Almost everything Musk says is either an outright lie or wildly optimistic to the point of lying.
FSD has been a year or two away every year since 2015.
There was going to be a voyage to Mars by 2024.
Funding was secured to take Tesla private at $420 a share.
He was going to save multiple trillions of dollars with DOGE.
There would be "close to zero new cases" of Covid by April 2020.
These are all off the top of my head, I'm sure we could list dozens more of these types of claims.
Nobody should be surprised when Elon lies, the real question is why does the media or anyone else continue to give anything he says any air of legitimacy at all given his track record of claims vs reality?
SpaceX (minus his Mars claims, which he has been clearly backtracking on for the past year or so) is the only one of his enterprises that isn't almost entirely hype and vibes based at this point, and from everything I've read it is because they uniquely understand how to mitigate the damage caused by his persistent manic overreach.
Let's not forget by 2023, all the Tesla owners making money as they sleep with their cars doubling as Robotaxis. Elon: "At that point it would be financially irresponsible not to own a Tesla".
Didn't Musk famously shutter Tesla's marketing department two years ago, nearly to the day?[1] It seems it's quite possible to lie effectively, repeatedly, and pervasively even without a marking department. Maybe Musk is just that good.
Which I think is the basis for a claim being prepared in The Netherlands. People buying a Tesla, spending extra for FSD and are now, years later, presented with this "admission".
The entirety of the government doesn't turn over every 4 years, especially at a technical org like NASA. You're still going to be working at NASA with a team of NASA people. Plus if they're hiring you know your team in particular won't be a target of layoffs.
> The appropriated FY2026 budget has the largest discrepancy from the White House Request since 1987 at nearly 30%.[3] The request, submitted in May 2025, proposed a 24% cut to NASA's overall budget.[4] In January 2026, Congress passed the final budget, rejecting nearly all of the proposed cuts.
From wikipedia. The white house is pushing for major cuts to Nasa
I understand the spirit of this comment (and I get it), but we want the opposite to be true. Let's find ways to support good people who step up.
Edits (in case my meaning above is not clear):
1. When I write "but we want the opposite to be true" I mean this: if only Trump-aligned or Trump-tolerant people sign up for these roles, I do not think this is desirable for NASA.
2. When I write "I understand the spirit of this comment (and I get it)" I mean: from an individual point of view, I fully grant that many people would be better off seeking work elsewhere.
3. My experience and scientific research shows that people are not merely selfish actors. While individual incentives matter a lot, perhaps even predominantly, it isn't accurate to claim that we can fully explain human behavior with exclusively narrow individualist framings.
4. Many of us act selfishly much of the time, and this is indeed reasonable and even beneficial at times. But taken to an extreme it can be worse overall, even for those individuals. See: game theory, social connections, morality, and so on.
5. When I write "Let's find ways to support good people who step up" I do mean concrete things such as "let's crowdfund ethical people's legal fees" to survive the Trump administration.
Given what we're facing, I am actually skeptical of people who step up to work for the government at this moment in time. There's a lot of nationalist language on this site. Even if your motivations are for science, do we really want to give any assistance to the goals of this administration?
> I am actually skeptical of people who step up to work for the government at this moment in time.
I'm sure this wounds them deeply.
Given what we're facing worldwide, I'd say more people are skeptical of anyone that works in tech at this moment in time.
>There's a lot of nationalist language on this site.
Incredibly the US government isn't anti-US. This may come as a surprise to some in certain online bubbles.
>do we really want to give any assistance to the goals of this administration?
The goals of going to the moon? You're right, it's a giant waste of money when there are problems to be solved on earth. Something many people have been saying for a long time. Glad you're coming around.
I think it's a bit of, "Be the change you want to see". It may not be a bad thing to get tech folk with sense into these roles. They probably tend to have enough of a cushion to be able to refuse unethical work without worrying about the immediate consequences.
NASA had a nationalist origin and has always kept those undertones even in the modern day, but I don't think anyone's ever accused it of being partisan. I don't believe many Americans associate NASA with any particular president, except maybe JFK, and I don't believe they'd conflate working for NASA with working for Trump.
I think part of the point of OP was that this isn't a good way to support people to step up. It's frankly bizarre and has dubious future prospects like any other federal program under the current administration.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12woq_BpFbzLkH4zHvVRJLPyi...
reply