It's not based on the comment I replied to.
Musk is making a claim about DOGE - the savings. Comment is saying he's not credible.
I'm saying Musk made claims about Tesla (creating a successful e-car company), Starlink (creating a constellation of satellites for internet globally), SpaceX (land a massive booster). And these were not small claims, they had a high probability of failure and I'd argue most people thought he would fail.
Yet he delivered on all of them. Delivering on one would be amazing, yet alone three massive advances in technology.
So Musk makes a claim about an agency he's helping run and the comment I replied to says "why isn't the default to assume Musk is not credible or constructive"?
I think you can see the ridiculousness in that comment and how my argument is not a non-sequitur.
You're loading up my comment with things I did not say or reference.
Just look at the plain meaning of the words I'm using. They refer to what comes out of his mouth, that's all.
If what you are saying is - "my comment did not accurately reflect what I was trying to say" then ok, but I can only go by what you write. I can't read your mind.
Each of these are neat.
Each of these has had complete bullshit claims attached. Mars mission by 2016; “full self driving” and robotaxis and summoning the car from LA to NYC.
He’s a fabulist. Sometimes that’s good. Often it isn’t.