Merge Cancellation oddities.

[maverick3n1]

Not sure if anyone has run into this before, but I've had it happen on multiple occasions and the result could easily end up with an accident. That said, I can't make sense as to why it would do this...

Where I live, the main freeway is only 2 lanes each direction. It's standard (and for the most part, people actually respect it out here), to drive in the right lane unless passing.

So here is where my issue comes in. I'm driving in the right lane. There is nobody in the left lane and nobody approaching in the left lane. It's clear both sides and forward/back. I'm approaching an onramp with FSD/Autopilot engaged (the one step down from fully autonomous I got for free by buying the Performance model) and I notice a Semi Truck coming up the onramp. Trying to be polite and understanding that they take time to get up to speed, even if they are slightly ahead of me on that approach, I hit my left blinker, telling the FSD to merge to the left lane.

As I approach that physical connection of the onramp, the vehicle starts to merge to the left. Everything should be fine.. or so you'd expect. Suddenly, halfway through the merge with no other vehicles around, it cancels the merge to the left, starts pulling me back to the right lane and slams on the brakes. I have to immediately take over, hit the gas and pull hard to the left to get it to stop trying to merge into the right lane. Once I get past the merging Semi, I'm able to lock it back into FSD again.

I've had this happen more often than not at one frequent location, but I've found it does happen at others as well and it always involves a vehicle merging onto the freeway, me trying to merge into the left lane to give them space, and the vehicle suddenly wanting to stay in the same lane as the vehicle is trying to merge into. It doesn't make any sense. Anyone else experience this oddity? Is there a way to report this strange glitch to Tesla for them to directly review the sensors and figure out why the vehicle decided it was an unsafe merge to leave a lane with traffic merging into it for an empty lane?

 

[EVRider-FL]

I’ve had auto lane changes abort for no apparent reason, which is what you’re describing. You’re not really merging into the left lane, you’re just changing lanes. The semi that’s coming up the onramp is the one merging.

 

[RTPEV]

Yes, happens all the time. I've learned to anticipate it which usually results in a successful lane change, but that does not make it any less annoying (and yes, potentially dangerous).

What is happening (at least I'm pretty sure) is that the requested lane change progresses very slowly and the car decides that there won't be enough time to complete the lane change before the vehicle (truck in your case) enters the lane, and/or it decides to be "polite" and let the merging car merge in. Either way, it decides the best course of action is to slam on the brakes so as to let the vehicle in.

It's certainly not how a human would handle this situation. They would simply expedite the lane change, or realize that the merging vehicle will have adequate separation for the duration of the maneuver, but from the Tesla's point of view, if you are still occupying just a sliver of the lane you are changing out of, and/or the merging vehicle occupies just a sliver of the lane it's merging into, there is a potential conflict and it will abort. Better safe than sorry I suppose, but very unnatural and unnerving to the human passengers and potentially surrounding traffic.

What I do to avoid the behavior is (a) anticipate merging traffic sooner and initiate the lane change very early, even if it seems as if I will be well past the merging traffic and (b) if you press the accelerator, this will override the braking behavior and the car should continue its lane change (although I would be ready to force it to do so if it decides to abort).

Interesting to note that FSD handles this by just camping out in the left lane (it says "changing lanes to avoid merge lane" or something like that). This is more of annoying hack than anything as it unnecessarily occupies the left lane. Even when I select "minimal lane changes" it does this at times. Very annoying and kind of ruins the FSD experience. For that reason I usually disable FSD on long road trips and just stick to basic Autopilot.

 

[SidetrackedSue]

Yes, happens all the time. I've learned to anticipate it which usually results in a successful lane change, but that does not make it any less annoying (and yes, potentially dangerous).

What is happening (at least I'm pretty sure) is that the requested lane change progresses very slowly and the car decides that there won't be enough time to complete the lane change before the vehicle (truck in your case) enters the lane, and/or it decides to be "polite" and let the merging car merge in. Either way, it decides the best course of action is to slam on the brakes so as to let the vehicle in.

....

Interesting to note that FSD handles this by just camping out in the left lane (it says "changing lanes to avoid merge lane" or something like that). This is more of annoying hack than anything as it unnecessarily occupies the left lane. Even when I select "minimal lane changes" it does this at times. Very annoying and kind of ruins the FSD experience. For that reason I usually disable FSD on long road trips and just stick to basic Autopilot.

It used to be afraid of the right lane, then got better (normal) and now it seems to have reverted back. I really wish the minimal lane changes was a permanent setting (like chill.) I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be at least until FSD ceases to be beta.

I don't know how much this regression is related to coding to overcome the tendency to dive into right turn lanes on undivided highways and then panic because it couldn't merge back. I only experienced that once faster than I could cancel, but it is friggin scary when it happens and you are in heavy traffic and know you can't merge safely back in so come to a screeching halt on the shoulder past the intersection.

It is interesting to observe lane choice changes in FSDb but also terrifying at times. Like you I often turn off FSDb and while, in ways I'm looking forward to a unified stack, I hope it doesn't happen until after this is solved because I appreciate having the fallback option of AP on long drives.

(In case anyone has missed this tip: create two profiles for yourself, one with FSDb on, one with it off, and then you can switch back and forth between FSDb/AP by switching profiles and not having to pull over and restart the trip in order to reengage FSDb.)

 

[legendsk]

I’ve had auto lane changes abort for no apparent reason, which is what you’re describing. You’re not really merging into the left lane, you’re just changing lanes. The semi that’s coming up the onramp is the one merging.

Me too. Sometimes I can anthropomorphize why the car decided to cancel the lane change and try to violently swerve back to the original lane, (which always gets screams from passengers). But most of the time there is no apparent reason why. If that isn't aggravating enough, just for icing on the cake, then it will throw the "... disengaged. What happened?" message, so apparently it also had no idea why it did that? This whole thing reminds me of the guy who said, "I sure hope I can die quietly in my sleep, like grandpa. Not screaming in agony like the people in the car he was driving."

 

[maverick3n1]

Yes, happens all the time. I've learned to anticipate it which usually results in a successful lane change, but that does not make it any less annoying (and yes, potentially dangerous).

What is happening (at least I'm pretty sure) is that the requested lane change progresses very slowly and the car decides that there won't be enough time to complete the lane change before the vehicle (truck in your case) enters the lane, and/or it decides to be "polite" and let the merging car merge in. Either way, it decides the best course of action is to slam on the brakes so as to let the vehicle in.

It's certainly not how a human would handle this situation. They would simply expedite the lane change, or realize that the merging vehicle will have adequate separation for the duration of the maneuver, but from the Tesla's point of view, if you are still occupying just a sliver of the lane you are changing out of, and/or the merging vehicle occupies just a sliver of the lane it's merging into, there is a potential conflict and it will abort. Better safe than sorry I suppose, but very unnatural and unnerving to the human passengers and potentially surrounding traffic.

What I do to avoid the behavior is (a) anticipate merging traffic sooner and initiate the lane change very early, even if it seems as if I will be well past the merging traffic and (b) if you press the accelerator, this will override the braking behavior and the car should continue its lane change (although I would be ready to force it to do so if it decides to abort).

Interesting to note that FSD handles this by just camping out in the left lane (it says "changing lanes to avoid merge lane" or something like that). This is more of annoying hack than anything as it unnecessarily occupies the left lane. Even when I select "minimal lane changes" it does this at times. Very annoying and kind of ruins the FSD experience. For that reason I usually disable FSD on long road trips and just stick to basic Autopilot.

The problem with that concept is if you are just leaving a lane as someone else is entering, but you both are into the lane a sliver as you were referring, the car is swerving back into the lane which makes it more likely to impact the vehicle merging in before it engages the brakes. A better method while still being annoying would be to continue the merge while hitting the brakes as hitting the brakes while moving away from the approaching vehicle is far more likely to avoid impact than hitting the brakes while swerving back towards the approaching vehicle. Who in their right mind would think the safe thing to do would be to get closer to the approaching vehicle rather than continue moving farther away. If this is what it's doing than that's some seriously poor programming logic.

 

[RTPEV]

If this is what it's doing than that's some seriously poor programming logic.

Well buckle up, because Elon's aspiration is to completely eliminate all the logic and let the neural net make ALL driving decisions. If you think there is some crazy (and unwanted) behavior now, just wait until then!

 

[legendsk]

Well buckle up, because Elon's aspiration is to completely eliminate all the logic and let the neural net make ALL driving decisions. If you think there is some crazy (and unwanted) behavior now, just wait until then!

Optimist = "Well, at least things can't get any worse."
Pessimist = "Oh, yes they can."

 

[maverick3n1]

Well buckle up, because Elon's aspiration is to completely eliminate all the logic and let the neural net make ALL driving decisions. If you think there is some crazy (and unwanted) behavior now, just wait until then!

Everyone loves to point at Elon, but Elon is not as incredible as one may think. With that kind of money, I could have done the same thing. Like him, I'm self taught programmer and self taught engineer. I don't have the schooling, nor does he and I can dream big too, but the one thing I lack that he has is the capitol to go from being a kid in a sandbox to actually making things realities. He's someone like you, me or anyone else who's watched far too much Star Trek, Star Wars and all of the other Sci Fi stuff and questioned "Why can't we have that?". I've come up with ideas of taking older expiring anti-personnel missiles for example, and turning them into Fire Surpressant missiles. When fires in places like California start and they know they can't get to it in time before it becomes massive and uncontrollable, contact the local military base, give them coordinates and using thermal imaging, the military can find the hotspots and fire some ground to ground missiles at the location to slow the burn down, giving the firefighters time to get there and extinguish it before it gets massive. A ground to ground missile could get on-site far faster than firefighting aircrafts dumping water and fire retardent and if we could contain the fire immediately, it could save billions in damages and loss of life. But I don't have the capitol to do that.

Elon's primary advantage isn't his brains or his programming capabilities. It's his wallet. He hired people with far more brain power than he will ever know and told them to make it work. Everyone praises Elon for being an evolutionary, but anyone with a big enough wallet could have done the same thing. If Trump felt so inclined, he could have been the owner of Tesla, paying a bunch of money out to R&D. That was Elon's contribution. He may have been involved with the design phase, but realistically, he had a team of Sr. Designers doing the work and his involvment was approving the designs. It's easy to simply say "Make me an electric car that can get 300+ mile range. Here is a bunch of money to make it happen.". The real work was done by those Sr. Engineers/designers.

 

[JB47394]

But I don't have the capitol to do that.

You don't have the business acumen to do that. Anyone knows that if you don't have the capital, you go off and work on smaller projects to accumulate the capital. Read any book or commentary by a really wealthy businessman about how they would start over. They always begin by getting a job in something that they are naturally good at, throwing themselves into it, doing smart things to accumulate capital, and then using that to go after ever larger projects.

Elon's primary advantage isn't his brains or his programming capabilities.

Elon's primary advantage was that he was relentless. Instead of posting in forums or blue-skying impractical ventures, he was off building something that he could sell. He spotted business opportunities that he could pursue, and he went after them without reservations. He was a complete jerk, a control freak, and a really smart and savvy guy, and he got things done. It's a common refrain among the hyper-wealthy.

 

[RTPEV]

Until a year ago I worked with a guy who is very much like Elon idea-wise...he is always thinking of new ideas, and to be sure, he has some good ones. I've lost count, but he has well over 300 patents to his name, although that is partly due to his experience in getting patents through the system (he knows what's going to get through and what's not, and he knows how to write claims), and partly due to the fact that he mentored other engineers and encouraged them to patent their ideas, and then he would toss in one small snippet of an idea to be included on the patent (and then he would take credit for having "invented" whatever it was!).

Why I think he's like Elon is that he completely ignores the details and problems that will arise from actually putting these ideas into practice. He and Elon have the ideas, glance over any obstacles to implementing them, and push on regardless.

Where they differ, and I have to agree somewhat with @maverick3n1 here, is that my colleague never had the capital (and I'll add charisma) that Elon does. And yes, Elon got that by hard work and actually implementing some good ideas that paid off, but that's almost part of the problem here: I think it's Elon's past success that has made him blind to the significant obstacles in his ever more grandiose ideas. To a certain point, this is actually a good thing. We need bold visionaries with charisma (and capital) to take on really tough problems. But only to a point. And unfortunately I think that Elon is probably past that point in some places.

So to bring it back on topic, heading down the path of full neural control of the driving is likely not the right approach (even though on paper it seems like it is because it's the most general). Keep working on it, sure, but Tesla really needs to do something in the short term to make what they call FSD usable as a true driver's assistance feature, because right now it's somewhat more of a hindrance than a benefit, given that you have to be super vigilant and on the lookout for the dumb things that it does today.

 

[maverick3n1]

You don't have the business acumen to do that. Anyone knows that if you don't have the capital, you go off and work on smaller projects to accumulate the capital. Read any book or commentary by a really wealthy businessman about how they would start over. They always begin by getting a job in something that they are naturally good at, throwing themselves into it, doing smart things to accumulate capital, and then using that to go after ever larger projects.


Elon's primary advantage was that he was relentless. Instead of posting in forums or blue-skying impractical ventures, he was off building something that he could sell. He spotted business opportunities that he could pursue, and he went after them without reservations. He was a complete jerk, a control freak, and a really smart and savvy guy, and he got things done. It's a common refrain among the hyper-wealthy.

There is also luck involved. I've done just what you state and haven't gotten there. I was working with component level electronics when I was 8yo and building computers by the age of 12. Had my first computer repair tech job when I was 15. I'm now currently a Sr. Level Programmer for high end automation systems. I spent most of my career in the industry, programming systems for the rich and famous in Orange County/LA California. I programmed systems that controlled their entire home from their movie theater to their pool/spa. Everything done on touch screens. Average install was $300k-$800k. Now I do commercial programming, primarily for the DoD.

I also tried my hand at a few different business concepts including a website that would have been a competitor to MySpace before they came out. Worked with a Sr. Programmer from the old MP3.com and we started a website called TheRefrigerator.com as at the time, everyone would use magnets to put photos on their fridge, so we thought it was a great name idea for an online social media service that offered free online dating/meeting others as well as a place to build a social media profile with your photos etc. MySpace beat us to the punch line and they blew up so fast that we didn't stand a chance. Timing and luck play just as much of a role into it as perseverance does.

My last business was worth over $1mil and opened 3 months before Covid hit. Needless to say, it didn't survive. I had 26 employees with that business I had to lay off. One of the hardest days of my life.

So perseverence is one aspect, but luck and timing is a huge factor as well. Had I invested in Bitcoin many years back when I almost did, I'd have the finances to do a lot of these things I wanted to do as well, but nobody can truly predict the future and I didn't pull the trigger on it. I lost out, but hindsight's always 20/20. Some people get lucky, others do not. It still doesn't change the fact that Tesla exists because he had the financial means to put money where his mouth was and pay the engineers that ACTUALLY designed the vehicles. I'm not saying he's not intelligent. He's most likely on the Savant scale. I'm merely saying that someone like Mark Zuckerberg could have made Tesla instead of Elon and then everyone would be calling Zuckerberg the things like a prodigy instead of Elon. If you have the capital, you can hire the smarts to build it. If you have the smarts but not the capital, you can't.

 

[JB47394]

There is also luck involved.

Absolutely. Elon started SpaceX and Tesla when money was really cheap. Given that he barely made it with both companies, it's a good bet that neither would have survived if the lending environment had been tighter.

I've done just what you state and haven't gotten there.

That's because you're not a big enough jerk. I say that only slightly tongue-in-cheek.

I'm merely saying that someone like Mark Zuckerberg could have made Tesla instead of Elon and then everyone would be calling Zuckerberg the things like a prodigy instead of Elon. If you have the capital, you can hire the smarts to build it. If you have the smarts but not the capital, you can't.

This part I disagree with. A random smart person with a lot of money could not have created Tesla, nor could they have created SpaceX. By way of comparison, Elon is completely messing up Twitter while Mark built Facebook up from nothing to become an insanely-successful business. Different people have different ways in which they excel. Elon has two core competencies that I can see. The first is scaling industry. The second is spotting valuable business opportunities.

Some people just don't excel, regardless of how much money gets thrown at them. And sometimes, what they excel at goes away. I'm thinking of Ken Olsen, who shook up the computing world when he created Digital Equipment Corporation. He built minicomputers and the company grew to be a giant. Then microcomputers came along and DEC is no more because Ken didn't see it coming quickly enough.

Somebody may come along and invalidate what Elon is doing because they'll change the business landscape out from under him and he won't be able to adapt to it.

Sorry about COVID squashing your company. It sounds like you're pushing those business ideas, so I hope you'll keep at it and find something that catches on - for the betterment of everyone concerned.

 

[maverick3n1]

Absolutely. Elon started SpaceX and Tesla when money was really cheap. Given that he barely made it with both companies, it's a good bet that neither would have survived if the lending environment had been tighter.


That's because you're not a big enough jerk. I say that only slightly tongue-in-cheek.


This part I disagree with. A random smart person with a lot of money could not have created Tesla, nor could they have created SpaceX. By way of comparison, Elon is completely messing up Twitter while Mark built Facebook up from nothing to become an insanely-successful business. Different people have different ways in which they excel. Elon has two core competencies that I can see. The first is scaling industry. The second is spotting valuable business opportunities.

Some people just don't excel, regardless of how much money gets thrown at them. And sometimes, what they excel at goes away. I'm thinking of Ken Olsen, who shook up the computing world when he created Digital Equipment Corporation. He built minicomputers and the company grew to be a giant. Then microcomputers came along and DEC is no more because Ken didn't see it coming quickly enough.

Somebody may come along and invalidate what Elon is doing because they'll change the business landscape out from under him and he won't be able to adapt to it.

Sorry about COVID squashing your company. It sounds like you're pushing those business ideas, so I hope you'll keep at it and find something that catches on - for the betterment of everyone concerned.

You state Elon is messing up Twitter because it's outside of his core competencies, but you forget that the first company that made him a millionare was a programming company that did business mapping if I recall correctly. Got free access to a mapping service Dbase and linked it with businesses to create basically a digital yellow pages. Sold it for over $300M (though I don't think he got even a quarter of that). So he does have website prowess. I think his problem with Twitter isn't the tech side, but the people side. He's not really a people person which is no surprise. It's a common trait with those who think with logic as most people are not logical (I have that challenge daily myself and have to keep it in check). So taking on and running a social media company is definitely not his core. Running a digital tech company however is, as long as it doesn't have to do with customer service which Tesla also lacks

I think that would be where things differed if Mark owned Tesla. Tesla could still be revolutionary as it has the dream team innovators making it happen, but it would have far better customer support. Elon feels very much a "Prove a concept and then move on somewhere else". "Here's the new Cyber Truck! It works right now! We will build it... some time.. not sure when.. but soon!". He needs someone to balance him. Most Corporations problems are they are reactive to the extreme to where they don't make progress. Elon's problem is he's so proactive, he never reacts to the current. He completely ignores it for the future and leaves his customers hanging.

I feel bad for early adopters 10+ years ago who bought Tesla, paid extra for FSD, never got it, stayed brand loyal and bought a new Tesla, selling the old and were told "You have to re-buy FSD even though you never received it". When I bought my car in 2019, I was offered FSD at a "discount".. I was like ok.. so you are offering me a discount on nothing. Care to sell me some air for $5k?

 

[JB47394]

I think his problem with Twitter isn't the tech side, but the people side. He's not really a people person which is no surprise.

Absolutely.

Elon's problem is he's so proactive, he never reacts to the current.

Yes, he does try to live in the future. Too much science fiction as a kid.

Not that I'm complaining about SpaceX. It's beyond amazing.

Running a digital tech company however is, as long as it doesn't have to do with customer service which Tesla also lacks

Again, I agree. Tesla is rubbish for anything related to its customers. The company excels at technology and industrial scaling. Elon likes humanity, but individuals humans are kindof annoying.

Tesla could still be revolutionary as it has the dream team innovators making it happen, but it would have far better customer support.

I'll continue to disagree, in the same way that nobody else could run Apple but Steve Jobs. Steve was obsessed with making Apple into what it became. Elon is obsessed with making Tesla and SpaceX what they are. Most other people at that level are obsessed with enriching themselves.

I think you're placing too much credit on the people that work for Elon. Obviously, Elon can't do much of anything without his employees, but his employees couldn't do anything without him. He's the catalyst. He's the driving force. Replace Elon and the companies will continue with whatever momentum they have, but they won't have that explosive capability that Elon brings. So it was with Steve Jobs at Apple, and so it will be with pretty much any company once the highly-motivated and focused founders move on - to be replaced by MBAs and accountants.

 

[maverick3n1]

Absolutely.


Yes, he does try to live in the future. Too much science fiction as a kid.

Not that I'm complaining about SpaceX. It's beyond amazing.


Again, I agree. Tesla is rubbish for anything related to its customers. The company excels at technology and industrial scaling. Elon likes humanity, but individuals humans are kindof annoying.


I'll continue to disagree, in the same way that nobody else could run Apple but Steve Jobs. Steve was obsessed with making Apple into what it became. Elon is obsessed with making Tesla and SpaceX what they are. Most other people at that level are obsessed with enriching themselves.

I think you're placing too much credit on the people that work for Elon. Obviously, Elon can't do much of anything without his employees, but his employees couldn't do anything without him. He's the catalyst. He's the driving force. Replace Elon and the companies will continue with whatever momentum they have, but they won't have that explosive capability that Elon brings. So it was with Steve Jobs at Apple, and so it will be with pretty much any company once the highly-motivated and focused founders move on - to be replaced by MBAs and accountants.

So are you saying someone like Mark or Trump wouldn't be motivational and push? I get what you mean where there are the US tricklenomic effect of corporations taking years to make a decision as simple as to whether they should do bronze or nickel doorknobs at their next business location, but Mark had to be a pusher to make FB what it is today. Trump has to be a pusher to make his empire what it is today. These people also do not lack motivation or direction, just like Steve Jobs. One thing I will give Elon over most other in his echelon of financial assets is that Elon is more likely to risk it all on a massive project than most others. If you went into Shark Tank, Mr. Wonderful would have checked out before you got to the second word of your pitch for SpaceX or Tesla as he could see all of the dollars he'd have to dump into it in "hopes" that it would become lucrative in the future. At the same time, there are others in Shark Tank who I feel would put their money where their mouth is, step up the the plate and make it a reality.

As you said, the self made rich are there because they took the risk and made it happen. The American Dream as we all know it. I've tried multiple times and failed. That puts me a step above most others in that mindset, but it doesn't change the fact that without risk, there is no reward. The greater the risk, the greater the potential reward, but the greater the potential failure as well. Elon has the mindset of all in or not at all. I respect that. I have a simliar attitude to. Some of the things I live by are "Go big or go home" and "Do it right or don't do it at all". It's always a balancing act however. For those that have assets like Elon, I wish they would take more risk. People like Mr. Wonderful, trying to make more money.. That money does you no good when you are dead. You don't need 15 mansions, a few yachts, helicopters, private jets and so on. It's all a waste. Working for the rich and famous for 15+ years, it's all just a front. They are constantly comparing and competing to show off their wealth. It's the only thing that matters to them and it's sad. Realistically, it only matters to them because the lower class wishes they had it, so they have to constantly flaunt it to make themselves feel better. They don't want to lose it. It's turned into a competition with no end

The world would be better with Star Trek's concept of everyone helps eachother. We work together to build a better us. No currency. Everyone is provided for, medical care, housing, transportation. You do what you are good at and enjoy doing and we have a successful society that's driven and advances far faster than everyone needing and wanting money.

 

[JB47394]

So are you saying someone like Mark or Trump wouldn't be motivational and push?

They'd motivate. They'd push. But they'd do it their way, not Elon's way. They wouldn't end up at the same place that Elon has taken his companies. So just as Elon can motivate and push at Twitter to produce a train wreck, so too could Mark or anyone else with money and drive.

I'm focusing on human psychology more than anything else. Each person pushes and motivates according to their particular... idiom. There probably isn't a better illustration of this than Blue Origin and SpaceX. "Step by step ferociously" versus "Move fast and break things". Both are run by fabulously wealthy men who are extremely bright, but they are proceeding along wildly different lines. Jeff motivates and pushes his way, while Elon does things his way. That's why Blue Origin and SpaceX are such different companies.

I've tried multiple times and failed.

How are you at networking? That's the ticket to real money - and finding the best talent. Have lunch with hedge fund managers. Go to a party where Sequoia Capital's quant jocks play. A degree from Harvard or Stanford isn't about the education so much as the connections. All these guys know each other.

The world would be better with Star Trek's concept of everyone helps eachother.

Sadly, that's not the world we live in. We'd need to cure all the psychological disorders first. Paranoia, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, antisocial personality disorder, depression, narcissism, megalomania, delusions, you name it. Cure them all and we'd have Star Trek.

Now there's a big idea for you.

 

[maverick3n1]

They'd motivate. They'd push. But they'd do it their way, not Elon's way. They wouldn't end up at the same place that Elon has taken his companies. So just as Elon can motivate and push at Twitter to produce a train wreck, so too could Mark or anyone else with money and drive.

I'm focusing on human psychology more than anything else. Each person pushes and motivates according to their particular... idiom. There probably isn't a better illustration of this than Blue Origin and SpaceX. "Step by step ferociously" versus "Move fast and break things". Both are run by fabulously wealthy men who are extremely bright, but they are proceeding along wildly different lines. Jeff motivates and pushes his way, while Elon does things his way. That's why Blue Origin and SpaceX are such different companies.


How are you at networking? That's the ticket to real money - and finding the best talent. Have lunch with hedge fund managers. Go to a party where Sequoia Capital's quant jocks play. A degree from Harvard or Stanford isn't about the education so much as the connections. All these guys know each other.


Sadly, that's not the world we live in. We'd need to cure all the psychological disorders first. Paranoia, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, antisocial personality disorder, depression, narcissism, megalomania, delusions, you name it. Cure them all and we'd have Star Trek.

Now there's a big idea for you.

Wouldn't that be incredible. But as you pointed out, the best direction for anyone to go in is the path that drives them and stimulates them the most mentally. I love tech. I don't know, nor have an interest in chemicals outside of fun fireworks. As much as I'd love to be a healer, the chemistry isn't a draw to me. Technology is. It's why I've been so successful in the industry I'm in. After my business was destroyed by Covid in Cali, I moved out of state to So-Alabama and had no clue just how low the tech level is out here. Took me over a year to find work out here, but finally found it and ironically, making more per hour with this company than I did in Cali! My industry is few and far between out here, but finally found a new home.