461–470 of 757 posts
It's instructive to contrast what other billionaires did with media properties they owned: - Jeff Bezos personally bought Washington Post but he left it alone and let the editors run it. What Jeff did do was invest some money into the IT department to modernize the workflow tools (metrics dashboards, etc) for journalists. He stayed out of the decisions of what stories get run on the front page. - Rupert Murdoch owns…
Am I the only one who doesn’t know Paul Graham is today, cause everyone is talking about him as if they personally know the guy. Is he particularly famous or something? And I bet Elon Musk is praying people vote for him to step down. So if you can, vote for him to stay as head. It’s not everyday you see 40-odd billion dollars as well as Tesla stocks plumetting - it’s quite fascinating so little it seems to bother him…
Among other things, he is one of the founders of Ycombinator. He is quite known in the tech world. You've might stumbled across one of his essays which are frequently linked here.
It's instructive to contrast what other billionaires did with media properties they owned: - Jeff Bezos personally bought Washington Post but he left it alone and let the editors run it. What Jeff did do was invest some money into the IT department to modernize the workflow tools (metrics dashboards, etc) for journalists. He stayed out of the decisions of what stories get run on the front page. - Rupert Murdoch owns…
> Jeff Bezos personally bought Washington Post but he left it alone and let the editors run it. What Jeff did do was invest some money into the IT department to modernize the workflow tools (metrics dashboards, etc) for journalists. He stayed out of the decisions of what stories get run on the front page. I don't think what you describe is actually possible. Compare Glenn Greenwald's writing about his work at an orga…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Murdoch is the worst possible example, being in it up to his eyeballs. It's especially the case in Australia, where his empire started and still dominates. This article is one of many, its headline and opening line being: "Special report: Rupert Murdoch, a hands-on newspaperman" "To illustrate the extent to which Rupert Murdoch used to micro-manage his newspapers,..." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newscorp-murdo…
>"To illustrate the extent to which Rupert Murdoch used to micro-manage his newspapers,..." The 2011 article you linked emphasizes his activity with tabloid newspapers. I'm unfamiliar with those. From what I've read, he doesn't meddle with his "prestige" newspaper like WSJ. Maybe that's why the WSJ didn't censor itself on negative Theranos stories even though he invested $125 million in it and Elizabeth Holmes asked…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's really driving him is Elon the father that views leftism and woke as a mind virus that had possessed his child. I don't think this is his motivation, because if it was, this isn't how he'd go about doing it. I mean, maybe it is - but if so, he's doing a lousy job affecting any kind of change in his child. I suppose that's on brand for him. Personally I think he doesn't give a fuck about anything because $$ a…
That's maybe not how you would react. But it's a classical response - when under attack, identify enemies, and attack back. It takes a certain kind of social intellect to understand which actions will actually psychologically affect someone for the better. Does he consciously tie his actions directly to this? Or is it indirectly, by getting very negative emotions and associations to leftism, which are then turned int…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He has access to the databases. There’s no independent way to verify the results.
Eh, for whatever reason I don’t think he’d do that. He’s in it for the chaos, and what says chaos more than letting a Twitter mob decide who should be ceo?
I understand the point is he’s hoping people will log back in to engage. But I’m just done. Even if he steps down his actions have shown what a massive single point of failure the whole thing is.
So I guess what I’m saying is: the fact that he controls everything is more the problem than whether he will exercise this one specific control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter was doing fine financially, they were consistently floating around break even and they had lots of opportunities to move into profitability if their financial situation became tenuous. As far as technology companies go, they weren’t anything to write home about, they weren’t printing money the way Google does, but they were doing fine. Twitter doesn’t need to make constant product changes, as is evidenced by…
I don't think Twitter were fine: they were consistently losing money (to your point, not a ton, but still, losing money even in a great economy), with large layoffs to come, esp once you factor in a 20% or so fall in ad income. With more income cuts, and hence layoffs, on the way as privacy laws worldwide make Twitter worse as an ad platform. So I would argue that Twitter desperately needs to either get much better a…
... with ever increasing revenue to cover it. If you take a look at the quarterly reports, clearly they had a spending problem and not so much a problem with ads.
The business was fine. The leaders were not. Despite that, they certainly weren't bringing Twitter to the brink of bankruptcy.
Elon Musk posted "Vox Populi, Vox Dei" on 19 Oct and 19 Nov. Today is 19 Dec, and in 12 hours he'll post again that the people have spoken. He's playing some sort of game. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1582778449583693836 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1593769469741932544
Elon Musk posted "Vox Populi, Vox Dei" on 19 Oct and 19 Nov. Today is 19 Dec, and in 12 hours he'll post again that the people have spoken. He's playing some sort of game. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1582778449583693836 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1593769469741932544
Maybe he's got a stimulant (or other psychoactive) prescription that renews around this time of the month and we're witnessing a periodic, chemically induced mania?
It's instructive to contrast what other billionaires did with media properties they owned: - Jeff Bezos personally bought Washington Post but he left it alone and let the editors run it. What Jeff did do was invest some money into the IT department to modernize the workflow tools (metrics dashboards, etc) for journalists. He stayed out of the decisions of what stories get run on the front page. - Rupert Murdoch owns…
If you go back to Musk deal, it was immediately after Babylon bee was banned for an anti trans remark about man of the year. I'm speculating a bit, and I'm not supporting his actions, I'm trying to explain then. I think he already had disagreement with his son that came out as trans later, and I think the major reason he changed his political position is because of his child. The child also cut all ties with him. He…
wat? no.