811–820 of 1001 posts
Can't Elon just loan his money to some close acquaintances to buy 15% each in their name who will vote his way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A large part of the problem for twitter Google and Facebook is their ever shifting goals for content moderation to appease their politically activist employees and media critics. Something tells me Elon would have different goals that should be less of a moving target and easier to accomplish. Less subjective target like "hate speech" and more objective target like true threats of violence, illegal activity, actual b…
No. Not relevant to the discussion. Gmail has no content moderation, but spam still gets through occasionally.
Even before the poison pill was adopted, the evidence is the market wasn't taking Musk's offer seriously. That's because he was offering $54.20 per share (ha ha, 420), but the stock price never closed higher than $48.36. So almost $6/share was left on the table. Part of it is that Musk doesn't have $43B in cash, he'd have to raise it or borrow it. He's worth more than that but it isn't liquid; as an officer of Tesla…
>So almost $6/share was left on the table. This is only true if the there is no uncertainty. If you think the value without the takeover is $30, and it is trading at 48, and buyout is $54, that means the market thinks it 75% likely. downside -$18, upside +$6 = 75% likely
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think big ETFs just buy shares willy nilly without any due diligence on company charters and bylaws?
If it’s a passively managed index fund, then yes, absolutely.
For example in the case of SPY, that would go against their stated investment objective.
They also clearly state
> the Trust may fail to own certain Index Securities at any particular time, the Trust generally will be substantially invested in Index Securities
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…
The problem is false positives. Graham's experience of combating spam involved writing a Bayesian filter for his mailbox. That's fine. Somebody misses a message and one of the two parties feels bad, but they eventually either catch up or get over it. You can't "leave" that platform. Twitter, on the other hand, is pretty sensitive to false positives, and the vernacular is so unique that naive Bayesian filtering would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I for one prefer that my communication-medium not have "values". For obvious reasons.
Not having value is a value in itself. It takes a crazy amount of effort to be completely neutral. >that my communication-medium Twitter is first and foremost a publishing platform, you should not rely on it as a private communication medium. None of the chat apps I know censor stuff, so use them instead. Use Twitter for public communication if you want, but since it's in the public domain you can't complain too much…
The phone company does a pretty good job of it, and we have regulations that force them to be mostly "neutral".
Those regulations have worked out quite well. Perhaps it time to expand our existing, and working regulations to other platforms, given that they work so well on existing platforms.
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&…
> 4. One AI engineer from Tesla could solve Twitter's bot and spam problem. This a comment written by someone who is clearly not an engineer dealing with high-scale backends, and is definitely not an AI engineer.
So, I'm not very corporate savvy and this might be a very stupid question. Is there a NON-culture/political reason for all the push back against Musk buying Twitter? From the read, this just seem to be opening the door for someone else to try and take majority control and pining away for the days of Dorsey (which, if looked at objectively, weren't great... just filling an opportunity).
> problem with Musk’s offer is that it is pretty low. Musk points out that $54.20 “represents a 54% premium” over where he started investing in Twitter, and a 38% premium over where the stock was before he announced his position. But Twitter was in the $60s in October, and a lot of its big long-term holders seem unlikely to be sellers at $54.20. “‘No board in America is going to take that number,’ said Jefferies analyst Brent Thill.”
Against the bid coming from him:
- He famously pretended he was going to take Tesla private and got in trouble because he was pretending. Takeover offers usually don’t have that history I guess.
- He doesn’t have financing, not even pretend financing like when he said he was going to take Tesla private
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wrong. He could probably borrow $43bn against Tesla shares in a few weeks at the most. He doesn't have to sell any Tesla shares.
Tesla has a rule that you can only borrow 25% of the value against the shares. From Money Stuff: > Or Musk could borrow more against his Tesla stake. Tesla’s own policies prohibit Musk from borrowing more than 25% of the value of his shares, which is barely enough to buy Twitter, even ignoring the fact that he has already used at least some of that capacity. Of course he’s in charge of Tesla and its board is famously…
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&…
Translation: "AI is a magic spell! I can take someone who's been working on vision recognition, and they alone could wish all our bots and spams away, with the magic of AI."
> The elites
Oh, god, here comes the libertarian spiel...
> but instead believe free speech, free discourse, and free thought are the instruments of repression.
Translation: "I want the right to tell any lie I please without consequences. I want the right to be able to scream at people on the Internet and keep my account. If I can't call someone racist names on the Internet, it's because you're all Fascists and authoritarians!"