Does anyone think he actually ran the numbers to find the amount of people actually using those services? I think he's just ordered the switch flipped and is about to spend another afternoon as the busiest Twitter customer service rep.
You can usually attribute to stupidity what could be explained by either malice or stupidity, he probably believed in his bullshit, just as musk believes in his own.
E: well greed is probably coequal with stupidity as well
So... will they spend the time to work out which 20% of the microservices that are needed for Twitter to work, or will they turn off the entire microservices including the 20% needed for Twitter to work?
I guess that's actually a rhetorical question, unfortunately.
They will probably as much time as they spent figuring out who they could fire from Twitter.
Inquisitor on
+1
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Sears is the place where I experienced my first ever First Person Shooter game. Wolfenstein 3D was running on one of the computers for sale in the electronics section. I still vividly remember being confused how to move and was excited when I figured out how to open the door.
As a kid, Sears was my favorite store in the mall because they had those demo consoles you could play by the video game section. My mom would just drop me off at Sears while she shopped, and I'd play Vectorman, Comix Zone, Sonic Spinball, Yoshi's Island, fucking Virtual Boy - whatever they had.
As far as I can tell, Sears is the only place anyone ever played a Virtual Boy.
It was also the first place I payed Ocarina of Time, which blew my damn mind at the time
I owned a VB! Wish I still had it. Vertical Force was probably my favorite game. It's a competent if somewhat easy shmup that let you move between 2 planes.
+4
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Does anyone think he actually ran the numbers to find the amount of people actually using those services? I think he's just ordered the switch flipped and is about to spend another afternoon as the busiest Twitter customer service rep.
like all of his sources about how terribly inefficient Twitter was before his glorious megabrain swooped in to save it, Elon's source for this number was His Ass's Center For Totally Real Numbers.
Does anyone think he actually ran the numbers to find the amount of people actually using those services? I think he's just ordered the switch flipped and is about to spend another afternoon as the busiest Twitter customer service rep.
Can't answer angry customer tweets if nobody can tweet angrily.
Twelfth.
Dimensional.
Chess.
Thanks Elon, now I get to spend an afternoon figuring out contingencies for emergency response public blasts/announcements without Twitter
Also I got my very first game -- Pokemon Blue -- at a Sears. But it didn't come with the Gameboy. So I got to hang around with a copy of Pokemon Blue for two months until my birthday when I got a Gameboy
The thing about the rural areas is that not many people live there by definition, which is a problem for any service trying to be profitable despite a large operating cost
You know, I keep hearing that cable companies have a high operating cost to provide service to rural areas, but I've never seen this proven or quantified. Is there a source for this information that isn't an ISP?
I'm an ISP; but we're not for profit. I can't publicly post numbers but I can talk about how we evaluate cost of service and feasibility.
Profitability is the huge factor there.
Let's take two areas with equal lengths of infrastructure say 100 miles; area A has 30 customers per mile and area B has 3 customers per mile.
Now overbuilding fiber will most likely be cheaper in area A because it is more likely to have had more maintenance done due to the high density. Area B will most likely require more expensive construction to account for using current infrastructure or burying everything.
Deploying fiber requires range based electronics, due to increased distances in B it will still cost about as much A to outfit equipment to serve those subscribers.
CO support depends on number of customers so costs for A should be higher in total, but less per customer.
OSP support depends mostly on miles of plant, so costs for A and B will be the same.
In the end you have higher capital costs to deploy in rural areas and your expenses per subscriber are higher, and your maximum revenue is lower. So, if your buildout requirements are a 30% return on investment, then in certain cases A may get built, but B will never get built.
My accounting/grant writing secret is to combine areas A and B and tell the accounting department this is our average costs for serving customers at a density of 16 customers per mile
Installation would be a fixed cost, not an operational cost. What are the operational costs?
0
ThegreatcowLord of All BaconsWashington State - It's Wet up here innit? Registered Userregular
Thanks Elon, now I get to spend an afternoon figuring out contingencies for emergency response public blasts/announcements without Twitter
Also I got my very first game -- Pokemon Blue -- at a Sears. But it didn't come with the Gameboy. So I got to hang around with a copy of Pokemon Blue for two months until my birthday when I got a Gameboy
The thing about the rural areas is that not many people live there by definition, which is a problem for any service trying to be profitable despite a large operating cost
You know, I keep hearing that cable companies have a high operating cost to provide service to rural areas, but I've never seen this proven or quantified. Is there a source for this information that isn't an ISP?
I'm an ISP; but we're not for profit. I can't publicly post numbers but I can talk about how we evaluate cost of service and feasibility.
Profitability is the huge factor there.
Let's take two areas with equal lengths of infrastructure say 100 miles; area A has 30 customers per mile and area B has 3 customers per mile.
Now overbuilding fiber will most likely be cheaper in area A because it is more likely to have had more maintenance done due to the high density. Area B will most likely require more expensive construction to account for using current infrastructure or burying everything.
Deploying fiber requires range based electronics, due to increased distances in B it will still cost about as much A to outfit equipment to serve those subscribers.
CO support depends on number of customers so costs for A should be higher in total, but less per customer.
OSP support depends mostly on miles of plant, so costs for A and B will be the same.
In the end you have higher capital costs to deploy in rural areas and your expenses per subscriber are higher, and your maximum revenue is lower. So, if your buildout requirements are a 30% return on investment, then in certain cases A may get built, but B will never get built.
My accounting/grant writing secret is to combine areas A and B and tell the accounting department this is our average costs for serving customers at a density of 16 customers per mile
Installation would be a fixed cost, not an operational cost. What are the operational costs?
Cost to serve/maintain higher on a unit cost basis
The thing about the rural areas is that not many people live there by definition, which is a problem for any service trying to be profitable despite a large operating cost
You know, I keep hearing that cable companies have a high operating cost to provide service to rural areas, but I've never seen this proven or quantified. Is there a source for this information that isn't an ISP?
I'm an ISP; but we're not for profit. I can't publicly post numbers but I can talk about how we evaluate cost of service and feasibility.
Profitability is the huge factor there.
Let's take two areas with equal lengths of infrastructure say 100 miles; area A has 30 customers per mile and area B has 3 customers per mile.
Now overbuilding fiber will most likely be cheaper in area A because it is more likely to have had more maintenance done due to the high density. Area B will most likely require more expensive construction to account for using current infrastructure or burying everything.
Deploying fiber requires range based electronics, due to increased distances in B it will still cost about as much A to outfit equipment to serve those subscribers.
CO support depends on number of customers so costs for A should be higher in total, but less per customer.
OSP support depends mostly on miles of plant, so costs for A and B will be the same.
In the end you have higher capital costs to deploy in rural areas and your expenses per subscriber are higher, and your maximum revenue is lower. So, if your buildout requirements are a 30% return on investment, then in certain cases A may get built, but B will never get built.
My accounting/grant writing secret is to combine areas A and B and tell the accounting department this is our average costs for serving customers at a density of 16 customers per mile
Installation would be a fixed cost, not an operational cost. What are the operational costs?
I mean installations are variable cost; but strictly looking at op ex, your labor, fleet, and advertising costs are all significantly higher per subscriber in a rural area.
Not so high that with enough scale and combination of less rural areas that you can't be self sustaining but low enough that you can't return investor profits.
The thing about the rural areas is that not many people live there by definition, which is a problem for any service trying to be profitable despite a large operating cost
You know, I keep hearing that cable companies have a high operating cost to provide service to rural areas, but I've never seen this proven or quantified. Is there a source for this information that isn't an ISP?
I'm an ISP; but we're not for profit. I can't publicly post numbers but I can talk about how we evaluate cost of service and feasibility.
Profitability is the huge factor there.
Let's take two areas with equal lengths of infrastructure say 100 miles; area A has 30 customers per mile and area B has 3 customers per mile.
Now overbuilding fiber will most likely be cheaper in area A because it is more likely to have had more maintenance done due to the high density. Area B will most likely require more expensive construction to account for using current infrastructure or burying everything.
Deploying fiber requires range based electronics, due to increased distances in B it will still cost about as much A to outfit equipment to serve those subscribers.
CO support depends on number of customers so costs for A should be higher in total, but less per customer.
OSP support depends mostly on miles of plant, so costs for A and B will be the same.
In the end you have higher capital costs to deploy in rural areas and your expenses per subscriber are higher, and your maximum revenue is lower. So, if your buildout requirements are a 30% return on investment, then in certain cases A may get built, but B will never get built.
My accounting/grant writing secret is to combine areas A and B and tell the accounting department this is our average costs for serving customers at a density of 16 customers per mile
Installation would be a fixed cost, not an operational cost. What are the operational costs?
I mean installations are variable cost; but strictly looking at op ex, your labor, fleet, and advertising costs are all significantly higher per subscriber in a rural area.
Not so high that with enough scale and combination of less rural areas that you can't be self sustaining but low enough that you can't return investor profits.
Ah, this is the bigger issue, then. It's not that it's not profitable, it's that it's not profitable enough.
Also, to get a bit off topic, I'd argue installations can't be a variable cost, since they're a one-and-done, but I'm also only like 3/4 through my first econ class, so maybe on a macro level shit's different.
The thing about the rural areas is that not many people live there by definition, which is a problem for any service trying to be profitable despite a large operating cost
You know, I keep hearing that cable companies have a high operating cost to provide service to rural areas, but I've never seen this proven or quantified. Is there a source for this information that isn't an ISP?
I'm an ISP; but we're not for profit. I can't publicly post numbers but I can talk about how we evaluate cost of service and feasibility.
Profitability is the huge factor there.
Let's take two areas with equal lengths of infrastructure say 100 miles; area A has 30 customers per mile and area B has 3 customers per mile.
Now overbuilding fiber will most likely be cheaper in area A because it is more likely to have had more maintenance done due to the high density. Area B will most likely require more expensive construction to account for using current infrastructure or burying everything.
Deploying fiber requires range based electronics, due to increased distances in B it will still cost about as much A to outfit equipment to serve those subscribers.
CO support depends on number of customers so costs for A should be higher in total, but less per customer.
OSP support depends mostly on miles of plant, so costs for A and B will be the same.
In the end you have higher capital costs to deploy in rural areas and your expenses per subscriber are higher, and your maximum revenue is lower. So, if your buildout requirements are a 30% return on investment, then in certain cases A may get built, but B will never get built.
My accounting/grant writing secret is to combine areas A and B and tell the accounting department this is our average costs for serving customers at a density of 16 customers per mile
Installation would be a fixed cost, not an operational cost. What are the operational costs?
I mean installations are variable cost; but strictly looking at op ex, your labor, fleet, and advertising costs are all significantly higher per subscriber in a rural area.
Not so high that with enough scale and combination of less rural areas that you can't be self sustaining but low enough that you can't return investor profits.
Ah, this is the bigger issue, then. It's not that it's not profitable, it's that it's not profitable enough.
Also, to get a bit off topic, I'd argue installations can't be a variable cost, since they're a one-and-done, but I'm also only like 3/4 through my first econ class, so maybe on a macro level shit's different.
Your construction contractor cost is salary so operational by default
Though there are ways to capitalize that based on how you structure the deliverable in the contract (ie paying a vendor for delivery of an asset on a fixed cost/fixed scope contract vs paying for salary of a construction contractor to do installations for a fixed time frame)
Yeah since they’re always ongoing, it’s far more efficient to have always-on construction staff (either internal or more likely contracted due to geographic distribution) than have to do a statement of work for every new project to lay line
Captain Inertia on
0
Mercutio87So build that wall and build it strong causeWe'll be there before too longRegistered Userregular
My understanding on starlink is it’s a solution to the problem of SpaceX actually being successful. There’s only so much demand for satellite launches.
Jack probably doesn't really care, but I wonder if he gets slightly annoyed at the man idiot running around running his mouth and firing twitter staff for things Musk doesn't understand.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
the dorkass losers running around twitter tagging in elon musk whenever a twitter employee doesn't sufficiently bend the knee to elon are truly some of the most pathetic people around
the dorkass losers running around twitter tagging in elon musk whenever a twitter employee doesn't sufficiently bend the knee to elon are truly some of the most pathetic people around
Imagine being such a pathetic piece of shit to do that. Like pond scum has more integrity.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
*looks at that Y axis*
Now that is some Y axis chicanery
The X-axis is a little sus as well. Especially with a big event, like say...an election, happening in early November. Might be interesting to see historical trends there.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced this evening that Twitter is adding back its popular tweet source label feature. This allows you to see which Twitter client was used to send a tweet in the official Twitter for iOS app.
If this feature sounds familiar, it’s because Twitter offered it up until 2012 when it was removed as part of the company’s efforts to make tweets client-agnostic. Back then, Twitter first removed the feature from iOS and eventually from its web client as well.
Despite Twitter removing the capability, many third-party applications and TweetDeck have continued to offer it. Thus, today’s update to Twitter for iOS makes it comparable to those third-party competitors (at least in terms of this single feature).
"Nobody I asked could explain why!
"How many people did you ask before tweeting this?
"Well, there was me, myself, and I. Of course, that handsome smart looking fellow who lives in the mirror...
The thing about the rural areas is that not many people live there by definition, which is a problem for any service trying to be profitable despite a large operating cost
You know, I keep hearing that cable companies have a high operating cost to provide service to rural areas, but I've never seen this proven or quantified. Is there a source for this information that isn't an ISP?
I'm an ISP; but we're not for profit. I can't publicly post numbers but I can talk about how we evaluate cost of service and feasibility.
Profitability is the huge factor there.
Let's take two areas with equal lengths of infrastructure say 100 miles; area A has 30 customers per mile and area B has 3 customers per mile.
Now overbuilding fiber will most likely be cheaper in area A because it is more likely to have had more maintenance done due to the high density. Area B will most likely require more expensive construction to account for using current infrastructure or burying everything.
Deploying fiber requires range based electronics, due to increased distances in B it will still cost about as much A to outfit equipment to serve those subscribers.
CO support depends on number of customers so costs for A should be higher in total, but less per customer.
OSP support depends mostly on miles of plant, so costs for A and B will be the same.
In the end you have higher capital costs to deploy in rural areas and your expenses per subscriber are higher, and your maximum revenue is lower. So, if your buildout requirements are a 30% return on investment, then in certain cases A may get built, but B will never get built.
My accounting/grant writing secret is to combine areas A and B and tell the accounting department this is our average costs for serving customers at a density of 16 customers per mile
Installation would be a fixed cost, not an operational cost. What are the operational costs?
I mean installations are variable cost; but strictly looking at op ex, your labor, fleet, and advertising costs are all significantly higher per subscriber in a rural area.
Not so high that with enough scale and combination of less rural areas that you can't be self sustaining but low enough that you can't return investor profits.
There's also M&O for the cabling, which can be very expensive to repair if there's only one cable to an area.
I mean, ISPs are utilities in every sense of the word, and utilities have well known economies of scale issues
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced this evening that Twitter is adding back its popular tweet source label feature. This allows you to see which Twitter client was used to send a tweet in the official Twitter for iOS app.
If this feature sounds familiar, it’s because Twitter offered it up until 2012 when it was removed as part of the company’s efforts to make tweets client-agnostic. Back then, Twitter first removed the feature from iOS and eventually from its web client as well.
Despite Twitter removing the capability, many third-party applications and TweetDeck have continued to offer it. Thus, today’s update to Twitter for iOS makes it comparable to those third-party competitors (at least in terms of this single feature).
It was something people apparently liked!
i always found it useful because in part it was a decent way of detecting authenticity... anything sent by Tweetdeck.... highly suspicious....
it reminds me of the good old days when twitter allowed third party apps to really exercise a full featureset... im sure thats never coming back
Posts
E: well greed is probably coequal with stupidity as well
That JPEG was fake, but the other code comments on TF2 about insanity required to keep it running was very real.
This guy seems devastated that he doesn’t get to work for Musk anymore
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
They will probably as much time as they spent figuring out who they could fire from Twitter.
like when the OOM killer is running amuck
it'll do great things for system stability
say, when does the World Cup start again?
I owned a VB! Wish I still had it. Vertical Force was probably my favorite game. It's a competent if somewhat easy shmup that let you move between 2 planes.
like all of his sources about how terribly inefficient Twitter was before his glorious megabrain swooped in to save it, Elon's source for this number was His Ass's Center For Totally Real Numbers.
Can't answer angry customer tweets if nobody can tweet angrily.
Twelfth.
Dimensional.
Chess.
Oh! He's just trying to tighten up the graphics on level 3! I get it now
Also I got my very first game -- Pokemon Blue -- at a Sears. But it didn't come with the Gameboy. So I got to hang around with a copy of Pokemon Blue for two months until my birthday when I got a Gameboy
Installation would be a fixed cost, not an operational cost. What are the operational costs?
it even spawned a legendary video!
Edit: And a Followup video by the Author explaining the madness or at least attempts to:
Wud yoo laek to lern aboot meatz? Look here!
This is such a mom move
Cost to serve/maintain higher on a unit cost basis
I mean installations are variable cost; but strictly looking at op ex, your labor, fleet, and advertising costs are all significantly higher per subscriber in a rural area.
Not so high that with enough scale and combination of less rural areas that you can't be self sustaining but low enough that you can't return investor profits.
Ah, this is the bigger issue, then. It's not that it's not profitable, it's that it's not profitable enough.
Also, to get a bit off topic, I'd argue installations can't be a variable cost, since they're a one-and-done, but I'm also only like 3/4 through my first econ class, so maybe on a macro level shit's different.
Your construction contractor cost is salary so operational by default
Though there are ways to capitalize that based on how you structure the deliverable in the contract (ie paying a vendor for delivery of an asset on a fixed cost/fixed scope contract vs paying for salary of a construction contractor to do installations for a fixed time frame)
*looks at that Y axis*
Now that is some Y axis chicanery
pleasepaypreacher.net
Imagine being such a pathetic piece of shit to do that. Like pond scum has more integrity.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The X-axis is a little sus as well. Especially with a big event, like say...an election, happening in early November. Might be interesting to see historical trends there.
https://9to5mac.com/2018/12/20/tweet-tweet-source-label/ It was something people apparently liked!
i don't know shit about algorithms so it won't have any
You have my sword dot gif
Algorithms?
More like al-orgasms, amirite?
Al Gore-isms, maybe.
"Nobody I asked could explain why!
"How many people did you ask before tweeting this?
"Well, there was me, myself, and I. Of course, that handsome smart looking fellow who lives in the mirror...
There's also M&O for the cabling, which can be very expensive to repair if there's only one cable to an area.
I mean, ISPs are utilities in every sense of the word, and utilities have well known economies of scale issues
i dunno, elon doesn't know shit about algorithms and look where that got us
i always found it useful because in part it was a decent way of detecting authenticity... anything sent by Tweetdeck.... highly suspicious....
it reminds me of the good old days when twitter allowed third party apps to really exercise a full featureset... im sure thats never coming back