741–750 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To think that a company that has failed to create self-driving for nearly a decade could solve "content moderation", one of the hardest problem on the internet that every single of the big companies (who btw hire the best talent) have been struggling with, is truly a shocking statement to me. If all Google and Facebook couldn't solve it, why could a Tesla engineer of all people...
We're not talking about the hardest content problems on the internet. Look at any of Elon Musk's (or anyone in crypto's) popular tweets and you'll see a flood of incredibly obvious bots that poorly mimic his account, spamming some shit coin or advertising a BTC address. Also, you're really understating how good Tesla self-drive is. It's not full self-drive but it's a real achievement.
I never claimed Tesla self-driving wasn't an achievement, but clearly they underestimated how hard that would be themselves, so I wouldn't be surprised if they'd do the same for content moderation.
Some points from the All in Pod. 1. The Twitter board of directors has become a status thing. It's like a country club. They don't have real skin in the game; they don't own much stock. They're not aligned with the shareholders. It's about status and cultural power. 2. Why should we believe that the company will become more valuable when the stock price is where it was way back in December 2013? Compare to how the S&…
I don't care about Musk or Twitter but I'm glad that somebody made a good joke out of this debacle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, what happens when Elon starts his own platform instead and uses some of the ~$40 billion he'd otherwise buy Twitter with instead on paying top users of Twitter to exclusively use his platform instead?
Do you remember Google Plus? Google had excellent financing and an existing team of excellent software developers and couldn't pull of a credible alternative to facebook. The world is littered with the expensive corpses of failed software.
Google's product lacked purpose. It died because of a lack of vision and leadership and product mistakes (real names).
It died prematurely. Google treated the product like a pilot a network threw on the first week of September. It had solid numbers and given time it could have found itself if it found a backer in leadership.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is the first time I disagree with you. Bot problem, perhaps not. Spam problem, definitely. https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1487022342630957062?s=21&t=... https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1496549841912094733?s=21&t=... https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1485588476057825290?s=21&t=... and https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1473752736537657349... https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/139902863019023…
For those blindly downvoting that, here's what Paul Graham said: "Either (a) Twitter is terribly bad at detecting spam or (b) there's something about Twitter that makes detecting spam difficult or (c) they don't care. Based on my experience detecting spam, I'd guess (c)." "Twitter engineering: If you're going to do such a bad job of catching spam, how about at least giving us a one-click way to report a tweet as spam…
Some points from the All in Pod. 1. The Twitter board of directors has become a status thing. It's like a country club. They don't have real skin in the game; they don't own much stock. They're not aligned with the shareholders. It's about status and cultural power. 2. Why should we believe that the company will become more valuable when the stock price is where it was way back in December 2013? Compare to how the S&…
Put down the Elon kool-aid , it has poisoned your mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Levine is being disingenuous, as usual. Obviously he would have banks and investors fighting to finance the deal. Wouldn't a breakup penalty address the breakup problem?
Not to mention he is being disingenuous by implying there was no material change between getting offered a seat at the board, and hearing what accepting that seat would entail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> fate of the company after it has been taken private doesn't matter as far as "fiduciary duty" is concerned If it goes private. As always, Matt Levine says it better than I can: "...the financing seems to be made up of cobwebs and phlogiston. But also Musk has joked about taking companies private before, and he generally changes his mind a lot. (He agreed to join Twitter’s board last week! And then changed his mind…
Levine is being disingenuous, as usual. Obviously he would have banks and investors fighting to finance the deal. Wouldn't a breakup penalty address the breakup problem?
No. If you’re at a table negotiating a break-up penalty, you’ve already crossed the Rubicon. You have indicated that the price was at the very least worth considering.
If that buyer then walks before agreeing to the break-up penalty, the damage has been done. Board seats have been lost for less.
Some points from the All in Pod. 1. The Twitter board of directors has become a status thing. It's like a country club. They don't have real skin in the game; they don't own much stock. They're not aligned with the shareholders. It's about status and cultural power. 2. Why should we believe that the company will become more valuable when the stock price is where it was way back in December 2013? Compare to how the S&…
> One AI engineer from Tesla could solve Twitter’s bot and spam problem I think you underestimate how hard the problem is or you don’t fully understand how it works. The scale at which Twitter operates makes it near impossible to take down spam in real time. You don’t think Twitter is working on it, but they are. What you see is a much smaller percentage of the actual spam generated, and the reason you see it is beca…
Yet people talking about hunter biden’s laptop in October 2020 had their accounts deleted immediately.
Twitter is very good at content moderation when it threatens the manufactured narrative of the global elite which they serve. And then completely incompetent otherwise.
I don’t buy the line that the problem is too complex because I see selective competence.