You just spent 4 posts telling me about how Twitter didn’t have enough engineers to keep the lights on. If you think they are going to be solvent in 3 months then clearly they have enough engineering talent. Make up your mind. Do they have enough engineering talent or not? Because if you think they do, then what are you even getting on about?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Elon & Twitter
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
- Status
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
This guy already cited it for me:
Elon & Twitter
I had little to do with Twitter until the war in Ukraine broke out. After a few weeks of exploring conventional news, I found the highest quality news about the war was coming from Twitter. There is a lot of garbage about the war on Twitter too, but I sought out the quality sources and I've been...
teslamotorsclub.com
Elon sold SPECIFICALLY for Twitter (not the purchase, the continued operations).
Actually this Tweet from Elon covers the major problem:-
The other issue is, misleading information which can be covered by fact checking.
I understand Elon's point of view :-
- Hide negative/hate speech, but don't ban it.
- Allow Freedom of speech, but fact check it.
- Hope that respectful debate changes some opinions.
Still I don't think him being reinstated will be a disaster,
IMO political opinions in the US are more locked in than most other countries of the world, Trump being on Twitter, or not being on Twitter, will not change the way many Americans vote. It will give lazy journalists and easy way to stir up public emotions.
I've seen this recently on TMC, even intelligent people here can be steered in bad directions by emotions, resulting in a loss of rationality.
Emotion is the enemy of rational thought.
We don't need Americans thinking more emotionally and less rationally. We don't need America divided, and fighting amongst yourselves. America's contribution to the world is more important than one man's ego.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
I literally did not.
Is it that you didn't READ any of my actual words?
Or that you didn't UNDERSTAND any of my actual words?
Or that you just reflexively replace ANY argument critical of Elon in ANY way with an imaginary one you made up?
One more time- if you can't argue honestly, maybe don't argue?
Dude.
Speak for yourself. I made a pretty clear point and you’ve done nothing but push back on it based on your preconceived notions.
Taking a break from your nonsense.
BitJam
Active Member
Thanks but that does not seem to support your claims/implications. Paying off high interest loans (that Musk was originally planning to pay off slowly with revenue) would help with continued operations. When Musk says things that are vague or open to interpretation, you have to be very careful about how you interpret them. Again I ask, do you really think Elon sold all that TSLA just so he could sock the money away in a bank account somewhere?This guy already cited it for me:
Elon & Twitter
I had little to do with Twitter until the war in Ukraine broke out. After a few weeks of exploring conventional news, I found the highest quality news about the war was coming from Twitter. There is a lot of garbage about the war on Twitter too, but I sought out the quality sources and I've been...
Elon sold SPECIFICALLY for Twitter (not the purchase, the continued operations).
For example, if Musk wanted $400M/month for operating expenses, wouldn't it make more sense to sell $400M of TSLA per month rather than selling $4B all at once? What's he going to do with the extra $3.6B other than invest it back in TSLA? Selling and putting the money in the bank only makes sense for someone who feels really bearish about Tesla.
JSML
Member
Doesn't DAU stand for daily active users? If you are reading the site then that counts too. If not, then not. Eyeballs are still valuable.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Believe what you want, but Elon (by law) can't just buy and sell Tesla stock on a whim. There are defined trading periods that he must adhere to, and windows he simply cannot buy or sell stock, period, no exceptions. If Twitter needs an emergency cash infusion, he would be up a pickle.
But hey, if you aren't going to be believe his plain-spoken words about this, who cares. You know best.
Last edited:
I don't know how they'd even make money on me though. I never see ads when I read tweets or threads. And I am never logged in when I do.
Forgive a small nitpick.
There are a couple exceptions. For example he could leave instructions with his broker to sell given some criteria. Or schedule stock sales. For example he could sell 1000 shares every Tuesday if he wanted to.
Need to be exceptionally careful with that because it is an instant red flag and a quick way to get regulator attention, but it is definitely possible.
Selling to get cash to prop up Twitter? Not so much.
/pedant
The most surprising thing about this thread, and I say this as a long time member of this site who has watched the "Elon Musk" thread forever, is that people really seem to think they "know" what Elon thinks or wants or intends at every turn. I see an inordinate number of posts talking about "Elon will" or "Elon believes" or whatever. I'd multi quote them but it would feel a little ad hominem. I just don't know if any of us really has that insight. Really, the posts should be "it seems like Elon.." or "I suspect Elon.." if we're all trying to be honest. And it softens the rhetoric quite a bit because it doesn't feel so cocksure.
Musk builds his businesses all in a similar way. There is a similar culture at all his companies and that translates into the type of people he attracts and repels.
Look long and hard at what SpaceX, Tesla, and Boring Company have in common and there is a pretty fair chance that’s a good glance at what Twitter will end up like.
Maybe not a great response to your question. But personally I think this is the only really super predictable thing about Musk. That and memes.
Someone who believes Musk may have a good investment:
"Wu: I will say, on the upside, what Musk has accomplished so far at Tesla and SpaceX is really unbelievable and impressive and really special, as far as his generation of business leaders in terms of the amount of scale and resources needed to mass-produce electric cars and build commercial spaceships. It’s unfathomable, and he actually got there. The challenge now is that Musk has never been held to a benchmark of actually being profitable.
Nyce: Isn’t profitability pretty important if you’re a business executive?
Wu: We think about growth and profitability separately. When you’re in the growth phase of the business, investors value you on growth, and you can justify growing without thinking about profitability. At some point, inevitably, any business has to shift to thinking about profitability. And we don’t know yet if that’s within Musk’s skill set"
The Harvard Business School Professor Who Isn’t Counting Elon Musk Out
"Wu: I will say, on the upside, what Musk has accomplished so far at Tesla and SpaceX is really unbelievable and impressive and really special, as far as his generation of business leaders in terms of the amount of scale and resources needed to mass-produce electric cars and build commercial spaceships. It’s unfathomable, and he actually got there. The challenge now is that Musk has never been held to a benchmark of actually being profitable.
Nyce: Isn’t profitability pretty important if you’re a business executive?
Wu: We think about growth and profitability separately. When you’re in the growth phase of the business, investors value you on growth, and you can justify growing without thinking about profitability. At some point, inevitably, any business has to shift to thinking about profitability. And we don’t know yet if that’s within Musk’s skill set"
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
The point appears to be you either didn't read, didn't understand, or just chose to make up counter-factual narratives about what I actually said.
Which, while clear, is pretty awful as a "point"
And when repeatedly called out on you claiming things literally the opposite of my actual words you had no reply but to double down on the dishonesty.
And I'm hardly the only one in the thread you've done it too either- repeatedly insisting others provide "evidence" of the half-misquoted things you imagine they said, while refusing all calls to support a single thing you yourself claim.
This is factually untrue of course.
A 10b5-1 plan would allow him to pre-plan sales for ANY period, even periods he otherwise would not be allowed to sell during without one. So it literally IS an exception to your "no exceptions" idea.
How useful that might be for twitter might vary depending on the expected need for funds and the conditions he sets in the plan- but it's a thing he could do.
Last edited:
What are they talking about? Tesla is wildly profitable. The fact that they don't know that is pretty lame.
ZenRockGarden
Active Member
Agreed there it is, the moderate centrist insurrectionism which Twitter had been suppressing
Read on then
Completely wrong. Air Force only invested $500M each into Boeing and LM for developing EELVs, Boeing spent more than $1.5B to develop Delta IV, and Lockheed Martin also spent about a billion dollars of their own money developing Atlas V, now tell me again how spending $1B of their own money vs $500M from the government equals to "nearly all the development was done with government funding" as you claimed.
And as I said before, while Falcon 1 was developed with private funding, Falcon 9 was developed partially with NASA funding, and Falcon 9 is what made SpaceX successful, how can Falcon 1 invented a commercial industry when it's retired after just 5 launches with 3 failures?
Wrong again, here's a list of GEO commsat orders every year, now count how many orders there're for 2003, in what dictionary does 24 equals "a handful"?
Already showed this to be wrong for EELV, which is a public private partnership where government and Boeing/LM both invest in the project, and in fact Boeing/LM invested more. The same public private partnership model funded Falcon 9, the rocket made SpaceX successful, so there is really no distinction here.
Nope, that's just you lacking fundamental understanding of the launch industry.
As I said, by this logic Falcon 9 is not a commercial rocket either, since SpaceX took NASA funding when developing Falcon 9 and Dragon for COTS.
That's not at all the point, SpaceX is far ahead mainly because Elon sets super ambitious goals and his employees worked very very hard to reach these goals. Has nothing to do with whether SpaceX took government/military development money or not, SpaceX took plenty of government money for development, Falcon 9/Dragon 1 is just a start, they also took about $1.8B to develop Crew Dragon, and now NASA awarded them $4B to develop Starship into a lunar lander.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about, read some articles about how EELV worked before trying to lecture me.
EELV is a public private partnership, which by definition means private companies need to have skin in the game, and in this case billions of dollars worth of skin. The same public private partnership model funded Falcon 9.
Again what you failed to realize is that SpaceX took plenty of government money for DEVELOPMENT, this include Falcon 9, their most successful product.
"Also the first privately developed spacecraft to put a commercial satellite in orbit" makes no sense, you're confusing launch vehicles with "spacecraft", launch vehicle is the rocket that launches things to orbit, spacecraft is thing (also called "payload") that gets launched into orbit (usually satellites).
Except Falcon 1 did not start an industry, it retired after 5 launches. Falcon 9 is what made SpaceX successful, and that was funded partially via government money, no different from Atlas V and Delta IV.
As for Pegasus using NASA B-52, so what? SpaceX also rented government facilities to launch their rocket, Falcon 1 was going to use SLC-3W inside Vandenberg AFB, later they moved to Kwajalein Atoll but still relies on Reagan Test Site for range. In fact pretty much all of their launches use government pad and range facilities, the only exception is Boca Chica where they run their own range.
Completely wrong, Elon didn't start a new industry, he entered an existing launch industry, literally said here: "Some launch market analysts, however, questioned the business viability of any firm seeking to enter a meager commercial market already crowded with low-cost Russian rockets."
Falcon 1 was originally going to compete with Pegasus, but that was never Elon's endgame, that's just the first step, a training wheel. Since the start of the SpaceX it's always his intention to build bigger launch vehicles which will compete directly with established players such as Arianespace, Boeing/LM and the Russians. And like I said, claiming Falcon 1 created a new industry makes zero sense since it's retired after 5 launches, Falcon 9 is what made SpaceX successful, and that is a rocket partially funded by government money (for DEVELOPMENT), and compete directly with the offerings from all the established players in the launch industry.
Crowded industry you say, that's literally the exact same thing said about SpaceX in 2002 as I quoted above.
And here's more differences: There're a lot more software engineers than rocket engineers (no, they're not called 'rocket scientists', launch vehicle development is engineering, not science), and unlike SpaceX which by law has to hire US citizens or green card holders, Twitter can hire anybody, from anywhere. Let's not forget Tesla has design center in Europe, plans to open one in China, they also have Chinese engineers and managers in Fremont helping out, so if San Francisco software developers think only they can work at Twitter, they're badly mistaken.
jabloomf1230
Minister of Silly Walks
The question is not whether Trump will be let back on Twitter. The only unknown is when he will be allowed back. Trump poses a problem for Musk unless Twitter clearly spells out what it feels is legal free speech. Until that written policy is firmed up, Trump won't be on. If he is allowed back without a clear policy, then whatever he tweets will set the standard for everyone else.
Trump will not come back in the next year, even if Elon allows it. Many trumpers have lost big $ investing in DWAC. The only thing keeping that on life support is Trump being basically exclusive on it. It he goes live on Twitter, DWAC drops.
The Military takes raw recruits and tears them down to the basics, then rebuilds them to become soldiers. Perhaps Elon is doing something similar with Twitter. He has an end game he wants to achieve. Getting there will be hard work and challenging, but Elon has show time and time again, that his techniques are effective. Ends up with World Class companies. Cry babies will complain that their cushy and great feeling job has now vanished.
- Status
