GM! 🌅☕️🥓🍳💰📈⚡️🚀
For those who appreciate risk analysis and application, here are some considerations I found on X this morning, with which I identify. All credit goes to the author. Tks Brivael!
Since the PayPal days, Peter Thiel has been intrigued by something about Elon Musk.
His words: "He knows something about risk that we don't. It's hard to articulate. I don't even know if he can articulate it himself."
Today, I'm going to try to connect three things: Young's double-slit experiment, the multiverse, and Elon's relationship with risk.
And why he always wins.
Thiel's reasoning is simple.
2000s: Elon launches Tesla AND SpaceX at the same time.
Silicon Valley wisdom → two completely idiotic bets.
If only ONE had worked, we would have called it "luck."
Both blew up.
Statistically, that's almost impossible.
So, either we're all very risk-averse, or Elon knows something.
Here's that something, in my opinion.
Most people bet on ONLY ONE line. One life, one plan, one trajectory. And they optimize to avoid losing on that line.
The result: they spend their lives protecting themselves, covering all bases.
Elon doesn't play on a single line. He plays the entire tree.
He stacks convex bets—losing little, winning infinitely—in parallel.
He knows that if ONE branch breaks, everything else becomes noise.
It's Young's double-slit wave. As long as you haven't collapsed, you're everywhere at once.
And that's where philosophy becomes everything. Because there's a right way and a wrong way to take maximum risk.
The distinction isn't "to control or not to control."
You can aim, plan, hallucinate with your branch—that's controlling YOUR OWN wave.
Completely.
The poison is wanting to control others.
Because every human being is, in themselves, an observer.
A wave.
A consciousness with its own free will, collapsing its own reality.
When you try to control another consciousness, you are trying to collapse its wave in its own place, from the outside in.
And that is the most costly thing in the universe: you are fighting against free agents, each optimizing their own tree. Resistance, friction, decoherence. Pure overload.
This is precisely the problem of Hayek and Mises.
No central planner can aggregate or direct the distributed knowledge of millions of free minds.
Bureaucracy is literally that: collapsing other people's waves in their own place.
It fails mechanically. (See yesterday: rigidity → disconnection.)
Elon Musk's model is the opposite. He doesn't control anyone. He defines a mission, a direction, a bold goal to be achieved—and lets each free consciousness collapse its own wave towards the common branch. Agents with maximum autonomy, not coerced executors.
You don't align people by forcing them. You align them by giving them such a beautiful branch that they choose to extend their own will toward it.
And then, "pro-human" ceases to be morality.
Recognizing that others are free consciousnesses—therefore, never trying to control them—is also the least costly strategy there is.
Freedom is not just a value.
It's the most efficient architecture in the universe.
Controlling others is a technical debt to reality.
Putting it all together:
→ Maximum risk: you're gambling with the whole tree.
→ Zero control over others: you don't collapse your waves, therefore zero cost, maximum optionality.
→ Pro-human: your branches are aligned with the direction of history, so they are propelled forward instead of being contained.
A guy who does this isn't lucky. He's structurally doomed to win eventually. Not always.
But on the scale of the tree—always.
That's what Thiel senses, though he can't name it.
Elon doesn't "take risks." He simply stopped playing a single-line game in a universe containing an infinite number of lines.
"You should never bet against Elon," says Thiel.
Obviously.
You don't bet against someone who's playing on all fronts at once while you're only watching one, with a noose around your neck.
The real question was never about betting on Elon.
It's about becoming the kind of player you don't bet against.
