Sam Bankman-Fried, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg

Poll of the Day

Poll of the Day » Sam Bankman-Fried, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg
I thought about these 3 guys recently and did a bit of research on them.

It turns out Musk wasn't a founded of "PayPal", or "Tesla" and he really hasn't delivered on his promise with SpaceX and well he severely overpaid when he purchased Twitter for $44B because his annual loan payments are said to be around $1.4B dollars. To date from Government subsidies/contracts etc between Tesla and SpaceX, Musk has raked in over $2 trillion of taxpayer money to fund his projects and what has he delivered for that free money.

SBF was basically running a crypto Ponzi Scheme until he couldn't pay investors when they wanted their money.

Zuckerberg spent roughly $36B on what he calls the "MetaVerse" and nobody uses yet he laid off over 11,000 people and FaceBook is now a shell of its former self and we now know he made his money hoarding and selling people's personal information without their consent.
SpankageBros
There aren't many billionaires, if any, that didn't achieve that status without both being intelligent and cheating others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiCtAUrZbUk
-- Defeating the Running Man of Ocarina of Time in a race since 01/17/2009. --
faramir77 posted...
There aren't many billionaires, if any, that didn't achieve that status without both being intelligent and cheating others.
And, more often than not, wealthy parents
OhhhJa posted...
And, more often than not, wealthy parents
For ever person who grew their generational wealth, there are just as many who squandered it all away. They just aren't talked about as much since you can't easily hate them.

So yea, there is some base level intelligence there.
My bookshelf: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/152760030
Comics: https://leagueofcomicgeeks.com/profile/dikitain
Dikitain posted...
For ever person who grew their generational wealth, there are just as many who squandered it all away. They just aren't talked about as much since you can't easily hate them.

So yea, there is some base level intelligence there.
Which is why I said "and" ... because what most billionaires have in common is starting from wealth. Base level intelligence isn't enough for most of us to become billionaires and I'm not gonna praise them just because they didn't squander all of daddy's wealth, especially when many are just handed taxpayer money for their pet projects and bailed out when everything goes wrong
To be fair, Zuckerberg actually did things, and is intelligent. Just not a great person. I would rank Sam and Elon as far worse people and much more fraudulent.
girls like my fa
BUMPED2002 posted...
I thought about these 3 guys recently and did a bit of research on them.

It turns out Musk wasn't a founded of "PayPal", or "Tesla" and he really hasn't delivered on his promise with SpaceX and well he severely overpaid when he purchased Twitter for $44B because his annual loan payments are said to be around $1.4B dollars. To date from Government subsidies/contracts etc between Tesla and SpaceX, Musk has raked in over $2 trillion of taxpayer money to fund his projects and what has he delivered for that free money.

SBF was basically running a crypto Ponzi Scheme until he couldn't pay investors when they wanted their money.

Zuckerberg spent roughly $36B on what he calls the "MetaVerse" and nobody uses yet he laid off over 11,000 people and FaceBook is now a shell of its former self and we now know he made his money hoarding and selling people's personal information without their consent.
https://youtu.be/c-FGwDDc-s8
girls like my fa
BUMPED2002 posted...
Are these guys geniuses or frauds?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

It takes a lot of cleverness to be an effective con-artist.
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
faramir77 posted...
There aren't many billionaires, if any, that didn't achieve that status without both being intelligent and cheating others.
If intelligence was a prerequisite to being ultra-wealthy, we would expect to see the ranks of billionaires dominated by scientists, researchers, and other fields that attract the intelligent. But that's not what we see at all - instead, we get some guys who are smart (Bill Gates seems to fit the mould), some who are of average intelligence, and some who are objectively dumb as fenceposts (like Trump - Musk also seems to be in that vein, though I'm currently undecided if he's legitimately stupid or just has terrible impulse control and an inability to consider the viewpoints of others).

Intelligence is not strongly correlated with extreme wealth; sociopathy and generational wealth remain the best predictors of who's going to be a billionaire.
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
Dikitain posted...
For ever person who grew their generational wealth, there are just as many who squandered it all away.
So?

This just strikes me as reverse-survivorship bias. If 1% of people with generational wealth translate it into billions and 99% piss it away, that still might mean it's the best predictor of extreme wealth if only 0.00001% of people without generational wealth become billionaires.

The fact that some people with "Trait X" do not display "Outcome Y" does not mean that Trait X is not positively correlated with and/or a predictor of Outcome Y.
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
darkknight109 posted...
So?

This just strikes me as reverse-survivorship bias. If 1% of people with generational wealth translate it into billions and 99% piss it away, that still might mean it's the best predictor of extreme wealth if only 0.00001% of people without generational wealth become billionaires.

The fact that some people with "Trait X" do not display "Outcome Y" does not mean that Trait X is not positively correlated with and/or a predictor of Outcome Y.

Which isn't even close to true.

I won't go through all of them but here are the top 10 billionaries:

  1. Elon Musk - Came from money
  2. Jeff Bezos - Grew up poor/middle class
  3. Bernard Arnault - Came from money
  4. Mark Zuckerberg - Grew up middle class
  5. Larry Ellison - Grew up poor/middle class
  6. Larry Page - Came from money
  7. Sergey Brin - Debatable, since his family where Soviet refugees. However, both parents became very successful.
  8. Bill Gates - Came from money
  9. Steve Ballmer - Grew up poor
  10. Warren Buffett - Came from money


So like 50-60% are generational wealth? Which doesn't even account for the fact that some of those "Came from money" people (I.E. Bill Gates) came from parents that were barely millionaires at best.

My bookshelf: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/152760030
Comics: https://leagueofcomicgeeks.com/profile/dikitain
You don't anything about jeff bezos if you believe he grew up poor. "In 1995, Jacklyn and Miguel gave Jeff a loan of US$245,573 to start Amazon.com." if that's growing up poor then I may as well have grown up under a bridge
Also, mark zuckerberg had doctors as parents, went to prep school, grew up in a very affluent suburb in NY, and received a 100k loan from his father to start his business. He also had a safety net to be able to drop out of Harvard lmao. Why do people feel the need to stan for billionaires so hard?

And conspiracy time... many of the early board members of Facebook were CIA-connected and darpa had a project very similar to Facebook called lifelog that was shut down roughly the same time Facebook launched. Anyway, my point is that on top of generally growing up wealthy these billionaires often times are hand picked and propped up by people in government agencies and other billionaires so they literally can't fail

Also, just looked up steve ballmer to find out he also grew up in an affluent neighborhood lol. The only one from your list who seems to have grown up middle class or below is Ellison
It might be different in places like california, but making over 100k a year ain't middle class.
OhhhJa posted...
You don't know anything about jeff bezos if you believe he grew up poor. "In 1995, Jacklyn and Miguel gave Jeff a loan of US$245,573 to start Amazon.com." if that's growing up poor then I may as well have grown up under a bridge

Anybody can get a loan for $250K. Hell, my mom got a loan for $150K and never made above minimum wage her entire life (which is the main reason I never became executor of her estate when she died because no way in hell was I going to pay that back).

Plus, you think turning $250K into almost a trillion is "Generational Wealth"? LOL!

BlackScythe0 posted...
It might be different in places like california, but making over 100k a year ain't middle class.

Officially, middle class is between $50K and $150K a year. Anything over $100K is considered "Upper middle class", but still middle class.
My bookshelf: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/152760030
Comics: https://leagueofcomicgeeks.com/profile/dikitain
Dikitain posted...
Anybody can get a loan for $250K.
No "anyone" can't do that lol. Most people cant. Most cant even get a house loan for that. You have to have decent income and usually more than one person on the loan lol. Also, it was from his parents/caregivers, not a bank. Most people don't have access to interest free 250k loans from their parents

Dikitain posted...
Plus, you think turning $250K into almost a trillion is "Generational Wealth"? LOL!
I never used the term "generational wealth." I said wealth buddy
OhhhJa posted...
No "anyone" can't do that lol. Most people cant. Most cant even get a house loan for that. You have to have decent income and usually more than one person on the loan lol. Also, it was from his parents/caregivers, not a bank. Most people don't have access to interest free 250k loans from their parents

Yes, anyone can. I bet you could go to a bank today and get it. Plus, I was more talking about his upbringing. His mom had him when she was 17, his father basically had to give up custody of him, he got into college strictly on scholarships (didn't pay his way in) and his step-father didn't even start making actual money until after Jeff had long since started working at Bell Labs. Focusing on a loan he got in his 30's from his parents when he didn't have any money until them is disingenuous at best.



I never used the term "generational wealth." I said wealth buddy

So then we aren't talking about the same thing.

My bookshelf: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/152760030
Comics: https://leagueofcomicgeeks.com/profile/dikitain
like I said, Zuckerberg can suck a golfball through a hose, but he arguably did a lot more to create Facebook than Musk ever did for Paypal or Tesla. He can actually code/write software unlike Musk. I am not saying he's a good person nor am I saying that he didn't lift ideas. But he did far more work than Musk ever has. Regardless of generational wealth, which can be heavily criticized on its own.
girls like my fa
Dikitain posted...
Which isn't even close to true.
...he says before immediately proving me right.

Tell me, how much of the general population do you think "comes from money"? Because I can tell you right now it's a lot less than 50%-60%.

Dikitain posted...
Which doesn't even account for the fact that some of those "Came from money" people (I.E. Bill Gates) came from parents that were barely millionaires at best.
"Barely" millionaires? Oh, the horror.

Apparently being a millionaire in the 50s is just pocket change now.
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
genuinely disappointed this isn't a fuck/marry/kill topic
https://imgur.com/LabbRyN
raytan and Kana are on opposite ends of the Awesome Spectrum.
Dikitain posted...
Yes, anyone can. I bet you could go to a bank today and get it
I know people who have gotten rejected for much less. Not anyone can get it. They aren't just handing out 250k loans to anyone lol

Dikitain posted...
Plus, I was more talking about his upbringing. His mom had him when she was 17, his father basically had to give up custody of him, he got into college strictly on scholarships (didn't pay his way in) and his step-father didn't even start making actual money until after Jeff had long since started working at Bell Labs. Focusing on a loan he got in his 30's from his parents when he didn't have any money until them is disingenuous at best.

"Jeff Bezos did not come from money in the sense that George Bush or Gloria Vanderbilt did. But it is true that his family was financially quite well off compared to the average American household.
On his mother's side, Bezos's grandfather was a leading government scientist before retiring and buying a 25,000 acre cattle ranch. That shows a level of wealth beyond most Americans.
Bezos's mother divorced his father and remarried a Cuban immigrant when Bezos was four. Bezos took his adopted father's last name. The elder Bezos was a self made man who worked as an engineer and in management for Exxon Mobil for decades. That puts him squarely in middle-upper class, and we know this because he had $300K to spare when Jeff came looking for a loan to start Amazon in 1994, a venture that Jeff told him at the time had a 70% chance of failure. That is to say, Mike Bezos felt comfortable parting with what today would be $500,000 despite being warned he might never see it again. Mike wasn't wealthy, but anyone who can comfortably weather the loss of $500K is doing quite well."

Why are you so determined to paint this man as growing up poor? lol

Don't know about Sam but Mark is legit smart. And Elmo is a fucking dumbass.
What would Bligh do?
Zareth posted...
Don't know about Sam but Mark is legit smart. And Elmo is a fucking dumbass.

SBF was a crypto scammer, I honestly don't know why he is being put on the same level as these two. People "should" have known better since all crypto are scams, but even if you have negative thoughts about Musk or Zuckerberg they didn't directly and intentionally rob people the way SBF did. He got a 25 year sentence.
Oh he's a tech bro then. All tech bros are grifters with no talent, always hoping the next big thing will make them money without effort.
What would Bligh do?
SBF was convicted for fraud (or something along those lines)
http://cdn-android.apptap.com/img/870/mobi.colortrilogy.bitlink/267135850.png
https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/10/5/uv4r7nGyrE6ylt2lHGWpiQ2.gif
[deleted]
darkknight109 posted...
...he says before immediately proving me right.

Tell me, how much of the general population do you think "comes from money"? Because I can tell you right now it's a lot less than 50%-60%.

But 50-60% is way more then the .0000001% you threw out.

We aren't talking about the general population, we are talking about billionares. No one with half a brain is going to argue that it takes an initial investment to grow money. I am just arguing that the idea that every billionare being the Waltons or Bloombergs is just flat out wrong. The top billionares nowadays didn't even have parents that registered in the top 100 30-40 years ago so saying that all but .000000001% is generational wealth is flat out wrong.

"Barely" millionaires? Oh, the horror.

Apparently being a millionaire in the 50s is just pocket change now.

Considering most billionares have enough money to buy all but the wealthiest of countries, it kind of is.
My bookshelf: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/152760030
Comics: https://leagueofcomicgeeks.com/profile/dikitain
OhhhJa posted...
Why are you so determined to paint this man as growing up poor? lol

Because, comparatively, he did. People's perception of money is so out of wack that they think going into debt to help your child out with his dream is "being rich". No, that is called being a parent.

It doesn't even go into the fact that the money he was given was for a stake in the company. So it wasn't a "loan", it was an investment.
My bookshelf: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/152760030
Comics: https://leagueofcomicgeeks.com/profile/dikitain
Dikitain posted...
Because, comparatively, he did. People's perception of money is so out of wack that they think going into debt to help your child out with his dream is "being rich". No, that is called being a parent.
Dude got what is equivalent to half a mil today gifted to him. That is RICH. And yeah, that's awesome that his stepfather was able to help him like that. That is a great AND very wealthy dad. The vast majority of people can barely imagine a level of wealth like that
Dikitain posted...
Anybody can get a loan for $250K.

Will you loan me $250k, interest-free?
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
Dikitain posted...
Because, comparatively, he did. People's perception of money is so out of wack that they think going into debt to help your child out with his dream is "being rich". No, that is called being a parent.

It doesn't even go into the fact that the money he was given was for a stake in the company. So it wasn't a "loan", it was an investment.
not if we compare him to me lol
girls like my fa
Most of society is fraudulent including those considered heroes and pioneers.
"I don't question our existence, I just question our modern needs" Pearl Jam - Garden
My theme song - https://youtu.be/-PXIbVNfj3s
Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg are enemies in my DND game Or I should say 2 of the enemies are based off of them But by a lot
Currently Playing - Persona 5 Royal (PS5)
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm the LinkPizza you'll see around
ReturnOfFa posted...
not if we compare him to me lol
Yeah, only if we compare him to Bill gates, Trump, or the bushes basically lol
Dikitain posted...
But 50-60% is way more then the .0000001% you threw out.

We aren't talking about the general population, we are talking about billionares.
Re-read the sentence you got that number from and maybe you'll understand why what you're saying makes zero sense.

Dikitain posted...
I am just arguing that the idea that every billionare being the Waltons or Bloombergs is just flat out wrong.
And no one has said otherwise.

Dikitain posted...
The top billionares nowadays didn't even have parents that registered in the top 100 30-40 years ago so saying that all but .000000001% is generational wealth is flat out wrong.
And, as above, no one said this either.

Seriously, read my posts before responding to them please. This is just kind of sad.
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
darkknight109 posted...
Seriously, read my posts before responding to them please. This is just kind of sad.

You said:

" that still might mean it's the best predictor of extreme wealth if only 0.00001% of people without generational wealth become billionaires."

My argument is that it, given there are around 3000 billionaires in the world today, that would mean that only .0000003 people who are billionaires don't come from generational wealth. So even providing ONE person disproves your statement. I provided 4-5.

Unless your definition of generational wealth is (maybe) parents having a bank account your statement is flat out wrong.
My bookshelf: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/152760030
Comics: https://leagueofcomicgeeks.com/profile/dikitain
Dikitain posted...
You said:

" that still might mean it's the best predictor of extreme wealth if only 0.00001% of people without generational wealth become billionaires."

The first half of the sentence that you left out provides some critical context to that. Let's use a different example with different numbers:

Smokers have a ~26% chance of developing lung cancer by age 80.
Non-smokers have a ~1% chance of developing lung cancer by age 80.

For every smoker that gets lung cancer, there are three that don't. Does that mean smoking isn't one of the best predictors for lung cancer? Of course not, because the rate is 25 times higher than for non-smokers and significantly higher than most other risk factors.

Similarly, even if only 1% of people who come from generational wealth end up as billionaires, if no factor other than generational wealth comes close to producing billionaires at a 1% rate, that means generational wealth is the best predictor. He used hypothetical numbers to illustrate this, and was actually considerably more generous with those numbers than the 50% figure you gave ("for every one that does, one doesn't").

Dikitain posted...
My argument is that it, given there are around 3000 billionaires in the world today, that would mean that only .0000003 people who are billionaires don't come from generational wealth. So even providing ONE person disproves your statement. I provided 4-5.

You've flipped your fractions. You need to multiply the 0.00001% (or whatever) figure by the number of people in the world that don't come from generational wealth, not by the number of billionaires. You've suggested that 50-60% of billionaires don't, which means ~1500-1700, divided by the number of people in the world who don't to give the actual rate (and, again, dark's figure is a hypothetical one to illustrate what it actually means to be the "best predictor," not something he's presenting as statistical gospel). Then, for comparison, divide the remaining 1300-1500 by the number of people who do come from generational wealth so you can compare the two rates. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that answer #2 is going to be just a teensy bit bigger than answer #1.

Dikitain posted...
Unless your definition of generational wealth is (maybe) parents having a bank account your statement is flat out wrong.

There's a very substantial amount of middle ground between "have a bank account" and "can invest $500k without risking complete financial ruin." The term "generational wealth" gets muddied a bit, and you're correct that it's not entirely accurate to say that somebody whose parents were able to offer a significant initial investment/safety net for them when they started out "comes from generational wealth," but it is accurate to say that they have a significantly wealthier background than the vast majority of people. If it makes you feel better, you can just mentally sub "parental" for "generational" in "sociopathy and generational wealth are the best predictors of who's going to be a billionaire." It'll get the same point across, without getting bogged down by the question of where the cutoff is for "generational wealth."
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
Dikitain posted...
You said:

" that still might mean it's the best predictor of extreme wealth if only 0.00001% of people without generational wealth become billionaires."

My argument is that it, given there are around 3000 billionaires in the world today, that would mean that only .0000003 people who are billionaires don't come from generational wealth. So even providing ONE person disproves your statement. I provided 4-5.

Unless your definition of generational wealth is (maybe) parents having a bank account your statement is flat out wrong.
It seems that your definition of generational wealth is being a multi billionaire or else you're poor lol
OhhhJa posted...
It seems that your definition of generational wealth is being a multi billionaire or else you're poor lol
More so multi-millionaire. At that point I think you are setting up future generations for success rather than trying to secure your own retirement. If the argument is that it is easier to become a billionaire if your parents where multi-millionares, then I agree 100%.

I am just saying it isn't the only way.
My bookshelf: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/152760030
Comics: https://leagueofcomicgeeks.com/profile/dikitain
Dikitain posted...
I am just saying it isn't the only way.

"The best predictor of *outcome*" doesn't mean "the only way to achieve *outcome*."
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
adjl posted...
"The best predictor of *outcome*" doesn't mean "the only way to achieve *outcome*."
Again, that part I agree with. Which is why I never quoted it or responded to it

My issue is the "only .0000001% of billionaires do not come from generational wealth" statement. That completely contradicts the statement.
My bookshelf: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/152760030
Comics: https://leagueofcomicgeeks.com/profile/dikitain
Dikitain posted...
You said:

" that still might mean it's the best predictor of extreme wealth if only 0.00001% of people without generational wealth become billionaires."

My argument is that it, given there are around 3000 billionaires in the world today, that would mean that only .0000003 people who are billionaires don't come from generational wealth. So even providing ONE person disproves your statement. I provided 4-5.
What I said: "if 0.00001% of people without generational wealth become billionaires"

What you think I said: "if 0.00001% of billionaires did not come from generational wealth"

Those are two very different statements. Seriously, why do you need this explained to you? The original statement is not unclear. I pointed it out to you, adjl explained it to you in detail, and you're *still* getting it wrong.
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
darkknight109 posted...
What I said: "if 0.00001% of people without generational wealth become billionaires"

What you think I said: "if 0.00001% of billionaires did not come from generational wealth"

Those are two very different statements. Seriously, why do you need this explained to you? The original statement is not unclear. I pointed it out to you, adjl explained it to you in detail, and you're *still* getting it wrong.

Here, I'll spell it out in greater detail and with a less hypothetical number. If we assume the estimate of 50% of billionaires not coming from generational wealth is correct and that 99.9% of people in the world do not come from generational wealth:

50% of 3000 billionaires = 1500 billionaires that do not come from generational wealth
99.9% of 8 billion people = 7.992e9 people that do not come from generational wealth
1500/7.992e9 = 1.88e-7 = 0.0000188% of people that do not come from generational wealth have become billionaires

By comparison:
1500 billionaires come from generational wealth
8 million people come from generational wealth
1500/8e6 = 0.0188% of people that come from generational wealth have become billionaires

Those who come from generational wealth are 1000 times more likely than those who do not to become billionaires, therefore generational wealth is a strong predictor for whether or not somebody becomes a billionaire.

Now, there is some subjectivity in using the term "strong predictor." 2 in 10,000 isn't exactly a high success rate (pretending for a moment that these are real numbers and not simplified estimates), and I think that's what you're getting hung up on. If you compare that to other potential predictive factors, however, and it yields the highest correlation, that makes it the strongest predictor. Remember that when you're using comparative/superlative adjectives like "stronger" or "strongest," nothing involved actually has to be "strong." Between distilled water, vinegar, and lemon juice, water is the strongest base, which does not mean it's a strong base.
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
adjl posted...
If we assume the estimate of 50% of billionaires not coming from generational wealth is correct and that 99.9% of people in the world do not come from generational wealth:
I know you're doing it strictly for hypothetical purposes but it's definitely closer to about 90% than 50% lol
adjl posted...
Remember that when you're using comparative/superlative adjectives like "stronger" or "strongest," nothing involved actually has to be "strong."
Agreed - and, noting my original post where those numbers come from (Post 10), I did allude to this:

darkknight109 posted...
This just strikes me as reverse-survivorship bias. If 1% of people with generational wealth translate it into billions and 99% piss it away, that still might mean it's the best predictor of extreme wealth if only 0.00001% of people without generational wealth become billionaires.

The fact that some people with "Trait X" do not display "Outcome Y" does not mean that Trait X is not positively correlated with and/or a predictor of Outcome Y.
And it's also worth noting, for Diktain's benefit, that * this entire post was entirely hypothetical* . That 1% and 0.00001% number weren't what I was saying were the actual numbers of people with/without generational wealth who become billionaires, it was me throwing a pair of numbers out there to demonstrate a point about statistics and predictors.
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
OhhhJa posted...
I know you're doing it strictly for hypothetical purposes but it's definitely closer to about 90% than 50% lol

I'm using his numbers to make the hypothetical more relatable. That his numbers come entirely from the top 10 and are based on a more restrictive interpretation of "generational wealth" than any of us seem to care to use does indeed call them into question.
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
Frauds.
Donald J. Trump--proof against government intelligence.
Poll of the Day » Sam Bankman-Fried, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg