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

581–590 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#581

Post by sircastor »

google234123 wrote: post #514
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jail. The consequence needed here is jail. Put these clowns in jail with junkies and wife beaters and gang bangers. While we’re at it, treat them the same as their local pd treats the most vulnerable in their community. They deserve no better than the most vulnerable and marginalized.

Jail for parking multiple times in disabled places or for buying a car every 6 months? Hard no from me. Both of those things are not the same as beating people.

I think its clear that there is a set of people well are willing to violate certain laws because the consequences of such are trivial. That scales up with wealth because most misdemeanors result in a fixed monetary fine - which is less impactful for someone with wealth.

When the consequences of a law violation are trivial, it’s no longer serving as a deterrent. So I think we need to find a way to deter everyone, kind of on a sliding scale or something?

Likewise, there needs to be real consequences for corporations which take advantage of paying fines as a cost of doing business. One violation can be a mistake, but it sure as heck better give you a solid reason to never do it again.

Re: Elon’s Out

#582

Post by jlarocco »

mlindner wrote: post #358
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…

> Musk pretended that TSLA valuation is reasonable. Musk even called out Gates for shorting TSLA stock [2]. If he didn't have a cover then Musk would look like a hypocrite for selling TSLA. This is outright false and goes directly against his multiple stated instances of saying that the Tesla stock price is overvalued. Don't make things up to suit your biases.

Okay, so Musk didn't even pretend TSLA's price was reasonable, but surely you agree that "buying Twitter" is a good excuse for him to dump some TSLA while it's incredibly overvalued?

Re: Elon’s Out

#583

Post by threeseed »

extheat wrote: post #579
nocoiner wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost everything in this comment is wrong or misleading. The point of an acquisition agreement isn’t to give the buyer optionality to acquire another company, it’s to ensure the buyer honors its commitment to acquire another company during the period between the time the buyer agrees to acquire it, and the time is it able to close on taking ownership. Maybe EM developed buyer’s remorse because of the decline in equi…

> Almost everything in this comment is wrong or misleading. Feel free to point out specific inaccuracies. I think it's pretty clear. > Just because EM wants an escape hatch, doesn’t make it so Yes, never suggested it's legally permissible. > affirmative obligation This is armchair speculation. Even if the text might seem to be clear in outsider interpretation, this is a matter solely for the courts to determine and b…

I think it's the fact you think that Twitter has been misleading in how it communicates MAU and bot percentage to the markets.

There is no basis to this. And even if there was it's such a grey area that they have plenty of legal wiggle room.

So it's really to comprehend how Musk has any sort of bargaining position over this issue.

Re: Elon’s Out

#584

Post by snovv_crash »

maxbond wrote: post #383
ta8645 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To pretend he doesn't have powerful enemies is just silly. It's not some kooky conspiracy theory. The only question is if you think his enemies are justified or not.

Who are these enemies, and why do they oppose him? I frankly don't see any "enemies." Are the SEC his "enemies?" I don't think so, he goes out of his way to bend securities law. If you go poking a bear and it takes a swipe at you - you're simply a fool, and the bear is not your enemy.

Read any recent ArsTechnica post on him that isn't part of the rocket section, and consider based purely on the use of emotive language if maybe someone has an axe to grind.

Re: Elon’s Out

#585

Post by HWR_14 »

mLuby wrote: post #235
moralestapia wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He has more money than god. Yeah ok ... .

The guy has 15X more money than god (using the Vatican's wealth as a proxy).

I'm pretty sure the Vatican's (by which you I assume include the entirety of the Catholic Church) art assets alone top the $10-12 billion you're valuing the entire church at, to say nothing of their property, 1 billionish loyal followers or legal status as a country.

Re: Elon’s Out

#586

Post by IgorPartola »

nocoiner wrote: post #576
extheat wrote: post #569

So much noise here and ill-informed comments fail to give a broader understanding of what's going on. Elon bought up Twitter shares early in the year for a reason, because he wanted more control over Twitter. He bought up so much Twitter shares that when it was announced via the SEC, Twitter offered a board seat under the clause that he wouldn't acquire too much % control over the company. He obliged, but then left w…

Almost everything in this comment is wrong or misleading. The point of an acquisition agreement isn’t to give the buyer optionality to acquire another company, it’s to ensure the buyer honors its commitment to acquire another company during the period between the time the buyer agrees to acquire it, and the time is it able to close on taking ownership. Maybe EM developed buyer’s remorse because of the decline in equi…

Technically Musk and Grimes’ second kid was born through a surrogate. But otherwise your characterization of waking up with that feeling is spot on.

Re: Elon’s Out

#587

Post by mlyle »

shalmanese wrote: post #66
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…

Contracts matter. The ability for two parties to create a contract and to have reasonably secure knowledge that the state will still in and enforce the terms of the contract, using violence if necessary, is a massive foundational element to free market capitalism. We see in states where such an expectation is not present, that it becomes an enormous invisible drag on all business activity and degrades the civic funct…

Yup. Else you have oligarchs and corruption and insider abuses. It hurts to see the way our institutions are rotting.

(Not that they've ever been perfect, but I feel like we're on the decline and they need tending).

Re: Elon’s Out

#588

Post by roenxi »

BoorishBears wrote: post #548
roenxi wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno. I'm not a lawyer. Possibly one of the ones against piracy? If you want to make the argument that it is literal and raw might-makes-right on the high seas, ok. But that type of barbarian world is not one I encourage and it'd be a bit stunning to find someone who wants the world to work that way. The US wouldn't do well in a world like that either, US citizens have more assets to seize than foreigners do.

There's a certain irony in picking this high horse to ride, when we're taking about the response to a western european ground-war in the year 2022. As if that's not evidence of far more barbaric mechanisms at play in geopolitics...

Has stealing random stuff from Russians helped? I'm not a maritime lawyer or an expert on how war in the 2020s looks, but I don't think Russia was sailing troops into the Ukraine on billionaire pleasure yachts.

There is a pretty good chance this is just making people feel bad and making it harder to normalise the situation. This is action is literally not helping, and is a breach of good norms against stealing. It means the Russian billionaires will be forced to spend more of their money in Russia and have a great reason to bear a grudge against the more Western powers.

Re: Elon’s Out

#589

Post by mlyle »

refurb wrote: post #513
stale2002 wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need other buyers. If they win the court case, the shareholders get 44 billion dollars.

I'm willing to put money on the fact they will never close the deal.

It all depends.

Delaware Court of Chancery loves ordering specific performance on deals.

But the amount of value wobbled sure pushes both sides towards settlement.

But ... each party's willingness and ability to settle varies based on moving market prices and economic conditions.

Re: Elon’s Out

#590

Post by tptacek »

digianarchist wrote: post #573
tptacek wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might actually hurt Musk's argument, because Google is incredibly lucrative despite the belief that ad clicks are overwhelmingly fake. The rule of thumb Levine (an attorney) gave a few posts ago for MAE's in Delaware courts is "sufficient to cause a 40% drop in profitability". Not stock price, not mDAU numbers, but income statements.

> That might actually hurt Musk's argument, because Google is incredibly lucrative despite the belief that ad clicks are overwhelmingly fake. They're still charging advertisers for those clicks.

Yes, and?
Post reply on HN