I figure if twitter was that powerful, people other than Elon Musk would be chomping at the bit to get it
Companies use Twitter, but that's not sufficient justification for buying Twitter. Musk is spending nearly as much on Twitter as Xbox/MS are spending on Activision. It wouldn't make sense for someone like MS to buy Twitter, because Twitter doesn't match their brand and isn't profitable (they posted net losses every year but 2018 and 2019).
Musk is buying Twitter because his brand is entirely built on hype, and he needs a platform to hype himself on. A ban from Twitter could literally ruin Musk, because it could cause his valuation to be forced to match reality instead of the hype. Musk doesn't have to care if Twitter is profitable, because to him it's just a tool for his greater profit making scheme.
If it's so valuable to him in particular then he's gonna have it unless someone who hates him enough to spend billions gets it first. Twitter has no agency
Or maybe the SEC could step in and stop letting the modern Wolf of Wall Street get rich off of hype.
I figure if twitter was that powerful, people other than Elon Musk would be chomping at the bit to get it
Companies use Twitter, but that's not sufficient justification for buying Twitter. Musk is spending nearly as much on Twitter as Xbox/MS are spending on Activision. It wouldn't make sense for someone like MS to buy Twitter, because Twitter doesn't match their brand and isn't profitable (they posted net losses every year but 2018 and 2019).
Musk is buying Twitter because his brand is entirely built on hype, and he needs a platform to hype himself on. A ban from Twitter could literally ruin Musk, because it could cause his valuation to be forced to match reality instead of the hype. Musk doesn't have to care if Twitter is profitable, because to him it's just a tool for his greater profit making scheme.
If it's so valuable to him in particular then he's gonna have it unless someone who hates him enough to spend billions gets it first. Twitter has no agency
Or maybe the SEC could step in and stop letting the modern Wolf of Wall Street get rich off of hype.
Do you think that, at the SEC, they use the position of having to read all of elon musks tweets as a threat?
Like, "Jones, if you're late to work one more time, we're putting you on the musk twitter account!"
So basically it's in every billionaire's best interests to act stupid and insane so if they happen to sell their stock it's because they're so wacky and not because they're actually paying attention to prices
Only if the company theyre a billionaire as a result of is massively overvalued. If the company isn’t overvalued (say Microsoft) then you gain a maybe bad investment by buying something bad.
Basically. If Twitter is worth 30b and musk spends 40B to buy it he has lost 10b. In the long run. But if he sells stock in Tesla for 40b when it’s actually worth 20b (and let’s be honest, it’s not worth that much) then he makes 10b.
To anyone else they lose 10b on the deal. Because Microsoft is actually as valuable as the market says it is
Tesla is an insurgent car manufacturer trying to take market in a sector dominated by 100-year old brands, the most well-known brands in the world
Any other company has to invest a significant portion of their income back into brand awareness and favorability marketing (think a ball-bearing rolling down the lines of a Lexus commercial every break in a football game)…Musk just tweets some bullshit lie about self-driving and not only does he generate a higher valuation for the company, he also generates new buyers of Teslas
Twitter doesn't need a CEO because it doesn't need to exist
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+17
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Tesla is an insurgent car manufacturer trying to take market in a sector dominated by 100-year old brands, the most well-known brands in the world
Any other company has to invest a significant portion of their income back into brand awareness and favorability marketing (think a ball-bearing rolling down the lines of a Lexus commercial every break in a football game)…Musk just tweets some bullshit lie about self-driving and not only does he generate a higher valuation for the company, he also generates new buyers of Teslas
Etc etc
Considering how difficult it is to actually buy a Tesla I don't know about that. They make a whopping 300k cars in a good year and they are currently backordered through 2023.
The fun thing about Tesla is that not only do they have continual trouble manufacturing cars, their cars are pretty crappy.
Fortunately for Elon, Tesla got a ton of goodwill simply by being one of the first electric car manufacturers to exist, and somehow that halo hasn't worn off now that everyone's getting into the game.
The fun thing about Tesla is that not only do they have continual trouble manufacturing cars, their cars are pretty crappy.
Fortunately for Elon, Tesla got a ton of goodwill simply by being one of the first electric car manufacturers to exist, and somehow that halo hasn't worn off now that everyone's getting into the game.
Teslas have more range than most other electric vehicles though. I expect that gap to lessen as others catch up, but the initial head start they got isn't over yet.
The fun thing about Tesla is that not only do they have continual trouble manufacturing cars, their cars are pretty crappy.
Fortunately for Elon, Tesla got a ton of goodwill simply by being one of the first electric car manufacturers to exist, and somehow that halo hasn't worn off now that everyone's getting into the game.
They also initially started by buying their car bodies from established manufacturers (Lotus, specifically.) The build quality began to plummet when they started to make their own (as one wag put it, "the stars may align, but a Tesla's body panels never will.")
The fun thing about Tesla is that not only do they have continual trouble manufacturing cars, their cars are pretty crappy.
Fortunately for Elon, Tesla got a ton of goodwill simply by being one of the first electric car manufacturers to exist, and somehow that halo hasn't worn off now that everyone's getting into the game.
The number of "My Tesla exploded and set my groin on fire and also a bunch of rabid badgers were in the glove compartment, but this isn't Tesla's fault" posts you can find on social media is baffling.
Like, there are people who have had their lives legitimately put in jeopardy by Tesla's shoddy engineering and poor software, but they still revere the brand as if it could do no wrong.
Tesla is an insurgent car manufacturer trying to take market in a sector dominated by 100-year old brands, the most well-known brands in the world
Any other company has to invest a significant portion of their income back into brand awareness and favorability marketing (think a ball-bearing rolling down the lines of a Lexus commercial every break in a football game)…Musk just tweets some bullshit lie about self-driving and not only does he generate a higher valuation for the company, he also generates new buyers of Teslas
Etc etc
Considering how difficult it is to actually buy a Tesla I don't know about that. They make a whopping 300k cars in a good year and they are currently backordered through 2023.
He's pushing up demand, which will push up price because of the limited supply.
Twitter doesn't need a CEO because it doesn't need to exist
For a brief moment the other day, while trying to communicate something complex on Twitter, I think I cracked how Dorsey could think that Twitter (or a similarly limited social media platform) could be a net good for the world.
You take a couple of premises to start.
One, more communication between more people is itself a net good. Increased social connections outside of our geographic bubbles, more exposure to diverse thought, a leveling of the playing field in terms of exposure to and ability to broadcast ideas. Anything really, just connections are good.
Two, a lot of people, educated or no, are terrible communicators. Too many words, too many syllables, too many tangents. No ability to talk to a general audience about complex ideas at an appropriate level. Forcing people to communicate in simple, short sentences (via character limits) can help solve that.*
And I kind of buy those premises, honestly. And if I never moved beyond those two assumptions, simply believing a platform focused solely on those two things would function perfectly, I think I’d have the view on Twitter that I think Dorsey has.
…
But I’ve met people, and I’ve formed social connections. Even online, most of us choose those connections based on internal biases that we never question.
I’ve been the general audience, and I’ve been the person trying to communicate complex ideas to general audience. Most of us assume that communication failures are the other persons fault, because we know what we’re saying. We don’t stop to think about how to improve our communication, we just kind of move on and fail to connect with people who don’t operate on something similar to our existing frameworks.
And I think Dorsey is an amazing example of why that vision is a failure. He can’t see the flaws in his own plans, because he doesn’t connect to anyone who doesn’t share his blind spots. He can’t learn about his blind spots, because if he doesn’t understand something, it’s somebody else’s fault/a sign that they themselves don’t understand his perspective. Dorsey, and those that think like him, are the exact people who can never make the site anything more than a place that structurally encourages chit-chatting and shitposting.
*footnote: I know the actual, original limit was derived from SMS limitations, but if you needed to ideologically justify the limit, I think this is the closest thing to a genuine reason.
The fun thing about Tesla is that not only do they have continual trouble manufacturing cars, their cars are pretty crappy.
Fortunately for Elon, Tesla got a ton of goodwill simply by being one of the first electric car manufacturers to exist, and somehow that halo hasn't worn off now that everyone's getting into the game.
The number of "My Tesla exploded and set my groin on fire and also a bunch of rabid badgers were in the glove compartment, but this isn't Tesla's fault" posts you can find on social media is baffling.
Like, there are people who have had their lives legitimately put in jeopardy by Tesla's shoddy engineering and poor software, but they still revere the brand as if it could do no wrong.
Y'all have seen the console wars rage for years at this point. This should all be familiar.
Tesla is an insurgent car manufacturer trying to take market in a sector dominated by 100-year old brands, the most well-known brands in the world
Any other company has to invest a significant portion of their income back into brand awareness and favorability marketing (think a ball-bearing rolling down the lines of a Lexus commercial every break in a football game)…Musk just tweets some bullshit lie about self-driving and not only does he generate a higher valuation for the company, he also generates new buyers of Teslas
Etc etc
Considering how difficult it is to actually buy a Tesla I don't know about that. They make a whopping 300k cars in a good year and they are currently backordered through 2023.
He's pushing up demand, which will push up price because of the limited supply.
This is definitely true,. I take delivery of a Model Y on the 20th (ordered in October '21) and it's worth about $20k more than I'm paying for it. High likelihood that we get back in line, then sell it on the secondary market for a profit in 2023 when the next one is available.
Tesla is an insurgent car manufacturer trying to take market in a sector dominated by 100-year old brands, the most well-known brands in the world
Any other company has to invest a significant portion of their income back into brand awareness and favorability marketing (think a ball-bearing rolling down the lines of a Lexus commercial every break in a football game)…Musk just tweets some bullshit lie about self-driving and not only does he generate a higher valuation for the company, he also generates new buyers of Teslas
Etc etc
Considering how difficult it is to actually buy a Tesla I don't know about that. They make a whopping 300k cars in a good year and they are currently backordered through 2023.
He's pushing up demand, which will push up price because of the limited supply.
This is definitely true,. I take delivery of a Model Y on the 20th (ordered in October '21) and it's worth about $20k more than I'm paying for it. High likelihood that we get back in line, then sell it on the secondary market for a profit in 2023 when the next one is available.
That definitely doesn't sound like a system that will collapse.
Tesla is an insurgent car manufacturer trying to take market in a sector dominated by 100-year old brands, the most well-known brands in the world
Any other company has to invest a significant portion of their income back into brand awareness and favorability marketing (think a ball-bearing rolling down the lines of a Lexus commercial every break in a football game)…Musk just tweets some bullshit lie about self-driving and not only does he generate a higher valuation for the company, he also generates new buyers of Teslas
Etc etc
Considering how difficult it is to actually buy a Tesla I don't know about that. They make a whopping 300k cars in a good year and they are currently backordered through 2023.
He's pushing up demand, which will push up price because of the limited supply.
This is definitely true,. I take delivery of a Model Y on the 20th (ordered in October '21) and it's worth about $20k more than I'm paying for it. High likelihood that we get back in line, then sell it on the secondary market for a profit in 2023 when the next one is available.
That definitely doesn't sound like a system that will collapse.
Ehh, the used car market in general is batshit fucking crazy right now. We also sold a 4yr old Kia in February, and made $5000 over the remaining note. Friends and family discount, too... carvana would have bought it for the original purchase price, effectively letting us drive a car for 4 years at a net capital expense of $0.
Yeah, I'm very glad I got a new car when I did a few years ago before everything went crazy. It was a good price then, I think an equivalent car would be like 50% more now at least.
The fun thing about Tesla is that not only do they have continual trouble manufacturing cars, their cars are pretty crappy.
Fortunately for Elon, Tesla got a ton of goodwill simply by being one of the first electric car manufacturers to exist, and somehow that halo hasn't worn off now that everyone's getting into the game.
The number of "My Tesla exploded and set my groin on fire and also a bunch of rabid badgers were in the glove compartment, but this isn't Tesla's fault" posts you can find on social media is baffling.
Like, there are people who have had their lives legitimately put in jeopardy by Tesla's shoddy engineering and poor software, but they still revere the brand as if it could do no wrong.
We've grown to accept prototype and beta quality in way too many of our final products.
The fun thing about Tesla is that not only do they have continual trouble manufacturing cars, their cars are pretty crappy.
Fortunately for Elon, Tesla got a ton of goodwill simply by being one of the first electric car manufacturers to exist, and somehow that halo hasn't worn off now that everyone's getting into the game.
The number of "My Tesla exploded and set my groin on fire and also a bunch of rabid badgers were in the glove compartment, but this isn't Tesla's fault" posts you can find on social media is baffling.
Like, there are people who have had their lives legitimately put in jeopardy by Tesla's shoddy engineering and poor software, but they still revere the brand as if it could do no wrong.
We've grown to accept prototype and beta quality in way too many of our final products.
It's worth noting that there's a fight right now between the auto and semiconductor industries. The semiconductor companies want the auto makers to move to more modern chips, while the auto makers want proof that the new chips meet the standards for the older chips for durability.
Cathie Wood's ARK buys the dip in Tesla shares after months of selling
Jan 28, 2022 — Wood said in September that she has a five-year price target of $3,000 for the stock. Tesla was down 1.5% at $817 in premarket trading on ...
Cathie Wood's Ark Invest Sells $205 Million In Tesla Stock—Buys Crypto ...
Mar 30, 2022 — Famed stock picker Cathie Wood sold Tesla shares for the first time in more than two months over the ...
Cathie Wood's Ark (ARKK) Now Sees Tesla (TSLA) Stock More Than ...
Apr 18, 2022 — Cathie Wood's Ark Investment Management now expects Tesla Inc. shares to more than quadruple to $4,600 by 2026. Ark last year said ...
And let me just expand that last one a bit:
The firm’s bull case suggests the price could rise to around $5,800 by 2026 and the bear case suggests $2,900 -- still around three times more than the current share price of $1,005.
She's out there gambling on its volatility on a near monthly basis as she advises people that Tesla would still be on track to triple, in a downturn.
Utter madness.
Anyway: Social Media!
5th circuit reversed the injunction against Texas's law that purports to be an attempt to stop 'viewpoint discrimination' on social media sites, but is really just a vehicle for scurrilous litigation aiming to punishing private companies that they don't like.
Ken White, hatted lawyer, posted a thread explaining the litigatory horrors containied within its nebulous hellmouth:
It's even worse Ken since the law prohibits moderation of posts based on viewpoints expressed on OR OFF the site. So even if the post itself expresses no viewpoint, a litigious plaintiff can claim that the action was a response to some viewpoint they expressed somewhere else.
5th circuit reversed the injunction against Texas's law that purports to be an attempt to stop 'viewpoint discrimination' on social media sites, but is really just a vehicle for scurrilous litigation aiming to punishing private companies that they don't like.
Ken White, hatted lawyer, posted a thread explaining the litigatory horrors containied within its nebulous hellmouth:
It's even worse Ken since the law prohibits moderation of posts based on viewpoints expressed on OR OFF the site. So even if the post itself expresses no viewpoint, a litigious plaintiff can claim that the action was a response to some viewpoint they expressed somewhere else.
The GOP is going batshit fucking crazy with these poorly written laws. And they control enough of the courts that no one is stopping them.
5th circuit reversed the injunction against Texas's law that purports to be an attempt to stop 'viewpoint discrimination' on social media sites, but is really just a vehicle for scurrilous litigation aiming to punishing private companies that they don't like.
Ken White, hatted lawyer, posted a thread explaining the litigatory horrors containied within its nebulous hellmouth:
It's even worse Ken since the law prohibits moderation of posts based on viewpoints expressed on OR OFF the site. So even if the post itself expresses no viewpoint, a litigious plaintiff can claim that the action was a response to some viewpoint they expressed somewhere else.
The GOP is going batshit fucking crazy with these poorly written laws. And they control enough of the courts that no one is stopping them.
I thought poorly written laws were the point? I mean, I've come to expect incompetency, but a poorly written law is it's own win, as it's a lot easier to apply it unequally, due to prosecutorial discretion.
THAT person's post in favor of BLM/LGBT/Abortion/Gun Control is clearly worth prosecuting. THIS person's racist/sexist/gun nut screed isn't.
I mean, we know that there's always been the issue, but a poorly written law does make the job a lot easier, especially at fringe cases (on the left) that might otherwise not apply under a more well-written law.
+9
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
5th circuit reversed the injunction against Texas's law that purports to be an attempt to stop 'viewpoint discrimination' on social media sites, but is really just a vehicle for scurrilous litigation aiming to punishing private companies that they don't like.
Ken White, hatted lawyer, posted a thread explaining the litigatory horrors containied within its nebulous hellmouth:
It's even worse Ken since the law prohibits moderation of posts based on viewpoints expressed on OR OFF the site. So even if the post itself expresses no viewpoint, a litigious plaintiff can claim that the action was a response to some viewpoint they expressed somewhere else.
The GOP is going batshit fucking crazy with these poorly written laws. And they control enough of the courts that no one is stopping them.
I thought poorly written laws were the point? I mean, I've come to expect incompetency, but a poorly written law is it's own win, as it's a lot easier to apply it unequally, due to prosecutorial discretion.
THAT person's post in favor of BLM/LGBT/Abortion/Gun Control is clearly worth prosecuting. THIS person's racist/sexist/gun nut screed isn't.
I mean, we know that there's always been the issue, but a poorly written law does make the job a lot easier, especially at fringe cases (on the left) that might otherwise not apply under a more well-written law.
It's worth noting that White's position is that there shouldn't be a law regarding liability for moderation decisions.
5th circuit reversed the injunction against Texas's law that purports to be an attempt to stop 'viewpoint discrimination' on social media sites, but is really just a vehicle for scurrilous litigation aiming to punishing private companies that they don't like.
Ken White, hatted lawyer, posted a thread explaining the litigatory horrors containied within its nebulous hellmouth:
It's even worse Ken since the law prohibits moderation of posts based on viewpoints expressed on OR OFF the site. So even if the post itself expresses no viewpoint, a litigious plaintiff can claim that the action was a response to some viewpoint they expressed somewhere else.
The GOP is going batshit fucking crazy with these poorly written laws. And they control enough of the courts that no one is stopping them.
I thought poorly written laws were the point? I mean, I've come to expect incompetency, but a poorly written law is it's own win, as it's a lot easier to apply it unequally, due to prosecutorial discretion.
THAT person's post in favor of BLM/LGBT/Abortion/Gun Control is clearly worth prosecuting. THIS person's racist/sexist/gun nut screed isn't.
I mean, we know that there's always been the issue, but a poorly written law does make the job a lot easier, especially at fringe cases (on the left) that might otherwise not apply under a more well-written law.
Prosecutorial discretion is out, the current fad is to create vague torts intended for excessive and indiscriminate use, but which can only be used against precisely defined targets.
Tech companies with more users than Gab/Truth/Rumble(?)
Public Schools
Pro-choice people
Etc.
The point is "Fuck Twitter/Public Schools/Women/etc" and that purpose is served no matter who brings these suits, or why.
5th circuit reversed the injunction against Texas's law that purports to be an attempt to stop 'viewpoint discrimination' on social media sites, but is really just a vehicle for scurrilous litigation aiming to punishing private companies that they don't like.
Ken White, hatted lawyer, posted a thread explaining the litigatory horrors containied within its nebulous hellmouth:
It's even worse Ken since the law prohibits moderation of posts based on viewpoints expressed on OR OFF the site. So even if the post itself expresses no viewpoint, a litigious plaintiff can claim that the action was a response to some viewpoint they expressed somewhere else.
The GOP is going batshit fucking crazy with these poorly written laws. And they control enough of the courts that no one is stopping them.
I thought poorly written laws were the point? I mean, I've come to expect incompetency, but a poorly written law is it's own win, as it's a lot easier to apply it unequally, due to prosecutorial discretion.
THAT person's post in favor of BLM/LGBT/Abortion/Gun Control is clearly worth prosecuting. THIS person's racist/sexist/gun nut screed isn't.
I mean, we know that there's always been the issue, but a poorly written law does make the job a lot easier, especially at fringe cases (on the left) that might otherwise not apply under a more well-written law.
It's worth noting that White's position is that there shouldn't be a law regarding liability for moderation decisions.
It's worth noting that every time someone is mentioned isn't the time to bring up your pet peeve with something else. He's 100% right here. The Texas law is gibberish.
5th circuit reversed the injunction against Texas's law that purports to be an attempt to stop 'viewpoint discrimination' on social media sites, but is really just a vehicle for scurrilous litigation aiming to punishing private companies that they don't like.
Ken White, hatted lawyer, posted a thread explaining the litigatory horrors containied within its nebulous hellmouth:
It's even worse Ken since the law prohibits moderation of posts based on viewpoints expressed on OR OFF the site. So even if the post itself expresses no viewpoint, a litigious plaintiff can claim that the action was a response to some viewpoint they expressed somewhere else.
The GOP is going batshit fucking crazy with these poorly written laws. And they control enough of the courts that no one is stopping them.
I thought poorly written laws were the point? I mean, I've come to expect incompetency, but a poorly written law is it's own win, as it's a lot easier to apply it unequally, due to prosecutorial discretion.
THAT person's post in favor of BLM/LGBT/Abortion/Gun Control is clearly worth prosecuting. THIS person's racist/sexist/gun nut screed isn't.
I mean, we know that there's always been the issue, but a poorly written law does make the job a lot easier, especially at fringe cases (on the left) that might otherwise not apply under a more well-written law.
They really are just this stupid and incompetent. They aren't writing these laws bad deliberately they just literally can't do better. We've seen them actually try and it's a shitshow because they are actually this bad at this.
You don't need poorly written laws to apply the law unequally after all. Especially when you control the courts.
5th circuit reversed the injunction against Texas's law that purports to be an attempt to stop 'viewpoint discrimination' on social media sites, but is really just a vehicle for scurrilous litigation aiming to punishing private companies that they don't like.
Ken White, hatted lawyer, posted a thread explaining the litigatory horrors containied within its nebulous hellmouth:
It's even worse Ken since the law prohibits moderation of posts based on viewpoints expressed on OR OFF the site. So even if the post itself expresses no viewpoint, a litigious plaintiff can claim that the action was a response to some viewpoint they expressed somewhere else.
The GOP is going batshit fucking crazy with these poorly written laws. And they control enough of the courts that no one is stopping them.
I thought poorly written laws were the point? I mean, I've come to expect incompetency, but a poorly written law is it's own win, as it's a lot easier to apply it unequally, due to prosecutorial discretion.
THAT person's post in favor of BLM/LGBT/Abortion/Gun Control is clearly worth prosecuting. THIS person's racist/sexist/gun nut screed isn't.
I mean, we know that there's always been the issue, but a poorly written law does make the job a lot easier, especially at fringe cases (on the left) that might otherwise not apply under a more well-written law.
It's worth noting that White's position is that there shouldn't be a law regarding liability for moderation decisions.
It's worth noting that every time someone is mentioned isn't the time to bring up your pet peeve with something else. He's 100% right here. The Texas law is gibberish.
I didn't say he was wrong - my point is that he's not on my side either. The Texas law is a steaming pile of gooseshit, but the position that White supports isn't all that much better - instead of throwing open the gates because of liability, it happens because it's the path of least resistance, and you're indemnified, so what does it matter what harm results?
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy until proven otherwise. And given White's very much the "hate speech is the price of free speech" sort, he's yet to prove otherwise to me.
5th circuit reversed the injunction against Texas's law that purports to be an attempt to stop 'viewpoint discrimination' on social media sites, but is really just a vehicle for scurrilous litigation aiming to punishing private companies that they don't like.
Ken White, hatted lawyer, posted a thread explaining the litigatory horrors containied within its nebulous hellmouth:
It's even worse Ken since the law prohibits moderation of posts based on viewpoints expressed on OR OFF the site. So even if the post itself expresses no viewpoint, a litigious plaintiff can claim that the action was a response to some viewpoint they expressed somewhere else.
The GOP is going batshit fucking crazy with these poorly written laws. And they control enough of the courts that no one is stopping them.
I thought poorly written laws were the point? I mean, I've come to expect incompetency, but a poorly written law is it's own win, as it's a lot easier to apply it unequally, due to prosecutorial discretion.
THAT person's post in favor of BLM/LGBT/Abortion/Gun Control is clearly worth prosecuting. THIS person's racist/sexist/gun nut screed isn't.
I mean, we know that there's always been the issue, but a poorly written law does make the job a lot easier, especially at fringe cases (on the left) that might otherwise not apply under a more well-written law.
They really are just this stupid and incompetent. They aren't writing these laws bad deliberately they just literally can't do better. We've seen them actually try and it's a shitshow because they are actually this bad at this.
This is what happens when you reject expertise and intellectual rigor as part of your philosophy. You end up with a grab-bag of various garbage argle-bargle that couldn't pour water out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.
It's what fascism thrives on. Chaos and confusion. The more of it, the better. It's why so many of the current fascist movements fall back on religious aphorisms when justifying themselves. They don't have an intellectual basis that can stand up to interrogation or scrutiny. Why they yell louder and louder. And why it's okay to tell someone's attempt to justify their personal fascist thoughts to go fuck themselves.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
I for one am terrified of fascists and their enablers allowing people to use an internet platform to say anything that's within the bounds of the law. I'm just a poor blue collar slob, what if bad thoughts get into my head? Can't my betters please protect me from myself?
Tesla’s suit against Xiang Ligang, CEO of CCTime, will be heard at the Beijing Internet Court on May 24, according to company database platform Tianyancha and the Global Times, a state-run media outlet.
As Tesla CEO Elon Musk waves the flag of free speech after his offer to purchase Twitter for $44 billion was approved, his other company does not seem to be the biggest fan of critique. Tesla has recently filed defamation claims against two of its customers in China, as well as a Chinese influencer, for raising concerns over its vehicles’ quality and safety.
Posts
Or maybe the SEC could step in and stop letting the modern Wolf of Wall Street get rich off of hype.
Do you think that, at the SEC, they use the position of having to read all of elon musks tweets as a threat?
Like, "Jones, if you're late to work one more time, we're putting you on the musk twitter account!"
Only if the company theyre a billionaire as a result of is massively overvalued. If the company isn’t overvalued (say Microsoft) then you gain a maybe bad investment by buying something bad.
Basically. If Twitter is worth 30b and musk spends 40B to buy it he has lost 10b. In the long run. But if he sells stock in Tesla for 40b when it’s actually worth 20b (and let’s be honest, it’s not worth that much) then he makes 10b.
To anyone else they lose 10b on the deal. Because Microsoft is actually as valuable as the market says it is
The problem is people are dumb enough to do things like that. A lot of them. Enough to matter to all the people who aren't.
Any other company has to invest a significant portion of their income back into brand awareness and favorability marketing (think a ball-bearing rolling down the lines of a Lexus commercial every break in a football game)…Musk just tweets some bullshit lie about self-driving and not only does he generate a higher valuation for the company, he also generates new buyers of Teslas
Etc etc
Once again, the existence of TikTok argues otherwise.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Considering how difficult it is to actually buy a Tesla I don't know about that. They make a whopping 300k cars in a good year and they are currently backordered through 2023.
Fortunately for Elon, Tesla got a ton of goodwill simply by being one of the first electric car manufacturers to exist, and somehow that halo hasn't worn off now that everyone's getting into the game.
Teslas have more range than most other electric vehicles though. I expect that gap to lessen as others catch up, but the initial head start they got isn't over yet.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
They also initially started by buying their car bodies from established manufacturers (Lotus, specifically.) The build quality began to plummet when they started to make their own (as one wag put it, "the stars may align, but a Tesla's body panels never will.")
The number of "My Tesla exploded and set my groin on fire and also a bunch of rabid badgers were in the glove compartment, but this isn't Tesla's fault" posts you can find on social media is baffling.
Like, there are people who have had their lives legitimately put in jeopardy by Tesla's shoddy engineering and poor software, but they still revere the brand as if it could do no wrong.
He's pushing up demand, which will push up price because of the limited supply.
For a brief moment the other day, while trying to communicate something complex on Twitter, I think I cracked how Dorsey could think that Twitter (or a similarly limited social media platform) could be a net good for the world.
You take a couple of premises to start.
One, more communication between more people is itself a net good. Increased social connections outside of our geographic bubbles, more exposure to diverse thought, a leveling of the playing field in terms of exposure to and ability to broadcast ideas. Anything really, just connections are good.
Two, a lot of people, educated or no, are terrible communicators. Too many words, too many syllables, too many tangents. No ability to talk to a general audience about complex ideas at an appropriate level. Forcing people to communicate in simple, short sentences (via character limits) can help solve that.*
And I kind of buy those premises, honestly. And if I never moved beyond those two assumptions, simply believing a platform focused solely on those two things would function perfectly, I think I’d have the view on Twitter that I think Dorsey has.
…
But I’ve met people, and I’ve formed social connections. Even online, most of us choose those connections based on internal biases that we never question.
I’ve been the general audience, and I’ve been the person trying to communicate complex ideas to general audience. Most of us assume that communication failures are the other persons fault, because we know what we’re saying. We don’t stop to think about how to improve our communication, we just kind of move on and fail to connect with people who don’t operate on something similar to our existing frameworks.
And I think Dorsey is an amazing example of why that vision is a failure. He can’t see the flaws in his own plans, because he doesn’t connect to anyone who doesn’t share his blind spots. He can’t learn about his blind spots, because if he doesn’t understand something, it’s somebody else’s fault/a sign that they themselves don’t understand his perspective. Dorsey, and those that think like him, are the exact people who can never make the site anything more than a place that structurally encourages chit-chatting and shitposting.
*footnote: I know the actual, original limit was derived from SMS limitations, but if you needed to ideologically justify the limit, I think this is the closest thing to a genuine reason.
Y'all have seen the console wars rage for years at this point. This should all be familiar.
This is definitely true,. I take delivery of a Model Y on the 20th (ordered in October '21) and it's worth about $20k more than I'm paying for it. High likelihood that we get back in line, then sell it on the secondary market for a profit in 2023 when the next one is available.
That definitely doesn't sound like a system that will collapse.
Ehh, the used car market in general is batshit fucking crazy right now. We also sold a 4yr old Kia in February, and made $5000 over the remaining note. Friends and family discount, too... carvana would have bought it for the original purchase price, effectively letting us drive a car for 4 years at a net capital expense of $0.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
We've grown to accept prototype and beta quality in way too many of our final products.
thank goodness for small favors
It's worth noting that there's a fight right now between the auto and semiconductor industries. The semiconductor companies want the auto makers to move to more modern chips, while the auto makers want proof that the new chips meet the standards for the older chips for durability.
And included in that group are the people actively cultivating the hype-inertia to sell to rubes who don't have twitter accounts.
Tesla profiteer, Forbes '50 over 50' honoree, and Bloomberg New's 2020 "Best Stock Picker," Cathie Wood.
Here is a sample of the Google results for "catherine wood tesla": And let me just expand that last one a bit:
She's out there gambling on its volatility on a near monthly basis as she advises people that Tesla would still be on track to triple, in a downturn.
Utter madness.
Anyway: Social Media!
5th circuit reversed the injunction against Texas's law that purports to be an attempt to stop 'viewpoint discrimination' on social media sites, but is really just a vehicle for scurrilous litigation aiming to punishing private companies that they don't like.
Ken White, hatted lawyer, posted a thread explaining the litigatory horrors containied within its nebulous hellmouth:
First Tweet:
Thread reader version:
https://t.co/hdbSVhiP4c
Nonsense peak:
It might be, but it is a fiercely competitive league.
Yep, but Texas keeps trotting out banger after banger to make their case.
The GOP is going batshit fucking crazy with these poorly written laws. And they control enough of the courts that no one is stopping them.
I thought poorly written laws were the point? I mean, I've come to expect incompetency, but a poorly written law is it's own win, as it's a lot easier to apply it unequally, due to prosecutorial discretion.
THAT person's post in favor of BLM/LGBT/Abortion/Gun Control is clearly worth prosecuting. THIS person's racist/sexist/gun nut screed isn't.
I mean, we know that there's always been the issue, but a poorly written law does make the job a lot easier, especially at fringe cases (on the left) that might otherwise not apply under a more well-written law.
Missouri thinks the Citadel in Fury Road is an inspiring form of government.
It's worth noting that White's position is that there shouldn't be a law regarding liability for moderation decisions.
Tech companies with more users than Gab/Truth/Rumble(?)
Public Schools
Pro-choice people
Etc.
The point is "Fuck Twitter/Public Schools/Women/etc" and that purpose is served no matter who brings these suits, or why.
It's worth noting that every time someone is mentioned isn't the time to bring up your pet peeve with something else. He's 100% right here. The Texas law is gibberish.
They really are just this stupid and incompetent. They aren't writing these laws bad deliberately they just literally can't do better. We've seen them actually try and it's a shitshow because they are actually this bad at this.
You don't need poorly written laws to apply the law unequally after all. Especially when you control the courts.
I didn't say he was wrong - my point is that he's not on my side either. The Texas law is a steaming pile of gooseshit, but the position that White supports isn't all that much better - instead of throwing open the gates because of liability, it happens because it's the path of least resistance, and you're indemnified, so what does it matter what harm results?
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy until proven otherwise. And given White's very much the "hate speech is the price of free speech" sort, he's yet to prove otherwise to me.
This is what happens when you reject expertise and intellectual rigor as part of your philosophy. You end up with a grab-bag of various garbage argle-bargle that couldn't pour water out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.
It's what fascism thrives on. Chaos and confusion. The more of it, the better. It's why so many of the current fascist movements fall back on religious aphorisms when justifying themselves. They don't have an intellectual basis that can stand up to interrogation or scrutiny. Why they yell louder and louder. And why it's okay to tell someone's attempt to justify their personal fascist thoughts to go fuck themselves.