effort in building and maintaining Americas best EV charging network should be applauded. And, they have a massive head start. Another automaker taking it upon themselves to build a Supercharger network clone would be undertaking a long and expensive process.

But the Supercharging network is so damn good not because of the plug, but because Tesla has long understood that a reliable charging network is crucial to its survival. The company makes conveniently located, reliable chargers a priority. Just check out Europe; the EU low-key forced Tesla to switch to the CCS2 plug, and the European supercharger network still has the same excellent reputation.

Yet, unlike the EU where Tesla Superchargers are increasingly open to any EV that can DC fast charge, the North American Tesla Supercharging network has been open only to Tesla.

That is, until recently, when surprisingly online and accessible Ford CEO Jim Farley, took to Twitter right before a big holiday weekend to announce that Ford and Tesla had partnered up. Ford announced it was switching to NACS, and Ford vehicles will be allowed to use the Tesla Supercharging network. Soon, GM, Volvo, Rivian, and Polestar would follow up with similar announcements. For many, it seems like this is a win for EVs; Tesla has more than 12,000 DC fast charging stalls in the United States and Canada. It should be a win.

Yet, the win feels hollow. Instead of the Tesla Supercharging network being opened to all EV models, just like in Europe, it seems like access to the Supercharging deal is predicated on switching to NACS. Every single EV manufacturer that has announced access to the Tesla Supercharging network, has also announced it is switching to NACS. Polestars NACS announcement appears to acknowledge this; it straight-up says in its PR release title that it switched to NACS to gain access to the Supercharging network.

The switch to NACS wouldnt be such a big deal if Tesla and all of the other OEMs didnt prove when they made the deals that there was no technical reason why they couldnt have been using the Supercharger network all along. The deal is backward compatible for currently existing EVs with those brands, using an all-new, never-before-seen Supercharger to CCS adapter. That means that a 2017 Chevy Bolt could use the Supercharging network with no modifications, aside from an adapter.

Why? Well in part, its because Tesla vehicles actually adopted the CCS communication protocol back in 2019 or so. Thats why many modern Tesla cars can DC fast charge at CCS stations via an adapter. Clearly, the charging stations and cars all have the ability to talk to each other, nothings holding anything back, aside from the plug shape, which can quickly be rectified with an adapter. Why are we playing these stupid games? This is clearly not about the plug, is it?

Instead of democratizing the technology and letting any paying customer use it, we got weirdo backdoor deals that arent really expanding the charging infrastructure but only making a closed, private EV charging infrastructure a little more inclusive for the brands that opt-in. And worse still, opting in means forming a contract with a brand that is run by someone who doesnt honor contracts, and seems to have contempt for anyone who asks questions he doesnt like.

There are no checks and balances with Elon, hes not predictable, or reliable just check out what the hell happened to Twitter on July 1. The site broke, the official explanation as to why it broke doesnt make sense, and Musk is antagonistic to anyone who offers criticism or asks for help. Some say that Twitters change to block non-members from viewing the site caused it DDOS attack itself, overwhelming its servers with traffic. Others say that Twitter didnt pay its Google Services bill, and it frantically moved to get things moved out before it was locked out for nonpayment of services. Whatever the case, Twitter said the rate limits were to combat bots, and that Any advance notice on these actions would have allowed bad actors to alter their behavior to evade detection. The explanation feels curt and insubstantial.

Hes changed the amount that users are rate limited by at least twice. Even before Twitter went through the great rate limiting, he blocked non-users from viewing the site entirely. Between those two things, up-to-the-minute updates on breaking news from quality sources are straight-up inaccessible to a lot of people. These were bad decisions, made unilaterally, without care as to how theyll affect the user base.

My biggest fear is that any of the CEOs that have made deals with Tesla will cross Musk in some way that he deems unacceptable. Perhaps theyll have concerns with charging speed or quality of service, (Lucid and Hyundai/Kia EVs have reportedly had speed issues using V3 Superchargers), or maybe theyll want something more out of the still-undefined V2L capability of NACS. Then the deal will unwind, and the non-Tesla clientele will find themselves unable to use the Superchargers they thought they were entitled to. That would be a failure that I dont think even the most devout EV enthusiast could overlook.

But, the level of service that weve conflated with NACS and the Supercharging network, is just too damn good, huh? All that gnashing and very real criticism of Tesla, Musk, Twitter, and everything went out the window when an opportunity to gain access was created. Musk brought two of the biggest CEOs in legacy auto to heel, live on Twitter. He said Jump, and GM and Ford said, How high?

I get it establishing relationships with dozens of utility companies across the United States and Canada, managing the real estate the chargers lie on, and managing a staff of qualified technicians to service the stations themselves is a time-consuming, difficult, and expensive task. I see why other OEMs are sort of throwing in the towel, especially when theyre angling to sell cars today.

As the existing (not very good) third-party DC fast charging providers scramble to add the NACS plug to their existing and future DC fast charging machines, its not clear that theyll be able to fix the many other problems that non-Telsa EV owners are contending with.

I just hope for everyones sake that it all works out all right. Because if weve got Twitter to go by, then, well, good luck.

Originally posted here:

An Elon Musk-Controlled Charging Network Imperils The EV ... - Jalopnik

Self-proclaimed free speech absolutist and Tesla CEO Elon Musk has promised the company will uphold core socialist values in China following a price war in the countrys electric vehicle market, the Financial Times reported. Tesla was the only foreign carmaker to sign the joint letter pledge with 16 manufacturers at an auto industry conference in Shanghai on Thursday. Failing to comply with core socialist values has been frequently used by authorities to punish speeches that are critical of the Chinese government, a senior China researcher with Human Rights Watch told the Times. Musks own social media platform, Twitter, is banned in the country, and he has been criticized for refraining from tweeting while visiting China. The seemingly at-odds commitment came after Tesla cut Model 3 and Model Y prices to compete with the growing domestic EV industry. In 2018, Musk revealed he was actually a socialist in a tweet, writing true socialism seeks greatest good for all. Tesla declined to comment to the Times on the pledge in China.

Here is the original post:

Elon Musk Pledges That Tesla Will Uphold 'Core Socialist Values' in ... - The Daily Beast

Elon Musk has two huge companies to run in addition to Tesla, so the billionaire says he generally spends each day "predominantly" focused on only one of them.

"My days are very long and complicated, as you might imagine," Musk said at The Wall Street Journal's CEO Council last week.

"There's a great deal of context switching," he said, which he described as "quite painful."

Musk said he has just one part-time assistant and handles most of his own scheduling because "it's impossible for someone else to know what the priorities are."

He said he works most of the time he's awake and typically goes to bed at 2 a.m.

In the coming weeks, Musk plans to step down from one of his three CEO jobs after hiring NBCUniversal advertising chief Linda Yaccarino to run Twitter, which he bought last year for $44 billion. When Yaccarino arrives, Musk will become Twitter's executive chairman and technology chief.

Musk said he has made plans for who he wants to eventually take over for him at Tesla, Twitter and SpaceX. Don't expect it to be his 3-year-old son X AE A-XII, who often attends company events, or any of Musk's other eight children, the oldest of whom is 19.

"I am definitely not of the school of automatically giving my kids some share of the companies, even if they have no interest or inclination or ability to manage the company," he said. "I think that's a mistake."

Musk said he's weighing plans for how his ownership stakes in his companies would be handled after his death but hasn't made a final decision. But he has told the companies' boards who he wants to succeed him.

"There are particular individuals identified that I've told the board, 'Look, if something happens to me unexpectedly, this is my recommendation for taking over,'" he said. "So in all cases, the board is aware of who my recommendation is. It's up to them. They may choose to go in a different direction."

Original post:

How Elon Musk says he splits time among Tesla, Twitter, SpaceX - Automotive News Europe

Hosting Floridas governor, Ron DeSantis, in a Twitter audio event on Wednesday to announce his presidential run was supposed to be a triumphant moment for Elon Musk, the owner of Twitter.

Instead, the event began with more than 20 minutes of technical glitches, hot mic moments and drowned-out and half-said conversations before the livestream abruptly cut out. Minutes later, the livestream restarted as hundreds of thousands of listeners tried to tune in. Mr. DeSantis had not said a word at that point.

That was insane, sorry, Mr. Musk said.

Behind the stop-start Twitter Space, an audio-only livestream on the social network, was a company that has undergone major changes in recent months. Since Mr. Musk bought Twitter last year for $44 billion, he has reshaped it by cutting more than 75 percent of its work force, changing the platforms speech rules and reinstating suspended users. Outages have been on the rise, as have bugs that have made Twitter less usable.

The technical problems on Wednesday showed how Twitter is operating far from seamlessly, turning what was supposed to be a crowning event for Mr. Musk into something of an embarrassment.

Mr. DeSantiss announcement had been an opportunity for Mr. Musk, an unpredictable executive with interests in many fields, to promote his multiple agendas. Those included a political coming-out for the billionaire, who has flirted with right-wing accounts and politics for years on Twitter but has never embraced a presidential candidate the way he has the Republican governor. And it was supposed to be a way for Mr. Musk to advance his business interests by highlighting Twitter, which he is trying to turn around.

Yet as the Twitter audio livestream faltered, the reaction including on Twitter itself was shock and scorn that what should have been a carefully choreographed announcement of a presidential run had stumbled so badly. The hashtag #Desaster appeared on many posts. Others took potshots at the failure, with President Bidens personal @JoeBiden account tweeting a donation link with the words, This link works.

David Sacks, a tech executive who moderated the audio event with Mr. DeSantis and who is a confidant of Mr. Musks, tried downplaying the technical problems.

We got so many people here that we are kind of melting the servers, which is a good sign, he said during the first livestream, which sputtered out.

Mr. Musk did not respond to a request for comment.

Inside Twitter, employees had been alarmed by Mr. Musks turn into politics and whether the social media site could handle the influx of traffic, three employees said. There was no planning for what are known as site reliability issues for the event with Mr. DeSantis, two of the people said, and workers were prepared to do whatever they could to keep the social network running.

When the audio event began at about 6 p.m. Eastern time, more than 600,000 listeners joined, causing Twitters mobile apps and website to sputter or crash, two employees said. Mr. Musk later said that his account, which has 140 million followers and which promoted and launched the livestream, had brought in too many listeners and that Twitters systems had been unable to handle them.

Twitters systems recovered, the employees said, but the restarted livestream with Mr. DeSantis had a smaller audience, with about 275,000 listeners.

Even before the glitches, the event had drawn criticism, especially since Mr. Musk has said Twitter is a politically neutral platform. Michael Santoro, a professor of management and entrepreneurship at Santa Clara University, said the event undermines the claim of impartiality.

As the owner of the company, hes using major resources and power and outreach of the company to express any view, Mr. Santoro said of Mr. Musk.

But others said they were not surprised that Mr. Musk was trying to mold the social platform in his own image and beliefs.

A self-proclaimed moderate, Mr. Musk voted for Democratic presidential candidates like Barack Obama and Mr. Biden. But in recent years he has taken a rightward turn, which has been laid out in full on his Twitter profile. He has posted critically about what he calls the woke mind virus affecting Democratic politics, has shared right-wing conspiracy theories and has repeatedly praised Mr. DeSantis for nearly a year.

Jason Goldman, a former vice president of product at Twitter, compared Mr. Musks moves with Twitter to the creation of an echo chamber where he has put his own interests front and center.

He is the moderator, and the content surfaced and promoted is that which is most pleasing to him, Mr. Goldman said.

In recent months, fears about Twitters reliability have surfaced repeatedly. After Mr. Musk began laying off thousands of its employees last year, many users were so alarmed by the cuts that #RIPTwitter and #GoodbyeTwitter began trending. The company staved off any shutdowns and continued operating, but outages rose.

In February alone, Twitter experienced at least four widespread outages, compared with nine in all of 2022, according to NetBlocks, an organization that tracks internet outages.

The companys technology operations have become more precarious since November, current and former employees have said. Mr. Musk also ended operations at one of Twitters three main data centers, slashed the teams that work on the companys back-end technology such as servers and cloud storage, and eliminated leaders overseeing that area.

On Wednesday after the Twitter Space restarted, Mr. DeSantis finally got the chance to speak. He made his stump speech, then complimented Mr. Musk for buying Twitter. He also praised Mr. Musk, who often declares his support for free speech, for that commitment and said the Twitter owner would surely make money off his investment in the company.

Mr. Musk is a good businessman, Mr. DeSantis said. And Twitter Spaces, he later added, is a great platform.

Read more here:

Elon Musk's Event With Ron DeSantis Exposes Twitter's Weaknesses - The New York Times

Elon Musk doesnt like people working from home. A year ago he declared the end of remote work for employees at car maker Tesla. Now he has called the desire of the laptop classes to work from home immoral.

Youre gonna work from home and youre gonna make everyone else who made your car come work in the factory? he said in an interview on US news network CNBC:

Its a productivity issue, but its also a moral issue. People should get off their goddamn moral high horse with that work-from-home bullshit. Because theyre asking everyone else to not work from home while they do.

Theres a superficial logic to Musks position. But scrutinise it closer and the argument falls apart. While we have a duty to share workload with others, we have no duty to suffer for no reason. And for most of human history, working from home has been normal. Its the modern factory and office that are the oddities.

Read more: How many days a week in the office are enough? You shouldn't need to ask

Prior to the industrial revolution, which historian date to the mid-1700s to mid-1800s, working from home, or close to home, was commonplace for most of the worlds population. This included skilled manufacturing workers, who typically worked at home or in small workshops nearby.

For the skilled craftsperson, work hours were what we might call flexible. British historian E.P. Thompson records the consternation among the upper class about the notorious irregularity of labour.

Conditions changed with the rapid growth and concentration of machines in the industrial revolution. These changes began in England, which also saw the most protracted and tense conflicts over the new work hours and discipline factory owners and managers demanded.

Judgements of conditions for workers prior to industrialisation vary. Thompsons masterpiece study The Making of the English Working Class (published in 1963) recounts bleak tales of families of six or eight woolcombers, huddled working around a charcoal stove, their workshop also the bedroom.

But it also mentions the stocking maker with peas and beans in his snug garden, and a good barrel of humming ale, and the linen-weaving quarter of Belfast, with their whitewashed houses, and little flower gardens.

Either way, working from home is not a novel invention of the laptop classes. Only with the industrial revolution were workers required under one roof and for fixed hours.

Read more: Meet the matchstick women the hidden victims of the industrial revolution

Musks moral argument against working from home says that because not all workers can do it, no workers should expect it.

This has some resemblance to the categorical imperative articulated by 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

But acting according to the same principle does not mean we all have the same options. We can, for example, want all workers to have the maximum freedom their tasks allow.

The wider error Musk appears to be making is misapplying what ethics researchers call distributive justice.

Simply put, distributive justice concerns how we share benefits and harms. As the philosopher John Rawls explains in his book Justice as Fairness, in distributive justice we view society as a cooperative activity, where we regulate the division of advantages that arises from social cooperation over time.

Research on distributive justice at work typically concerns how to pay workers fairly and also share the suffering or toil work requires. But there is no compelling moral case to share the needless suffering that work creates.

Clearly, professionals benefit from work in many ways we might argue are unjust. As economist John Kenneth Galbraith observed satirically in The Economics of Innocent Fraud, those who most enjoy their work are generally the best paid. This is accepted. Low wage scales are for those in repetitive, tedious, painful toil.

If Musk wanted to share either the pay or toil at Tesla more equally, he has the means to do something about it. He could pay his factory workers more, for example, instead of taking a pay package likely to pay him US$56 billion in 2028. (This depends on Teslas market capitalisation being 12 times what it was in 2018; its now about 10 times.)

To share the toil of work more fairly, he wouldnt just be sleeping at work. Hed be on the production line, or down a mine in central Africa, dragging out the cobalt electric vehicle batteries need, for a few dollars a day.

Instead, Musks idea of fairness is about creating unnecessary work, shaming workers who dont need to be in the office to commute regardless. There is no compelling moral reason for this in the main Western ethics traditions.

The fruits and burdens of work should be distributed fairly, but unnecessary work helps no one. Commuting is the least pleasurable, and most negative, time of a workers day, studies show. Insisting everyone has to do it brings no benefit to those who must do it. Theyre not better off.

Denying some workers freedom to work from home because other workers dont have the same freedom now is ethically perverse.

Musks hostility towards remote work is consistent with a long history of research that documents managers resistance to letting workers out of their sight.

Working from home, or anywhere working, has been discussed since the 1970s, and technologically viable since at least the late 1990s. Yet it only became an option for most workers when managers were forced to accept it during the pandemic.

While this enforced experiment of the pandemic has led to the epiphany that working from home can be as productive, the growth of surveillance systems to track workers at home proves managerial suspicions linger.

Read more: 3 ways 'bossware' surveillance technology is turning back the management clock

There are genuine moral issues for Musk to grapple with at Tesla. He could use his fortune and influence to do something about issues such as modern slavery in supply chains, or the inequity of executive pay.

Instead, hes vexed about working from home. To make work at Tesla genuinely more just, Musks moral effort would better be directed towards fairly distributing Teslas profit, and mitigating the suffering and toil that industrial production systems already create.

View post:

Working from home immoral? A lesson in ethics, and history, for ... - The Conversation

2023 Fortune Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice| Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information| Ad Choices FORTUNE is a trademark of Fortune Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice. S&P Index data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. Terms & Conditions. Powered and implemented by Interactive Data Managed Solutions.

Read this article:

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman credits Elon Musk with teaching him the importance of deep tech investing. But he has no interest in living on Mars - Fortune