Excellent. Thank you for the Norm infusion.
Anyone who thinks Musk bought Twitter because of anything but a grudge is deluded IMO.
Twitter ‘was’ the best place for real time analysis, often from experts, and a place where shade was thrown over the Musk godliness status.
He then didn’t want to but had to. That’s it.
2 Likes
Fair points. I do not want to minimise the suffering of people that have suffered from US actions and policy.
My point was there was no official Final Solution policy as per Nazi Germany.
3 Likes
Clarification noted and accepted.
1 Like
Plenty of self-administered collateral damage on that one, too. My grandfather got a settlement, and then Alzheimers.
The alternate view to this is that Musk likes twitter as a concept, thinks its important to the world, badly managed, and suppressing free speech. He overpaid, bigger bot problem then expected etc meaning inflated user numbers so he tried to back out but couldnt. He cut costs because he thinks it was badly managed and that he can make it more efficient. He continues tweeting because hes always done so and if anything owning twitter means theres more for him to tweet about. A lot of people who were against him buying twitter are now hoping he fails and focusing in on every little mistake, bug etc in hopes of confirming there opinion as correct. I think it will end with Twitter being more profitable and a better social media platform then it was before.
Big acquisitions like this need to be judged over a far longer period.
Right now, $42b seems absolutely ridiculous.
In 15 years time, it might seem like a bargain. Well, maybe not a bargain, but it might at the very least look like good business.
4 Likes
I’m curious as to why you think this, considering as Benny posted earlier, they’ve stopped paying rent at their offices, have seconded SpaceX legal staff after their head of legal (musk’s personal lawyer) quit and have debt repayments of about $1.5B a year
You sound more educated on the Indo China wars than me, but I was under the impression that it was the VC they were bombing in an attempt to cut off supply lines.
It was at the behest of the pro democratic south who was determined to see the communist party lose.(and the Laos who wanted the communists out)
There was no intention to commit genocide on a people like the Nazis or say Pol Pot.
Americas involvement was brought on by the involvement in the Cold War, that is a war on ideology.
A split that still exists in the world today (imho)
1 Like
Mostly because I think Musk is good at what he does, even if hes a bit unorthodox and because I get the impression that it wasn’t being managed particularly well before he took over.
1 Like
Fair enough, I personally think the complete opposite but I definitely understand the other side of the debate. I just cannot see where the platform expects the revenue to actually come from.
Twitter blue is a drop in the pond
Advertising revenue isn’t coming back anytime soon
They can’t do anything with data because of the FTC consent decree
1 Like
I would suggest the sheer scale…
I agree with some of that. I think he genuinely liked Twitter and thought he could run it better. I don’t think it was being run particularly well before he owned it.
Like everything either extreme is wrong and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
1 Like
Musk is taking on an extraordinary amount of risk by gutting the engineering team to cut costs whilst pushing out rapid updates. Companies like this have been having massive data breaches of late. There’s legitimate company ending scenarios that he’s tempting fate with. And not fanciful hypothetical ones, legitimate real disasters that I wouldn’t be surprised to see happen tomorrow.
3 Likes
I reckon it’s more likely to be the mundane that’s a bigger problem in the near term. A lot of focus on the Engineers but I reckon his HR, Tax, Legal and Finance teams all walked out too. Whatch them breach a whole bunch of compliance laws around the world and the fines and directions start piling up.
3 Likes
Of bombs used over largely unpopulated land? (Highlands) Yes.
The biggest problem has been the legacy of the war.(where as you say all those unexploded bombs have caused plentiful deaths afterwards)
But that is no intentional genocide of Laotians. Like the Vietnamese they were split via Communist influence from the Soviets (who “liberated” the country and the monarchs prior)
Pawns in a war on ideology.
That…seems kinda genocidey…
1 Like
Let me put it this way,
On a scale of 0-100, what capability did Laos have the capacity to respond to constant bombing from the US?
Again no. Underlying cause of the war yes. But genocide no.
There was no intention to kill all of the Laos or even north Vietnamese. The military offensives were all about stopping the communists war efforts
Which they couldn’t do in the end, because the yanks and us amongst others weren’t willing to fight a guerilla war.
1 Like