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

Elon’s Out

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#121

Post by MrMan »

bmitc wrote: post #113
nightski wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just do not agree that one party is more extreme than the other, sorry. I also don't believe you are being honest with yourself over the situation either. It's clear you have dug your heels into a particular set of beliefs and have no interest in discussing real solutions (instead just want to play the blame game). Frankly it is just not interesting discussion.

That can be your opinion, but I think it stands in disagreement with several events and facts of the Republican party. There are oodles of articles and books addressing the growing extremism of the Republican party, so I don't think it's even a controversial opinion. By just saying "oh, they're just another political party with different beliefs" is enabling their extremism. Any rational discussion with a Republican,…

You are pissing in the wind. This place is essentially r/conservative and most of these people are totally fine with how things are progressing. I think the US is completely fucked and no rich people I know care, at all

Re: Elon’s Out

#123

Post by refurb »

moralestapia wrote: post #95
refurb wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much. It’s like selling a house and buyer makes an offer with no contingencies. Sure, you can sue them to close the deal but the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. Does Twitter want to be locked into some multi-year court battle? They’ll settle and the news will move onto something else.

>Sure, you can sue them to close the deal but the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. LOL, I'm sure the juice will be worth the squeeze on a $44 billion dollar house.

Nope. Years of court battles distracts the company and keeps other buyers away.

Re: Elon’s Out

#124

Post by tluyben2 »

ThalesX wrote: post #107
hotpotamus wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I want more” You’re welcome.

I met an almost billionaire once; I mentioned how a million dollars would cover me for the rest of my life and she followed with a 10 minute speech on how money is horrible and she can't sleep at night for their concern. I was moved but I confessed I'd still want that million dollars to fall out of the sky. It didn't feel like she "wanted more".

I used to ‘hang’ with a billionaire friend of the family and, maybe that might be dutch, he was incredibly frugal (drove a crappy old but not classic car, lived in a rather small house etc) and yea was obsessed with making more. He would ask me out for a coffee and ask to split the bill (or just pay his part and walk wait for me to pay my part) even though I usually just paid as I don’t like going dutch. He spent almost no money during his life. Guess that is all good for making fortunes.

Re: Elon’s Out

#125

Post by [deleted] »

bambax wrote: post #75
petilon wrote: post #71

This article says Musk agreed to buy Twitter mostly as a joke. I think there's a far better explanation. This wasn't a joke for Musk because after agreeing to buy Twitter he proceeded to sell billions of dollars' worth of TSLA stock, supposedly to finance the purchase. Even for the richest man in the world that's not a joke. I think a better explanation is that Musk offered to buy Twitter as a cover for selling billi…

This is alluded to at the end of the article: > Is it fun for him? If he manages to walk away having spent only millions in financing fees, millions in legal fees and say $1 billion in termination fees, was it worth it? What did he get out of this? The guy really seems to like being on Twitter, and he did make himself the main character in Twitter's drama for months on end. That’s nice for him I guess. Also he made t…

[deleted]

Re: Elon’s Out

#126

Post by CogitoCogito »

refurb wrote: post #122
CogitoCogito wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you presume that?

Court decisions can be appealed.

And those appeals can be ruled upon and then the case can reach a conclusion. It's not like the lawyers can just take _any_ case with _any_ facts and keep the case from _ever_ reaching a conclusion.

The real question you should ask yourself is, if $44 billion is on the line, how long would you continue to pursue the case in the face of lawyers who are just trying to drag it out? Even if it went on for years (it's not assured Musk's lawyers could drag it out past a year), I can think of 44 billion reasons to continue with the case.

Re: Elon’s Out

#127

Post by Turing_Machine »

theptip wrote: post #29

There's been a lot of speculating around here on exactly what it would take for Musk to get out of this deal; here's the TLDR of the analysis from Levine: > Musk cannot get out of the deal just because one of Twitter’s representations is false. He still has to close the deal unless the representation is false and it would have a “material adverse effect” on Twitter. This is a famously under-defined term but it genera…

> If the bots are 6% of mDAUs, whatever.

It seems like the purchase price should be of the order of 6% less in that case.

6% of $44 billion is not a trivial amount of money.

Re: Elon’s Out

#130

Post by MrMan »

refurb wrote: post #28
xiphias2 wrote: post #11

I don’t understand why we need to make things personal: a multibillionaire with practically unlimited resources is negotiating with a multibillion dollar corporation with practically unlimited resources. It’s clear that the offer Elon got stuck with has an unrealistic price at this point (and Elon just want a reason to get out of the deal), just like it’s clear that Twitter’s management is incompetent in the last few…

Pretty much. It’s like selling a house and buyer makes an offer with no contingencies. Sure, you can sue them to close the deal but the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. Does Twitter want to be locked into some multi-year court battle? They’ll settle and the news will move onto something else.

Analogies don't work with corporate law
Post reply on HN