331–340 of 542 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He'll quote people from years ago that he blocked on Twitter. [Citation needed] This is one of the silliest things I've heard people make up about Musk.
I’m not sure why that would be silly; I can remember things said by people I blocked years ago on the internet, generally the thing that made me block them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The explanation is as clear as you'll get. They wanted Elon to act like a board member – be a fiduciary of the company, be trusted with confidential data, consult leadership before making announcements, don't disparage it in public. Elon decided that being able to Tweet about the company on a whim was more important to him.
does the SEC care whether you are on the board or not if you have a very sizable stake anyway?
A very odd set of events and no explanation regarding Elon's change of mind. A pessimist would think that Elon has decided to go for a "hostile" takeover since he is no longer bound by the percentage holding cap. An optimistic would think that Elon had enough self-awareness to realize it would be an overall distraction for Twitter with little benefit. It amuses me more than it should that the CEO of Twitter has poste…
Perhaps a realist would suspect that Elon is mercurial and easily bored.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can anyone tell the difference between a fascist disinformation network and a sincere idiot?
Well, one has a social security number. Just look at all the information Facebook takes from people, requiring a government issued credential to verify your account isn't even farfetched anymore. Many governments have been rolling out SSO for their suite of digital service applications, I can totally imagine an "internet passport" type situation in the future, where a government issued SSO authorization can be used b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh wow. I was honestly annoyed the conversation was a tangent about alt text. Then you all found evidence that he withdrew for takeover reasons. Time to eat some humble pie. (I also have blind friends, and suddenly feel terrible about diminishing the importance of alt text.) What an interesting mistake. There must have been three or four messages. I wonder if the CEO acted alone or as a part of a team. Talk about “no…
But the alleged "takeover reasons" bit is in the published text, not the alt text.
Whoops. Time to bow out.
(Thank you for pointing out the mistake so gracefully. Have a good night.)
One problem with Twitter’s alt text is that it’s too short. I copy paste HN comments into alt text, but am almost always met with an error. In that situation I just link to the original comment, but the CEO couldn’t do that here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the alleged "takeover reasons" bit is in the published text, not the alt text.
Haha. Whoops. Time to bow out. (Thank you for pointing out the mistake so gracefully. Have a good night.) One problem with Twitter’s alt text is that it’s too short. I copy paste HN comments into alt text, but am almost always met with an error. In that situation I just link to the original comment, but the CEO couldn’t do that here.
There is a theory that Elon declined it to not limit his stake to 14.9%; we won't know until the next SEC filing: https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/15133583677539737... WSJ source about the 14.9%: https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-to-name-elon-musk-to-it... > Mr. Musk’s board term is set for two years. So long as he remains a director, he can’t own more than 14.9% of the company’s stock, according to a se…
It’s funny that the first paragraph of the letter says they believed it was best for Elon to join the board. Then the second paragraph says that Elon declined to join the board and they believe it was also for the best.
Those beliefs occurred at different times (one is past tense, one is present tense.) And only two significant events are cited as happening between them: a background check and Elon deciding not to join the board. Either the basis of the change in belief is “whatever Elon wants is best”, that implies a background check problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "bot networks used for astroturfing" are a much used fiction of pro-Musk and anti-Musk people alike. They basically don't exist. Upvote bot networks exist certainly however.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6246561/ > Here we analyze 14 million messages spreading 400 thousand articles on Twitter during ten months in 2016 and 2017. We find evidence that social bots played a disproportionate role in spreading articles from low-credibility sources. Bots amplify such content in the early spreading moments, before an article goes viral. I would also be interested in finding more s…
- Inability to be replicated, not even in principle.
- Using definitions of "bot" that captures verified humans like e.g. the POTUS.
- Ignoring false positives in the data set or not even trying to measure them at all.
- Using opaque ML models trained off an irrelevant data set which (when measured by outsiders) have 50%+ FP rates.
- Logic errors and difficulty reasoning about causality.
- Mis-statements about what their own data actually shows.
- Refusal to acknowledge or address any of these problems.
There's a paper that thoroughly debunks this field here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3814191
and it's also available in talk form here:
https://archive.org/details/hopeconf2020/20200726_2000_Peopl...
and if you're in a hurry I summarized the paper here:
https://blog.plan99.net/fake-science-part-ii-bots-that-are-n...
NB: Some of my own meta-research into these papers is cited in their paper and talk.
Edit: I took a quick look at the paper you linked and it has many of the same problems. Amongst other things it explicitly classifies satire as "digital misinformation". One of the authors is Flammini who is well known for writing nonsensical pseudo-scientific papers in this space, in fact, he's mentioned in the talk linked above.
It’s funny that the first paragraph of the letter says they believed it was best for Elon to join the board. Then the second paragraph says that Elon declined to join the board and they believe it was also for the best.