Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That's incompetence It may well be. I guess it's a question of semantics. To me his ability to afford a money-losing company is the salient factor, not his chaotic early tenure as 'Chief Twit'. >> As bad as those things are, in-and-of themselves, they don't represent an existential crisis. >Why not? 1. Because none of his actions are irreversible. 2. If he acted responsibility, he still would be running a company th…
> 1. Because none of his actions are irreversible. They are partially reversible, but definitely not fully reversible. For example, there's no taking away that Musk started his tenure by angering advertisers. He can apologize, he can make amends, but there's no taking away that some amount of the damage will remain, if only because some companies already made new plans, allocated their budget, and aren't about to tel…
How is that 'partially irreversible' ... a bunch of companies paused ad-buys for this quarter or maybe even next year. If Twitter becomes viable next year, you think advertisers wouldn't come back, this year, or next, or year after that?
>Well, if he couldn't afford it before making things even worse, how is that not an existential crisis?
That is the existential crisis. Not the incompetence, the lack of ability to afford Twitter. That would have been the case even if the early Musk tenure wasn't so chaotic.