You aren't a prophet schueller. You don't know what will happen in the future. Neither do I. What you can do is reason as effectively as possible with the highest quality information you can obtain.

The information source that you are using isn't high quality. This is obvious, but I'll explain why in more detail.

First off, you are right. Obviously the site intends the meaning that you gave.

Making up a different claim other than the one he said is stupid to do. With just the claim that 2 = 1 you can prove that you are the pope in two steps. The set of you and the pope is two people. 2 = 1, therefore the set of you and the pope is actually one people. Therefore you are the pope. This childish game of choosing what you believe rather than believing what is true is pointless.

Everything is provable, so the entire worldview is justifiable and anyone who can make you angry at something has control of your opinion and you can prove whatever you set out to prove.

For that reason, it is important to understand reality as it is rather than reality as you think it is. You don't get to make up whatever meaning you like for words if you want to be rational. If you are going to assume a meaning, it is wise to choose the most charitable possible reading, because otherwise you aren't grounded in evidence. This isn't just the principal of loving your neighbor as yourself - though it is that too. It goes deeper in a mathematical sense.

If there are two readings, one of which is supported by evidence, but the other isn't, but you choose to read the meaning which isn't supported by the evidence than you are making a calculated decision to use the reading which has less evidence supporting it. Your beliefs aren't justified by evidence. So they aren't rooted in a wellspring of truth.

The site does choose to be ungrounded from the truth. It doesn't choose the most charitable reading of his statement. It restates instead something he didn't say. Something which has less evidence backing it than another reading of what he said which was absolutely true with strong evidence backing the interpretation.

We know that there is a more charitable reading, because he claimed they were working on something and that thing which they claimed to have worked on is shown to exist. Working on something doesn't imply that it becomes massively adopted. If it did, that would imply that most people in all of reality have never worked a day in their life. Someone who spent all of their life in hard labor, according to your definition for what work is, would not have worked even once - they, after all, didn't get mass adoption of whatever it was they worked on.

So the twisting of the words isn't right. It requires distortion. It requires reaching. It isn't as supported by the evidence. It is wrong.

Yet the site chose to use that wrong interpretation. It gave you a source of information about Elon Musk, but it gave you one which wasn't rooted in the evidence. It wasn't written for your reason, but for your emotion. It is intended to provoke emotion, which is why it reads like it does. It isn't intended to be read rationally, because wisdom despises lies.

In forming your opinions atop this information source, you're not thinking based on the evidence, but based on emotion. It doesn't matter how clever you are - and I'm sure you're clever. The information you're using is faulty. It may lead you to correct conclusions despite itself, but it doesn't have a strong logical justification for doing so.

Therefore, the information source is quite obviously one you should disavow and avoid if your goal is to make good and profitable decisions.

Keep in mind, this doesn't mean you are wrong. You could be right - it just won't be because of the information source you used, which is quit soundly refuted.