You forgot the third: they (Silicon Valley) also change the world. For the better. Most of my (and my family’s) every day work and fun are coming from SV. I would not give it up for anything else. If occasionally breaking things is the price - I am more than willing to pay it.
That's up for a through debate, but not today. Let's leave it at I don't agree that part 100%.
In 2022 every fourth car sold (including petrol/diesel) was a Tesla.
https://elbil.no/om-elbil/elbilstatistikk/
https://www.elbil24.no/nyheter/hver-fjerde-nybil-var-en-tesl...
Well, gee, no wonder that people were buying them left and right when the tax discount was about 16-20k NOK per car on average!
And that is just buying the car - Norway subsidizes electric mobility in many other ways so even today registering a new electric is cheaper than a gasoline car, despite the gas powered vehicles normally costing about 50% less.
So, please, when waving this sort of argument about, don't "forget" to put it in context.
Norway is a special case because of government policies, not because Tesla did anything particularly great there. They were just the only ones on the market at the time so people essentially had to buy a Tesla if they wanted to benefit from the generous subsidies because there simply wasn't anything else available. Today the situation is different, though.
While Tesla probably played a role in EV adoption, I think you are overstating it by a lot. If the main factor wasn't economic we would see these same stats in every other country where a Tesla can be bought.
If you happened to be unaware all of these Tesla-skeptics ( atleast this latest round of skeptics ) are being buoyed by this Reuters report about major problems Tesla owners have faced off late. One describing a new owner's experience with his spanking new Tesla : "The vehicle’s front-right suspension had collapsed, and parts of the car loudly scraped the road as it came to a stop."
Tesla blamed drivers for failures of parts it long knew were defective
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-musk-steering-suspension/Were it not for Tesla, America wouldn’t be on a path towards electrified transport. The tradeoffs are incredibly germane to the topic.
That, too, is up for discussion, but not for now. I’ll leave it by saying that, without Tesla willing to sell cars at a loss for a long time, it might be a bit less further on that path, but I think California and/or the EU would have forced it by now to get on that path, by setting goals for cars sold within their jurisdictions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_effect, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect)
There also can be discussion about whether Tesla’s path is the right pat, but that definitely is for another time.
If not for Tesla, America (& the Western world in general) might not be on a path towards private inefficient electrified road transport, leaving much more room for investment in & upselling of vastly more sustainable non-road transport, as has been done in China.
Musk in particular has form here - consistently blocking & derailing all potential high-speed rail projects for the west coast in favour of white elephants (the material result being a maintained reliance on roads, and - by extension - his big cobalt-mine-dependent business).
Tesla’s did kick off the trend of big screens in cars. I prefer buttons to touch screen interactions while driving, but many people want an iPad and Tesla made that happen.
So, yes, it's up for debate.
Lastly this doesn't change the fact that Tesla fared the worst in the automaking competition this year w.r.t. everyone else, and they're faking till they're making it. More automakers are always good, but more pretending is always bad (cough VW, Cummins, cough).
And that is good news because? So that 100 year from now the avg temperature would be 0.005C less because we'd have substitued the black pollutant produced by Arabs with Star and Stipes Lithium (or lithium which comes from countries that are in the sphere of influence of the US)
This effort is a spit in the face of people who are alive and have big problems right now, that's the reason why they are engaging in rolling coal as a form of protest against this nonsense.
I'll try to find the article.
It looks more like technology is <<redistributing>> wealth, which is SUPER scary since technology inherently allows concentration.
Facebook killed 1 million newspapers, yay, now 1 American corporation can siphon all those profits to... no one even knows where, since it's probably parked in some tax haven. It created 10k jobs paid 500k each by killing 10 million jobs each paid 60k. I'm not super convinced the end result is better.
Edit:
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/produ...
> The productivity paradox (also the Solow computer paradox) is the peculiar observation made in business process analysis that, as more investment is made in information technology, worker productivity may go down instead of up. This observation has been firmly supported with empirical evidence from the 1970s to the early 1990s.
Also, what’s the argument for Facebook killing newspapers? Craigslist was siphoning off a main source of newspaper revenue for papers long before Facebook arrived. Would you also argue against the end result of moving on from local classifieds sections?
The delta between floor and ceiling does not matter. Lift everyone up, this is not 0 sum.
Yes it does. Relative power is a thing, even in a democracy.
The important stuff absolutely is zero sum. Housing , p**y and bragging rights
He said from the warm comfort of his home, with a full belly, writing on a supercomputer created in SV, with software written in SV, on a platform build by SV on a global network created, of course, by the SV.
Would you give up technology then? Nobody stops you but I seriously doubt the productivity of hand-plowing fields is in any way higher than that of modern farm equipment.