Elon Musk, conman?

[ralfy]

OK, he can toss my salad any day! 

No need to desire what's already taking place.

[Alex]

I did not post non-Elon Musk related comments in this thread. Here's the first post:

In this thread and non Elon Musk related. I guess you really don't read your own posts huh?

Not a fan of Russia. More important, not a fan of disinformation. Finally, not a fan of either-or views, e.g., either you're with us, or you're pro-Russian.

[ralfy]

I did not post non-Elon Musk related comments in this thread. Here's the first post:

In this thread and non Elon Musk related. I guess you really don't read your own posts huh?

Not a fan of Russia. More important, not a fan of disinformation. Finally, not a fan of either-or views, e.g., either you're with us, or you're pro-Russian.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. That was in response to this post:

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,158014.msg693848.html#msg693848

That was followed by this attempt to derail the thread further:

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,158014.msg693873.html#msg693873

In short, I've been trying to remain on-topic from the start, but ER and you don't seem to be interested in that.

Back to the topic thread: check out this editorial that makes fun of Musk:

EDITORIAL: Twitter How to burn $44 billion

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/editorial-twitter-burn-44-billion-233600586.html

Here's the notable point:

Twitter, as a financial concern, was never worth $44 billion. In 2021, Twitter had $5 billion in revenue — and more than $220 billion in net losses. No wonder Twitter's management and board were so determined to force Musk to cash them out.

In short, Musk is supposed to be a "con man" but turns out to be the victim of con men who ran the company to the ground and then threatened to sue him from backing out of a deal to buy the company way about its worth!

https://www.engadget.com/twitter-sues-elon-musk-212213001.html

Why is the last point important? Because Musk wanted to back out of the deal because he argued that up to half of the users consisted of 'bots.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/10/tech/elon-musk-twitter-bot-analysis-cyabra/index.html

That's why every measure he's taken so far is intended to cut down over $3 billion in losses and the same platform abuse allowed by the magnificent geniuses who opposed him, including

https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/twitter-to-stop-free-api-access-what-does-this-mean-and-will-it-affect-users-11675516987841.html

What has he done so far?

- fired up to half of these geniuses who were mostly overpaid and practically useless to company operations and auctioned off millions of dollars worth of items involving waste, from gym equipment to designer chairs in the office HQ;

- realized that the real reason advertisers were backing away even before he took over isn't because the same geniuses were allowing child porn advocacy to flood the platform but because the promoted tweets were being read by large numbers of automated users;

- imposed a subscription deal and other for-pay features, such as access to APIs, because various entities were using them for abuse, etc.

Results so far have included losses decreasing dramatically from $3 billion to $270 million, and subscription models that are now also being planned by Meta and other companies.

[RCMerchant]

OK, he can toss my salad any day! 

No need to desire what's already taking place.

You don't know what that is slang for, do you? 

[Alex]

I did not post non-Elon Musk related comments in this thread. Here's the first post:

In this thread and non Elon Musk related. I guess you really don't read your own posts huh?

Not a fan of Russia. More important, not a fan of disinformation. Finally, not a fan of either-or views, e.g., either you're with us, or you're pro-Russian.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. That was in response to this post:

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,158014.msg693848.html#msg693848

I am aware it was a response to that. I am also aware it was in this thread and that it was off-topic, so no need to work on my reading comprehension. Yours however...

[ralfy]

You don't know what that is slang for, do you? 

I know what it means, but it's the other way round. I'll let you figure out why.

[ralfy]

I am aware it was a response to that. I am also aware it was in this thread and that it was off-topic, so no need to work on my reading comprehension. Yours however...

Apparently, not only do you need to work on your reading comprehension, you need to work on basic critical thinking, too. Here's what happened:

ER goes off-topic, and starts engaging in personal attacks against me.

You join ER.

I respond because I need to defend myself, but I try to remain on-topic throughout because I don't want the OP to lock this thread because of that.

You read that response, and then criticize me for going off-topic.

So, you side with ER who goes off-topic, and then attack me for doing the same. Get it, now?

So, let's go back to the topic thread: what do you think of the point about the former owners and employees of Twitter sinking it into a $3 billion-hole, threatening Musk for backing off from a deal involving a company that isn't worth $44 billion because of the previous owners' shenanigans (which includes allowing child porn advocates to post tweets about that alongside advertisers who were very much against it, and allowing 'bots to populate much of the platform, going against what advertisers assume is populated by mostly potential customers), and then critics attacking him after, e.g., claiming that he will cause failure for a company that was failing even before he bought it, even though he managed at great costs to cut down losses from $3 billion to $270 million several months later?

[Alex]

I am aware it was a response to that. I am also aware it was in this thread and that it was off-topic, so no need to work on my reading comprehension. Yours however...

Apparently, not only do you need to work on your reading comprehension, you need to work on basic critical thinking, too. Here's what happened:

I am aware and understand everything going on in the thread. Both my reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are fine. None of this changes that you said you hadn't gone off topic and I pointed out that you had.

When I start constantly telling you things you've said that you haven't then I'd worry about my comprehension. You, know like the thing you kept on doing in a previous thread. Until then I am pretty sure I am fine. I do think it's funny that you are insisting that you haven't posted off-topic while all of this is in fact, off-topic.

[ralfy]

I am aware and understand everything going on in the thread. Both my reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are fine. None of this changes that you said you hadn't gone off topic and I pointed out that you had.

When I start constantly telling you things you've said that you haven't then I'd worry about my comprehension. You, know like the thing you kept on doing in a previous thread. Until then I am pretty sure I am fine. I do think it's funny that you are insisting that you haven't posted off-topic while all of this is in fact, off-topic.

What is wrong with you? ER goes off-topic by attacking me personally, and you join in. I defend myself, and you accuse me of going off-topic. I've been trying to remain on-topic, and you're still talking about me!

Should I still bother asking you about Musk?

[Alex]

I am merely pointing out that your assertation that you hadn't posted anything off-topic was incorrect. There was nothing more to it than that. You could ask me about Musk if you wanted, but I've already given my view on him in this thread. It wouldn't really matter either way though. I mean look what happened when I actually agreed with you about something previously.

[chainsaw midget]

So apparently Musck just fired one of his top engineers.  Musk asked why his tweets had been getting less views lately and it was pointed out that the public simply wasn't as interested in him as it used to be. 

Apparently that was enough for Musk to fire the guy on the spot.

[ralfy]

I am merely pointing out that your assertation that you hadn't posted anything off-topic was incorrect. There was nothing more to it than that. You could ask me about Musk if you wanted, but I've already given my view on him in this thread. It wouldn't really matter either way though. I mean look what happened when I actually agreed with you about something previously.

You joined ER in going off-topic by personally attacking me. Did you expect me to keep quiet about that?

BTW, about asking you about Musk, what do you think I've been doing during this discussion?

So, let's see if you are going to go on-topic:

1. It turns out that contrary to claims that he would be running the company to the ground, it turns out that it was being run to the ground before he took over. If any, he actually saved the company by decreasing losses by over 90 pct: from $3 billion to $270 million.

2. Contrary to claims that advertisers would be turned away given his ownership, it turns out that they were moving away before he took over because their ads were being shown alongside tweets advocating child porn and allowed by content managers.

3. Contrary to claims that operations would fall apart after he fired many of those content managers, it turned out that not only did it continue, it turns out that overpaid employees (something like $167K a year) was the main reason why the company was being bled try. Add to that wasteful spending, like gym equipment and designer chairs, which Musk also had to auction off to cut down losses.

4. Contrary to claims that most would move to Mastodon, it turns out that only a few move, and more of those are returning to Twitter due to lack of engagement. To attack Musk. In his own platform. To which he doesn't care, but that'll be $8 for the blue check, plox. LOL. (It's from a wisecrack he issued to Tesla customer AOC.)

5. Contrary to claims that he's some sort of con man, about to finish off Twitter, one editorial unwittingly admitted that he wanted to back out because the whole platform was populated by 'bots, which might have been the other reason why advertisers were pulling out. The ones who were responsible for that and for running the company to the ground threated to sue him if he did, which implied that they were desperate to cash out due to losses that they caused.

Makes you wonder who are real con men are.

[ralfy]

So apparently Musck just fired one of his top engineers.  Musk asked why his tweets had been getting less views lately and it was pointed out that the public simply wasn't as interested in him as it used to be. 

Apparently that was enough for Musk to fire the guy on the spot.

Reminds me of what happened before that, when one employee tweeted to Musk and questioned the latter's policies publicly, and when Musk responded, got even angrier because Musk should have replied in private.

Good grief.

[ralfy]

LOL

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1625248292006424576

[LilCerberus]

LOL

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1625248292006424576