|
Should I step down as head of twitter This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
420 | 4.43% |
| No |
|
69 | 0.73% |
| Goku |
|
9001 | 94.85% |
| Total: | 9490 votes | ||
|
Strategic Tea posted:Especially if the mistreated group isn't being mistreated by the USA, which is of course the centre of the universe and must be referenced immediately to one up any tale of horror elsewhere in the world sir, please quiet down, there are others with worse problems right now
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
speaking of worse problems, i know someone who may be legally forced to pay $44 billion for a social media website
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
*mario underground theme* running over children
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:*to a man whose family have been dragged off, raped and shot* don't worry bro in the UNITED STATES they would have made you fight fires unpaid I don't think they make you. They just lure you in with the promise of money and new skills then prevent you from using those skills when you're released because holy poo poo are you crazy, criminals could never be fire fighters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 03:25
|
|
|
Bad Purchase posted:speaking of worse problems, i know someone who may be legally forced to pay $44 billion for a social media website Elon being forced to buy twitter is going to be so bad for humanity, but it will be very funny so it's impossible to say if it's bad or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 03:28
|
|
|
Party Ape posted:Elon being forced to buy twitter is going to be so bad for humanity, but it will be very funny so it's impossible to say if it's bad or not. it can be both bad and funny
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 03:30
|
|
|
Stex T posted:*mario underground theme* running over children God drat did I need that laugh today, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 03:45
|
|
|
Party Ape posted:Elon being forced to buy twitter is going to be so bad for humanity, but it will be very funny so it's impossible to say if it's bad or not. i still think the most likely outcome is twitter will offer a settlement where he pays a few billion to walk away and the trial is just the stick to make him take the deal. although i agree it would be intensely funny, i am not sure a judge would really want to force an unwilling buyer to gain sole control of a company he now has bad blood with unless there were no possible alternative. that would be a pretty terrible situation for the workers, which the court may actually care about because they're white collar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 03:51
|
|
|
Mumpy Puffinz posted:good luck getting 2/3 of the states to change it. Great Ideas 200 years ago for land owners. Now it kinda sucks i dunno, non regressives are stupid/lazy as gently caress and keep forgetting to make Team R lose in midterms and other non Prez years, Team R might actually catch another car / get their twothrird of state govs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 03:54
|
|
|
lol that the framers of the constitution created a system where arbitrary geography determines political power rather than population. they colonized they own country, a shameful country
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
Bad Purchase posted:i still think the most likely outcome is twitter will offer a settlement where he pays a few billion to walk away and the trial is just the stick to make him take the deal. although i agree it would be intensely funny, i am not sure a judge would really want to force an unwilling buyer to gain sole control of a company he now has bad blood with unless there were no possible alternative. that would be a pretty terrible situation for the workers, which the court may actually care about because they're white collar. I think holding out for specific performance is likely because the twitter share holders would love to take that $20 a share premium and use it to buy something better than twitter. Just look at the big names on the twitter shareholders register and tell me they don't want that payday.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:i dunno, non regressives are stupid/lazy as gently caress and keep forgetting to make Team R lose in midterms and other non Prez years, Team R might actually catch another car / get their twothrird of state govs. we already lost abortion. I think the next thing to become illegal is miscegenation
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 03:59
|
|
|
Party Ape posted:I think holding out for specific performance is likely because the twitter share holders would love to take that $20 a share premium and use it to buy something better than twitter. it's possible, but a $10 billion settlement would effectively produce the same result because the current valuation is about that much below the offer. i doubt they will get quite that much, but i also think they'd be willing to take less because there is still some risk they could lose the trial if all the noise about bots and twitter falsifying past statements to investors bears any fruit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
Bad Purchase posted:it's possible, but a $10 billion settlement would effectively produce the same result because the current valuation is about that much below the offer. Honestly I didn't think of that because I assumed ol musky would at least want something for his trouble. If he wants to just pour $10b into the giant pit that is capitalism and burn it, that would be the best outcome for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 04:07
|
|
|
i doubt he'd agree to $10b because at that point he might as well go all in. but i bet he'd be willing to settle for something in the 1-5 billion range and that might be good enough for twitter. but also that's me thinking like a normal person and not a billionaire sociopath so  he has sold off a few billion more of tesla stock recently, which might hint at how much he has to work with for settlement negotiations before the trial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 04:10
|
|
|
Mumpy Puffinz posted:of course just get the algorithms. Are you an idiot? He was making a joke about a very real thing where tech meant to recognize "hey, this is a person!" often struggles to recognize darker skin colors because the designers didn't even think about it: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/racial-discrimination-in-face-recognition-technology/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87QwWpzVy7I Can you maybe not do that thing where you get weirdly hostile because people made a joke you didn't understand? That happens a whole lot, and it's weird every time. Blurry Gray Thing fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Aug 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 04:14
|
|
|
Blurry Gray Thing posted:He was making a joke about a very real thing where tech meant to recognize "hey, this is a person!" often struggles to recognize darker skin colors because the designers didn't even think about it: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/racial-discrimination-in-face-recognition-technology/ I think you may also be an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 04:18
|
|
|
Bad Purchase posted:i still think the most likely outcome is twitter will offer a settlement where he pays a few billion to walk away and the trial is just the stick to make him take the deal. although i agree it would be intensely funny, i am not sure a judge would really want to force an unwilling buyer to gain sole control of a company he now has bad blood with unless there were no possible alternative. that would be a pretty terrible situation for the workers, which the court may actually care about because they're white collar. the problem is that Elon is doing his best to do permanent, irrevocable damage to the company not only has he personally done his best to slander the company and ruin its reputation, but Elon has also used his political influence to spark a state investigation into Twitter's advertising practices and bot numbers. that's an enormous liability for the company and Twitter argues that there's a real risk that Elon might go to one of Twitter's competitors or even create his own, given that he's gotten a chance to look at all their most proprietary data the gap between the pre-deal share price and the current one isn't even close to the full extent of the damage that Twitter will ultimately take from Elon's actions if they back down and offer a settlement. but winning the lawsuit and having a judge officially rule that Elon is wrong would significantly mitigate the damage, and forcing Elon to buy the company makes perfect sense under the principle of "you broke it, you buy it" Bad Purchase posted:i doubt they will get quite that much, but i also think they'd be willing to take less because there is still some risk they could lose the trial if all the noise about bots and twitter falsifying past statements to investors bears any fruit. there is zero risk of Twitter losing. they haven't lied to investors, Elon is just an idiot who doesn't understand lawyer speak. he has no legal leg to stand on here
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
Elon paying a couple bil to get out of the deal makes a kind of face-value sense - Elon escapes with minor losses whilst Twitter workers and users breathe a sigh of relief. But the big "ISN'T THERE SOMEONE YOU FORGOT TO ASK?" is that major institutional shareholders were promised fat sacks of money. Blackrock, Morgan Stanley, Vanguard etc, they don't give a poo poo about whatever petty politics is driving this. They are vast, uncaring agglomerations of shareholder value. The contract says they get the money, so they get the money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
Vanilla Bison posted:maybe the Tesla collision detection system works like those homeopathic bomb detectors and you have to rub a child against the sensors for a while to train it gently caress all scammers everywhere, but honestly the fact that anyone was taken in by THIS to the tune of dozens of millions is ... loving wild. quote:romotional material issued by ATSC claimed that the ADE 651 could detect such item as guns, ammunition, drugs, truffles, human bodies, contraband ivory and bank notes at distances of up to 1 kilometre (0.62 mi), underground, through walls, underwater or even from aircraft at an altitude of up to 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).[12] In a promotional video, McCormick claimed that the device could detect elephants from 48 kilometres (30 mi) away.[13]
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
Often Abbreviated posted:But the big "ISN'T THERE SOMEONE YOU FORGOT TO ASK?" is that major institutional shareholders were promised fat sacks of money. Blackrock, Morgan Stanley, Vanguard etc, they don't give a poo poo about whatever petty politics is driving this. They are vast, uncaring agglomerations of shareholder value. The contract says they get the money, so they get the money. The ones that were financing the deal on Elon's side will be massively happy for it to fall through and get out of a loan that was buying an inflated asset and using inflated assets as security. The big institutional shareholders of twitter would like more money, but it's not like they can sue Elon over it. And TBQH they probably prefer stability and a few billion less profit. They're loving massive, a billion swing up or down isn't really a big deal. The reason twitter can't just let Elon walk for the billion break-up fee and then ban him as a final "gently caress off" is more likely the mid-size guys and big individuals, who could sue the corporate officers over it. Not Morgan Stanley & Blackrock.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
This is a case where Elon is messing with really powerful forces he doesn't seem to fully understand. Global financial institutions will grind him into paste.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
Musk "Going Bender" and making his own thing could be a thing, but him going to Zuck or some other competitor requires his drug bean to remember things. unless Twitter just allowed him to have boxes of secret for a few weeks/months.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 16:47
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:there is zero risk of Twitter losing. they haven't lied to investors, Elon is just an idiot who doesn't understand lawyer speak. he has no legal leg to stand on here the risk is low, but i don't think it's zero. elon is not the only person who thinks twitter's 5% bot estimate is intentionally misleading. there's been public research into the subject for years that doesn't line up with twitter's assessment. of course it may not be a lie technically, because they have a proprietary methodology that involves a human sampling 100 "daily active users" and using some criteria to say that 5 or less are bots on average. (also, lol that elon broke the NDA to reveal this and then twitter made a big deal about it, essentially confirming it.) because it's all private, there's not much shareholders can do about it. if more details come out in the trial and there is enough to question whether twitter's methodology was designed to be intentionally misleading, it could expose the company to future liability. that's not to say that bots are a winning issue for elon. it should not be relevant in his trial for many reasons -- in particular because before he even made the offer he was complaining that twitter had too many bots and he would authenticate all users. so it's not like he was fooled by twitter's 5% number, he had already acknowledged he knew it was bogus. but ultimately whether the curtain gets pulled back on twitter's bot methodology during the trial comes down to one judge. if the judge thinks it would be relevant if elon's side can prove twitter's method was intentionally wrong or inaccurate to the point of negligence, then that can of worms might get opened, and depending how it shakes out could expose twitter to more liability down the road. i do think that if twitter feels they have nothing to hide, then they will push for specific performance and force elon to buy. if they have skeletons in the closet, then a settlement is more likely. Often Abbreviated posted:But the big "ISN'T THERE SOMEONE YOU FORGOT TO ASK?" is that major institutional shareholders were promised fat sacks of money. Blackrock, Morgan Stanley, Vanguard etc, they don't give a poo poo about whatever petty politics is driving this. They are vast, uncaring agglomerations of shareholder value. The contract says they get the money, so they get the money. those large investors may not have as much influence as you think. first, twitter's legal team is navigating this and making recommendations, not external investors. the board will be giving them direction and representing the investors, but the board has its own interests too. some of them may actually care about the company a little bit, but who knows... second, those big names -- vanguard, blackrock, etc. -- are probably mostly representing passive index funds. firms that own large passive stakes in companies take a backseat and defer to the board for matters like this. that's written into the rules that govern how passive funds are administered. it's the individual shareholders and active fund managers who may try to tip the scales.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
Party Ape posted:Elon being forced to buy twitter is going to be so bad for humanity, but it will be very funny so it's impossible to say if it's bad or not. Twitter is already so corrosive to the human psyche that giving it to some rich dumbass who wants to turn it into the world's most expensive subreddit is still harm reduction even if you factor in that it's gonna be one of the violentacrez subreddits A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Aug 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
Pretty sure Elon is going to be forced to buy Twitter and it will immediately go to $100/share and he will be richer than ever and hailed as the greatest business genius of all time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
Klyith posted:The ones that were financing the deal on Elon's side will be massively happy for it to fall through and get out of a loan that was buying an inflated asset and using inflated assets as security. The big institutional shareholders behind twitter are the backbone or core infrastructure of end stage capitalism and would absolutely burn Musk and Telsa to the ground for a few billion dollars. The actual question is whether they'd do it for no profit (just to eliminate a competitor - aka that rear end in a top hat who likes trolling the market just to get likes and is putting their quiet fleecing of the public at risk by attracting attention). While they can't sue musk directly, they do appoint the board members who make the decisions on when and how to settle the lawsuit so I can see them trying to inflict maximum pain on him as a warning to other billionaire's who's parents didn't love them enough. quote:that's written into the rules that govern how passive funds are administered. it's the individual shareholders and active fund managers who may try to tip the scales. Oh no, these funds aren't influencing anything. They wouldn't do that. They just vote on their appointment, have regular meetings and meals with their appointees, go to the same clubs and events with them and send their kids to the same schools. Don't worry: The firewall is rock solid. Party Ape fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Aug 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
Bad Purchase posted:i still think the most likely outcome is twitter will offer a settlement where he pays a few billion to walk away and the trial is just the stick to make him take the deal. although i agree it would be intensely funny, i am not sure a judge would really want to force an unwilling buyer to gain sole control of a company he now has bad blood with unless there were no possible alternative. that would be a pretty terrible situation for the workers, which the court may actually care about because they're white collar. From what I understand, Delaware Chancery court is pretty big on contract enforcement. It's apparently a big part of Delaware's economy, companies register there because they know they can rely on contacts being enforced. The situation for the workers doesn't come into it. Can't see any way of Musk wriggling out of this one, all these embarrassing antics like challenging Twitter execs to a debate, is just desperation. Twitter execs can't even settle for less because they're legally entitled to the full price and taking a cent less would be ripping off their own shareholders and they'd get sued.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
Bad Purchase posted:lol that the framers of the constitution created a system where arbitrary geography determines political power rather than population. By the standards of the time they were incredibly progressive. The idea of even voting for whoever was in charge of the country instead of the divine right of kings was considered radical lefty nonsense. Never mind stuff like a written constitution, freedom of religion, separation of powers etc. But it just goes to show that whatever you do, someone in the future will consider you to be awful because you didn't manage to create a 21st century egalitarian utopia in the 18th century.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2022 01:25
|
|
|
Literally the only way he gets out is if Twitters execs just doesn’t want him to purchase it. Maybe they compromise and Elon has to pay a little less
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2022 01:26
|
|
|
pisshead posted:By the standards of the time they were incredibly progressive. The idea of even voting for whoever was in charge of the country instead of the divine right of kings was considered radical lefty nonsense. Never mind stuff like a written constitution, freedom of religion, separation of powers etc. But it just goes to show that whatever you do, someone in the future will consider you to be awful because you didn't manage to create a 21st century egalitarian utopia in the 18th century. None of this is particularly true, voting as it existed at the time was pretty old concept that ebbed and flowed as the times changed. American nationalist prefer to believe this though as everyone likes to feel special
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
pisshead posted:By the standards of the time they were incredibly progressive. The idea of even voting for whoever was in charge of the country instead of the divine right of kings was considered radical lefty nonsense. Never mind stuff like a written constitution, freedom of religion, separation of powers etc. But it just goes to show that whatever you do, someone in the future will consider you to be awful because you didn't manage to create a 21st century egalitarian utopia in the 18th century. ancient athenians punching air
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
pisshead posted:By the standards of the time they were incredibly progressive. The idea of even voting for whoever was in charge of the country instead of the divine right of kings was considered radical lefty nonsense. Never mind stuff like a written constitution, freedom of religion, separation of powers etc. But it just goes to show that whatever you do, someone in the future will consider you to be awful because you didn't manage to create a 21st century egalitarian utopia in the 18th century. Not really. For one thing, slavery was on the way out in plenty of places and the founders were terrified of groups like the levelers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2022 01:30
|
|
|
2nd Amendment posted:Not really. For one thing, slavery was on the way out in plenty of places and the founders were terrified of groups like the levelers. There was a lot of "radical thinkers" going all in at that point, and the french revolution happened just a year or two after Washington was elected president. I also vaguely recall a story about one faction wanting the US presidency to be a lifetime appointment, but I'm not sure how true that is. (The 1700s equivalent of a techbro going "it's kings 2.0, we are disrupting the monarchy industry".)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2022 01:50
|
|
|
Bad Purchase posted:the risk is low, but i don't think it's zero. elon is not the only person who thinks twitter's 5% bot estimate is intentionally misleading. there's been public research into the subject for years that doesn't line up with twitter's assessment. of course it may not be a lie technically, because they have a proprietary methodology that involves a human sampling 100 "daily active users" and using some criteria to say that 5 or less are bots on average. (also, lol that elon broke the NDA to reveal this and then twitter made a big deal about it, essentially confirming it.) because it's all private, there's not much shareholders can do about it. if more details come out in the trial and there is enough to question whether twitter's methodology was designed to be intentionally misleading, it could expose the company to future liability. there's no way that elon's side can prove, with the information that they currently have, that Twitter's method is intentionally fraudulent and if they don't currently have proof of that, then they can't use it as an excuse to back out of the deal bam, slam dunk, Twitter wins, end of story
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2022 02:02
|
|
|
drat, sounds like you could save the courts a lot of trouble
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2022 02:05
|
|
|
Bad Purchase posted:the risk is low, but i don't think it's zero. elon is not the only person who thinks twitter's 5% bot estimate is intentionally misleading. there's been public research into the subject for years that doesn't line up with twitter's assessment. of course it may not be a lie technically, because they have a proprietary methodology that involves a human sampling 100 "daily active users" and using some criteria to say that 5 or less are bots on average. This misses the fact that the bot estimate is 5% of MDAU (monetizable daily active users), which don't represent the entire population of twitter. Their sampling method is starting by only looking at that subset. Bots are generally not monitizable users: spam bot farms don't waste time loading ads. All the other bot people are looking at the whole population because they don't have twitter's data on who looks at ads and who doesn't. Anyways pretty much all of the business & legal reporters have been saying no, there is zero chance that the thing gets invalidated due to bot numbers. the thing that elon has a chance with is his requests for information and whether twitter was giving him everything promptly enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
Bad Purchase posted:drat, sounds like you could save the courts a lot of trouble the judge doesn't seem to expect this trial to take very long
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2022 02:34
|
|
|
Klyith posted:This misses the fact that the bot estimate is 5% of MDAU (monetizable daily active users), which don't represent the entire population of twitter. Their sampling method is starting by only looking at that subset. Bots are generally not monitizable users: spam bot farms don't waste time loading ads. i didn't miss that point, i even called it out in the part of my post you're quoting. the method that elon tweeted out is their sampling technique. what is still not known is how they decide which accounts are monetizable and active and what their bot criteria are. obviously those are different from public research, which has no access to twitter's internal method and data. the issue is whether the trial reveals that information, which twitter wants to hide, and also whether their 5% metric has been used in a misleading way to investors, or their methodology is bad to the point of being fraudulent. it has nothing to do with the result of the elon trial itself, but what information may come out of it if the judge makes them explain it. most likely it won't come to that, but there's not zero risk of it either. if twitter feels they have something to hide here, then perhaps they will favor a settlement before the trial. that's all i'm saying. we won't know for sure until it starts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2022 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
Bad Purchase posted:i didn't miss that point, i even called it out in the part of my post you're quoting. the method that elon tweeted out is their sampling technique. what is still not known is how they decide which accounts are monetizable and active and what their bot criteria are. obviously those are different from public research, which has no access to twitter's internal method and data. Please reach out to justice@tesla.com with this information post haste
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2022 02:59
|
|
