Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

nerology.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 201 posts

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#161

Post by sublinear »

eli wrote: post #92
sublinear wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> X.com is pretty stupid as well, you can't meaningfully use it as a brand. Just "x" alone isn't really the brand. It's more like "x.com" is the canonical name. From that perspective, "x" or "x.com" is about as good as brand recognition can get. It's simple and perfectly descriptive of an "everything app" and payment processing business.

It's not though. Musk writes it as a single stylized letter and the company name is "X Corp" not "X.com"

Ah did not know that. This is the only genuine answer in this entire thread!

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#163

Post by cirrus3 »

jofla_net wrote: post #115

Just as suspected, overwhelmingly squatted.

huh? did you read the article? Most are not available, and 2/3 of the .com ones available are being used not squatted. Almost all the .org ones are being used for relevant branding, not squatted. Not until you get into .co does there seems to be some squatting.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#164

Post by jrmg »

js8 wrote: post #146
jrmg wrote: post #103

But of a tangent, but: every time I see a link to an X post, I’m finding it increasingly weird that the Twitter -> X rename happened with a big splash some time ago now, but the actual x.com domain is still redirecting to twitter.com rather than the other way around.

Despite all the billionaire meta-craze, people still use Google, Facebook and Twitter.

I don’t think this is a good comparison. For Google and Facebook, that’s still what the products are called.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#165

Post by blowski »

mikehollinger wrote: post #153
blowski wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s odd to me tbh that phone numbers were solved with contact lists and address books What's odd about that? I didn't really understand your comment.

I can email mike@somedomain.com but I can't "call" or "text" mike@somedomain.com . You can kinda sorta see this now with imessage / facetime, but that's not consistent and implemented in a standard protocol.

So phone numbers could have become more semantic. Instead we have arbitrary phone numbers and wrap meaning around them.

I guess it’s been so long that I needed to find and type out a phone number that I don’t think about it any more.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#166

Post by kaba0 »

FredPret wrote: post #159
kaba0 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rockets don't fly and electric cars don't drive if they aren't built right, which puts a floor on the IQ of the man who is that involved and hands-on with it Agree! So what does it have to do with Musk? Also, I really wouldn’t call someone smart who literally forced himself into buying a company out of ego for much more than its worth. I wouldn’t call someone smart who did that with a car or whatever, let alone tha…

It's wild that you think he had no positive input with any of his successful technical startups. Have you considered that x.com might have been an impulse buy (at the market rate, I might add). He could set $40b on fire and still be one of the richest people in history. I also don't get the hate around that site - it's still very much up and running. Maybe this site hates him because he trimmed a ton of fat in Twitte…

How do you know if any of the startups succeeded because of/irrespective/or despite him?

Just as a fact: his only technical contribution to teslas is the design of the goddamn rearview mirror. There are plenty of (unconfirmed) accounts of having to deliberately present information to elon a certain way so he will accept the decision made by the experts, which while I don’t know how true, seems surprisingly plausible, given his personality.

Also, being the richest person doesn’t mean that $40b in immediate hard cash is not a big hit. Most of this evaluation is very transient, e.g. the evaluation of tesla shares (which are very overvalued right now — is it really worth more than all the top 3 car companies together? When they sell orderS of magnitude more cars?)

There are plenty of “fans” of him here, as this libertarian view is quite popular among the startup community. With all due respect, this “on the left” comment is just braindead.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#167

Post by kaba0 »

dingnuts wrote: post #133
da_chicken wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon is special in a lot of ways. Twitter had one of the strongest brands. Not in social media, not in technology, just one of the strongest brands period . Do people realize how rare and difficult that is to do? That little blue bird was everywhere. Elon just gave it up. Flushed it away. Kind of like those advertising contracts.

not that I'm exactly hopeful or that I think this indicates wisdom in Elon's move, or that he will be successful, but it -would- be good to have a social media site that isn't advertising supported, so that the users aren't the product. Aren't we always on about that on this site?

Well, if someone wants to change the monetizing strategy of their company, it is advisable to figure one out before cutting the existing one.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#168

Post by schwartzworld »

geraldhh wrote: post #43
ak_111 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are some 3 letter domain available on most TLD including .ai, I wonder why these haven't been taken up yet?

new-age tld's don't count

I have a .world tld, and it's not unusual for email inputs to wrongly mis-validate my perfectly valid email.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#169

Post by FredPret »

kaba0 wrote: post #166
FredPret wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's wild that you think he had no positive input with any of his successful technical startups. Have you considered that x.com might have been an impulse buy (at the market rate, I might add). He could set $40b on fire and still be one of the richest people in history. I also don't get the hate around that site - it's still very much up and running. Maybe this site hates him because he trimmed a ton of fat in Twitte…

How do you know if any of the startups succeeded because of/irrespective/or despite him? Just as a fact: his only technical contribution to teslas is the design of the goddamn rearview mirror. There are plenty of (unconfirmed) accounts of having to deliberately present information to elon a certain way so he will accept the decision made by the experts, which while I don’t know how true, seems surprisingly plausible,…

sigh

> Just as a fact: his only technical contribution to teslas is the design of the goddamn rearview mirror. There are plenty of (unconfirmed) accounts of having to deliberately present information to elon a certain way so he will accept the decision made by the experts, which while I don’t know how true, seems surprisingly plausible, given his personality.

First of all, how do you know this. Where you a fly on the wall for the entire life of Tesla Inc? This is supremely implausible.

Second, why are you willing to believe that good decisions can be made by "the experts", but if it's a rich, brash person you don't like, they can't possibly be "an expert"?

> Also, being the richest person doesn’t mean that $40b in immediate hard cash is not a big hit. Most of this evaluation is very transient, e.g. the evaluation of tesla shares

He didn't even buy the whole thing himself; he has partners in it with him.

> (which are very overvalued right now — is it really worth more than all the top 3 car companies together? When they sell orderS of magnitude more cars?)

Tesla might be overvalued, but selling "orders of magnitude more cars" is actually a drawback if you can't do so profitably.

GM: revenue 165b, profit 10.5b (https://valustox.com/GM)

Tesla: revenue 92b, profit 10.2b (https://valustox.com/TSLA)

Ford: revenue 165b, profit 4.3b (https://valustox.com/F)

They may well be worth more than the others given that they're positioned for much better future growth.

I'll just let your last comment stand on it's own merit.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#170

Post by halJordan »

mcv wrote: post #127
jrmg wrote: post #103

But of a tangent, but: every time I see a link to an X post, I’m finding it increasingly weird that the Twitter -> X rename happened with a big splash some time ago now, but the actual x.com domain is still redirecting to twitter.com rather than the other way around.

I'm surprised to see so many people and newspapers humouring Musk and obeying his name change when many pages on twitter.com still call it twitter. It's still Twitter. There's no need to call it X unless you want to want to do free advertising for Musk's name change.

It's simple professionalism. X is its name. Quite disheartening to constantly see the pull towards unprofessionalism just because the target is an other. Your own integrity should be pulling you to represent yourself correctly. It should have nothing to do with your external feelings towards the thing. And especially have nothing to do with your desire to hurt something.
Post reply on HN