Live data from Hacker News

Elon’s Out

bloomberg.com

711–720 of 767 posts

Re: Elon’s Out

#711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2016 a Tesla on autopilot mode decapitated a man because of deficiencies in its sensor stack. Rather than recalling and fixing the deficiency, Musk doubled down and refused to admit his mistake. Then, predictably, a second person got decapitated in the same exact manner. The issue still has not been fixed to this day. Are these the decisions of a good engineer and a moral person? Or someone who would rather be rig…

> Rather than recalling and fixing the deficiency, Musk doubled down and refused to admit his mistake. Except they did fix the deficiency and he never "doubled down" on the events that happened. He did remind people to pay attention while driving reminding people that it was beta software. Your recollection of events seems to be mistaken. Additionally, "Recalls" are a legacy regulatory requirement based around the er…

Here you go: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/17/18629214/tesla-autopilot-...

You could have saved yourself the trouble and done a Google search before writing all of that.

Obviously they didn’t fix the problem because it happened again. The problem wasn’t software it was hardware. Musk’s excuse was PEBCAW (problem exists between keyboard and wheel), but in reality it was his marketing and the failure of his products to live up to his own misleading hype.

And Musk did absolutely double down because he seems to have something to prove by eschewing LiDAR. The doubling down comes from the fact that the Model 3 could have corrected these issues but it didn’t. It made them worse by removing certain sensors. And again, the issue still isn’t fixed.

> They're the decisions of a person who's working toward the long term and thinks that saving lives in aggregate is a good thing to do even if in the process very few deaths of a different type are caused. Yes they're moral.

There are many such people working toward that goal, and those who are doing so earnestly aim to create a culture of safety. Musk is not one of these people. He has chosen to unleash beta quality software/machines with deficient sensor stacks onto an unsuspecting public, a public that has not agreed to his beta test. These cars are operating in stealth mode on public streets, when they should be clearly marked with flashing lights indicating that they are autonomous vehicles, as had been established as a common safety practice among autonomous car researchers for over a decade.

Musk threw out all of this and has caused literal deaths as a result. That’s on him. He ignores industry best practices for bragging rights, and he does so with no technical or engineering basis. There’s no ethical basis for it either, including your utilitarian “ends justify the means” take, because it’s quite clear at this point he will never even get to that end. He has boxed himself into a local maxima and his pride is preventing any advancement toward the safe future you imagine. Instead he’s stuck with machines that decapitated multiple people, and he can’t design one that won’t.

Musk and Tesla have been a giant step backwards for robot ethics in the industry. The whole world would be safer if he never even got the idea of autonomous cars in his brain. We were doing just fine developing safe autonomous vehicles without him. That better safer future you imagine will happen in spite of Musk, not because of him.

Re: Elon’s Out

#712
post #684
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla bots are some of the most active on Twitter, or at least some of the most efficient in achieving their goal of manipulating Tesla interest, sentiment, and ultimately stock price. Musk knows this. I wouldn't be surprised if he knows who controls these bots.

Can you point to more information on this?

https://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/research/twitter-bots-boost-tesl...

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-04-12/musk-is-of...

I couldn't find if the research paper has been published yet or not.

Re: Elon’s Out

#713
post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not making any argument, I’m just repeating the most popular theory right now.

You said "It's not about avoiding looking like a hypocrite, the major theory is [...]", which is not the same as "The major theory is that it's not about avoiding looking like a hypocrite, [...]".

Well, have fun picking apart the way I structured my previous post, even though I already clarified what I meant in the reply. Hope you find someone to have an internet fight. Have a nice day.

Re: Elon’s Out

#714

I find it amazing that not one of the top comments gives Elon ANY consideration that maybe, just maybe, he has a legitimate case against Twitter. We don’t know what he’s found, what he was told, what he was promised, what changed on Twitter’s side. Some very top level people bailed or were fired shortly after Elon’s acquisition proposal was announced. It sure appears that Elons is just balking, but what is far more l…

> what is far more likely is that he has uncovered some deep Twitter bullshit What is your calculation/reasoning that that is far more likely? How did you come to that?

The calculation is simple, it’s what we know from his track record, that he has made numerous calculated, high risk moves over several decades and has generally prevailed in a substantial manner. It’s just in vogue right now to assume “Elon is a pompous fool,” full bore myopia. The same guy that has ramped up several massively successful companies.

I don’t have a dog in the hunt, I genuinely don’t care of the outcome, I don’t think Twitter is worth buying, I don’t care if Elon loses several billion or whatever. I just wouldn’t bet against him on something like this where he has much more information than any of us. That’s a pretty simple calculation.

Re: Elon’s Out

#715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twitter's lawyers will pursue billions in remedies through every conceivable route, for decades if necessary. No they won't. This is Twitter, not Oracle.

Lawyers are lawyers

Yes, and they need to get paid in order to do something. Nobody really thinks that Elon Musk did something greatly terrible to Twitter by not buying it, this means Twitter will always get more crap from chasing Elon than not chasing him. It just happens to be that the payout will be big enough for them not care about the flak.

BUT, if Elon fights back hard, Twitter will have to stop.

Re: Elon’s Out

#716
post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a very, very annoying/distracting cover, not to mention an expensive one. It is hard to say how expensive it actually is… if he had sold overpriced Tesla stock without cover, could that lose be much more than - one billion termination fee?

How much has he lost in his stake of Twitter as its share price decreases? Why would he use Twitter as cover when he could use much better alternatives? Why would he waive normal due diligence that is customary if it was a fancy plan to exit Twitter from the beginning?

Good questions!

I don't think they apply to someone who tweeted "considering to take my company private at $X a share; funding secured" when funding definitely wasn't secured.

The story where he made an(other) impulsive decision (buy Twitter!) and then realised some potential benefit as a side effect (liquidate overpriced stock without raising eyebrows) sounds plausible.

In the end, Elefino [1]. Musk gonna musk, I guess.

[1] https://www.google.com/url?q=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv...

Re: Elon’s Out

#717
post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much has he lost in his stake of Twitter as its share price decreases? Why would he use Twitter as cover when he could use much better alternatives? Why would he waive normal due diligence that is customary if it was a fancy plan to exit Twitter from the beginning?

Good questions! I don't think they apply to someone who tweeted " considering to take my company private at $X a share; funding secured " when funding definitely wasn't secured. The story where he made an(other) impulsive decision (buy Twitter!) and then realised some potential benefit as a side effect (liquidate overpriced stock without raising eyebrows) sounds plausible. In the end, Elefino [1]. Musk gonna musk, I…

well then Musk's plan is "a couple sandwiches short of a pinic basket"[1], which leads me to believe it's not a master conspiracy plan and he's just winging it.

[1] https://www.google.com/url?q=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv...

Re: Elon’s Out

#718

I find it amazing that not one of the top comments gives Elon ANY consideration that maybe, just maybe, he has a legitimate case against Twitter. We don’t know what he’s found, what he was told, what he was promised, what changed on Twitter’s side. Some very top level people bailed or were fired shortly after Elon’s acquisition proposal was announced. It sure appears that Elons is just balking, but what is far more l…

> It sure appears that Elons is just balking, but what is far more likely is that he has uncovered some deep Twitter bullshit and he plans to unveil it in court. Forced to air the dirty laundry by the court, he avoids defamation suits. I have no idea how you can claim that that is far more likely. You think it is more likely that Elon is going to expose the numbers Twitter reports to the SEC as off by an order of mag…

From the actual SEC filing: As further described below, Mr. Musk is terminating the Merger Agreement because Twitter is in material breach of multiple provisions of that Agreement, appears to have made false and misleading representations upon which Mr. Musk relied when entering into the Merger Agreement, and is likely to suffer a Company Material Adverse Effect (as that term is defined in the Merger Agreement).

I’d say that’s a pretty strong accusation that probably has something to back it up. Maybe it’s a lie, but I sure wouldn’t bet on it.

My businesses have spent millions on advertising across all channels, from newspapers, magazines, billboards to social media, AdWords and influencers. I strongly believe all ad dollars yield far less than platforms want us to believe. After all, they are selling us on their platform. Much of my revenue that gets attributed to some platform would have otherwise occurred without that specific ad spend. However, I’d rather be wrong and waste some ad spend versus be wrong, lose a million in revenue.

Personally, having spent money with Twitter, I suspect Twitter has no real evidence that their value proposition to customers is worth anything close to what they claim (i.e. making fraudulent claims), but that Twitter has lots of data on the unpublicized falsities of their platform (bots, click farms, otherwise fake accounts).

Re: Elon’s Out

#719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not how any of this works. E.g. the contract he signed already has the price he agreed to buy Twitter for.

Could it be (& I am asking) that he can invalidate the current contract on the grounds that daily active users aren't what twitter said. Then could they draft a new contract, complete with a new price and daily active users estimates? I don't know anything, so I'm asking. If someone out there is a M&A lawyer and can shed light, that would be great.

You can find the thoughts of an M&A Lawyer here: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-07-09/elon-s...

Re: Elon’s Out

#720
post #555

I find it amazing that not one of the top comments gives Elon ANY consideration that maybe, just maybe, he has a legitimate case against Twitter. We don’t know what he’s found, what he was told, what he was promised, what changed on Twitter’s side. Some very top level people bailed or were fired shortly after Elon’s acquisition proposal was announced. It sure appears that Elons is just balking, but what is far more l…

> what is far more likely is that he has uncovered some deep Twitter bullshit Unfortunately, the time to do that was BEFORE he signed the contract. He didn't have to sign the contract without due diligence. > Or maybe he has a lot more info than any of us internet loons at the moment? Let me know how that turns out. Maybe the horse will sing. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/sig.html

Have you actually read the latest SEC filing? “Waiving due diligence” does not waive breach of contract. Opening paragraphed snipped below. Maybe it’s a lie, or maybe there is more to the story.

>>As further described below, Mr. Musk is terminating the Merger Agreement because Twitter is in material breach of multiple provisions of that Agreement, appears to have made false and misleading representations upon which Mr. Musk relied when entering into the Merger Agreement, and is likely to suffer a Company Material Adverse Effect (as that term is defined in the Merger Agreement).

Again, from the latest filing, these are pretty damning:

>> In addition, during the June 30, 2022 call, Twitter’s representatives indicated for the first time that the workflow and processes for detecting spam and false accounts in the mDAU population is different and separate from the workflow and processes for identifying and suspending accounts in violation of Twitter’s policies. On that call, Twitter indicated that it would not be willing to provide information regarding the methodologies employed to identify and suspend such accounts.

Furthermore:

>> Despite public speculation on this point, Mr. Musk did not waive his right to review Twitter’s data and information simply because he chose not to seek this data and information before entering into the Merger Agreement. In fact, he negotiated access and information rights within the Merger Agreement precisely so that he could review data and information that is important to Twitter’s business before financing and completing the transaction.

Post reply on HN