51–60 of 119 posts
>> As of 12/6 I am the direct and beneficial owner of approximately 334,000 shares in Twitter. Well, that's your problem.
> Well, that's your problem It looks like an activist position. The shares were acquired with the view of making them more valuable through direct action. This is a validated hedge fund strategy.
What's curious to me is how Twitter made so few improvements so slowly during the past few years, when its Chinese counterpart, Weibo, could release waves of new features in fast pace. Not that all the new features are good in users' eyes, of course, but isn't fast iteration a motto in the Bay Area?
Don't you think that scaling to handle global growth is a feature?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly...
Twitter hiring Anthony Noto was one of the worst. They need to replace the board which essentially means someone needs to acquire them in order to unlock the potentials.
Problem is that nobody wants them. Two or three years ago there was regular talk about Twitter selling the company, but every potential buyer (e.g. Google) said no in the end. Twitter is just not a very good business, but it does attract a lot of scrutiny due to its size and impact. It has pretty much all the risks of Facebook with none of the cash flow.
Man, why does a simple blog need so much JavaScript? (Sorry, I know this is not the most productive of comments, but I am genuinely curious to know. Also, if not me, someone else is inevitably going to say it, I suspect).
Didn't even notice and I'm on a very low budget phone. The content was interesting though. Im not sure I am persuaded that "moving to Africa" is a worthy point to lean so hard on. Maybe focus on him being a part-time CEO.
Drivel. Nothing directly actionable. If a CEO has to be physically in his office to successfully run the company, he has done a poor job in building leadership under him/her. Jack is doing what he should be, finding new growth opportunities. Milking the users with more Ads will just piss off users for short term gains.
I think you meant drivel. And here is a fine example of how to dribble (via twitter): https://twitter.com/BleacherReport/status/120241814211214540...
Drivel. Nothing directly actionable. If a CEO has to be physically in his office to successfully run the company, he has done a poor job in building leadership under him/her. Jack is doing what he should be, finding new growth opportunities. Milking the users with more Ads will just piss off users for short term gains.
Are you kidding? Twitter is a tech company with a great brand and a monopoly platform that has a stock that performs like a mall chain. The rate of product change is so slow. There are so many opportunities for growth that are not advertising. Seriously, if you can't push out a CEO for under-performance in this case, when can you.
Man, why does a simple blog need so much JavaScript? (Sorry, I know this is not the most productive of comments, but I am genuinely curious to know. Also, if not me, someone else is inevitably going to say it, I suspect).
Maybe all the author cares about is writing and content? I don't think this is an issue at all for the majority of people. Remember that you (and people visit/comment on articles on this orange site) are the 0.01% of people in the world that care about JavaScript being an issue.
People generally may not understand enough to know JavaScript as a culprit but they do notice bloat and complain about the slowness.
I find difficult to think of metaphors which encapsulate a sense of proportion to the issue but ignoring a root cause as not an issue is a very good way to wind up with one.
Drivel. Nothing directly actionable. If a CEO has to be physically in his office to successfully run the company, he has done a poor job in building leadership under him/her. Jack is doing what he should be, finding new growth opportunities. Milking the users with more Ads will just piss off users for short term gains.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether Dorsey should be CEO. But I think the author's concerns are more varied and more cogent than your rebuttal would make them seem.
What are your thoughts on Dorsey leading two tech companies at the same time, Twitter's share performance over the past several years, and the political waters Twitter has to navigate?