Termoil at Twitter. Elon is accompanied with guards at all times and a plan to charge money for API access broke links and embeds across the web.

[Uttamattamakin]

24 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

I'm not remotely surprised he's sucking at twitter. Something like Telsa or SpaceX is ultimately rooted in science, there's a limit to how much the human factor can influence what is and isn't possibble or how to do it. It's very much a "If A then B" world.......SNIP

T H I S

 

Twitter (or other social medias) are basically a big party.  Twitter is a big world wide cocktail party where everyone from a woke transwoman to a bearded Taliban can look at and discuss the same topic and sometimes agree or disagree.  It is a global 24 hour place to just chat with the collective consciousness of the internet.  Which is usually thinking about smut and violence but that's just how people are.   

In short it is a social, human, living thing mediated via code, and internet infrastructure.  Jack Dorsey and company got that.  Elon, God the beneficent and merciful has not willied it that he would be good at this sort of thing.  Zuck was liked to a Soong type android a while back but he's way better at this.  Musk he needs to wow us with his rockets and cars.  Twitter ain't it chief.  Sell. SELL

 

Musk needs to sell Twitter the way the Duke brothers needed to sell their Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice. 

(Fun fact they really do buy and sell FCOJ future contracts.  That's not just for comedic effect.)

[Majinhoju]

I see Elon's cosplay as a social media ceo is still going well as ever. I hope more people are finally catching onto just how unbelievably inept this man is. What's the employee count at now, 2000 left from 7500? I'm sure most of those are people stuck there on work visas who can't afford to jump ship.

[wanderingfool2]

8 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

You completely lost it.

Mr. Thorleifsson was ghosted for 9 days, tried everything and reached out via Twitter to finally get a response from his employer. Mr. Musk instead of reaching out to him or responding to his answer publicly played and ridiculed him, told lies and said pretty much his disability was made up and - I quote - wrote about him "He's just the worst, sorry."

The entire world knows how despicable this was, Tesla stock plummeted as a response and even Elon realized his mistake.

The world can rarely agree on something, but in this case they did. Yet, you are still trying to make some flimsy argument that it wasn't so bad.

To quote Spongebob: "Don't you have to be stupid somewhere else?"

First, "Tesla stock plummeted as a response" is the most laughable thing ever.  You clearly have never watched the stock before or you would have looked and noticed it's been on a downward trend for the last month approx. and early in the week a few of the analysts downgraded their stock estimates.  So yea, the Spongebob quote more applies to you for thinking that that tweet was the cause of it "plummeting".

 

I never condoned how Halli had to go on twitter to get answers, just stating that it wasn't mocking the disability.  Again, Musk did mock Halli but not in relation to the disability.  It also wasn't saying disability was made up, but rather more along the lines that it was used as an excuse for not doing something (when in viewing the amount of tweets he did seemed to be something he was capable of).  Again it's the same as the guy who drove 3 hours round trip to work, it's okay to question when he says that he cannot do any driving for work.  It doesn't say the disability was made up, but it's a valid point of contention when talking about job performance while there is demonstrations that he might be capable of doing it.

 

Seriously, for a second imagine if you were told by HR that employee XYZ had a medical excuse to not type, and based on what was tweeted by Halli it seems the reports he did were more in person ones instead of written...yet you see him typing paragraphs on twitter.

 

btw, it doesn't help that apparently you can't read.  The emails (or PM's) Halli sent Musk were ghosted, he did get a response from the Twitter head HR (that they couldn't confirm if he had been let go). Annoying sure, but if the head of HR says that they couldn't confirm, then you could just assume that it's being decided.  It was likely decided when he decided to go public though (which is why then the HR person was able to respond with confirmation)

 

Halli specifically said discussing it publicly, at the point where Musk replied Halli was more than welcome to invite him to speak privately to get it sorted but doubled down by asking to waive confidentiality.

[Sauron]

14 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Sure, winning the lottery takes no skill...but it's foolhardy to think that someone who "wins the lottery" multiple times is just lucky.

In a lottery it's either luck or cheating, or both after you win the first time and have the money to cheat and get away with it. Zip2 and paypal were lucky breaks created by the dotcom bubble, the current value of tesla is mostly due to abusing government subsidies and market manipulation that he could only do because he was already wealthy. At this point it's almost impossible for him to fail even if he tried; he has too much money to suffer the consequences for a bad decision and so he just fails upwards. Losses from obviously stupid endeavors like the boring company and buying twitter are just absorbed by his sheer wealth. Why don't you point to something he demonstrably did, himself, that lead to tesla having a competitive edge rather than gesturing at the stock value and going "well he must be doing SOMETHING"?

[Isuck Assimov]

15 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

He didn't make fun

Yes he did wtf are you smoking ?

I fucking hate musk fanchildren who completely lost touch with reality and only huff his damn farts.

Silicon Valley Syndrome

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

In a lottery it's either luck or cheating, or both after you win the first time and have the money to cheat and get away with it. Zip2 and paypal were lucky breaks created by the dotcom bubble, the current value of tesla is mostly due to abusing government subsidies and market manipulation that he could only do because he was already wealthy. At this point it's almost impossible for him to fail even if he tried; he has too much money to suffer the consequences for a bad decision and so he just fails upwards. Losses from obviously stupid endeavors like the boring company and buying twitter are just absorbed by his sheer wealth. Why don't you point to something he demonstrably did, himself, that lead to tesla having a competitive edge rather than gesturing at the stock value and going "well he must be doing SOMETHING"?

Having money doesn't guarantee that you can keep making it.  Sure it's easier to get started if you have lots of it from the beginning.  Believe it or not, business skills and prowess are no different than any other skill be it music, art or cooking,  someone can give you a job as the head chef in a fancy restaurant but if you can't cook it won't succeed, someone can give you a guitar, a music label contract and 2 years studio time with guaranteed airplay, but if you suck at music you won't succeed.  And business is exactly the same, you can be given the money, the staff, even an winner of an idea, but if you suck at business you won't succeed.  People who do succeed business after business are good at it, whether you like them or not.

[Sauron]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Having money doesn't guarantee that you can keep making it.  Sure it's easier to get started if you have lots of it from the beginning.  Believe it or not, business skills and prowess are no different than any other skill be it music, art or cooking,  someone can give you a job as the head chef in a fancy restaurant but if you can't cook it won't succeed, someone can give you a guitar, a music label contract and 2 years studio time with guaranteed airplay, but if you suck at music you won't succeed.  And business is exactly the same, you can be given the money, the staff, even an winner of an idea, but if you suck at business you won't succeed.  People who do succeed business after business are good at it, whether you like them or not.

I can concede that it's possible to be better or worse at "business" than others (although what "good at business" means is up for debate) and that it has some influence on how well your companies do but I don't accept the idea that it's the main reason you succeed or fail as a multimillionaire, let alone a billionaire.

 

I should also note that whenever we have this argument about Musk in particular there's this underlying implication that not only his skill in "business" is what brought him here but also that it is the reason some of his companies have come out with arguably good products or technology, which is a complete non sequitur.

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

I can concede that it's possible to be better or worse at "business" than others (although what "good at business" means is up for debate) and that it has some influence on how well your companies do but I don't accept the idea that it's the main reason you succeed or fail as a multimillionaire, let alone a billionaire.

 

I should also note that whenever we have this argument about Musk in particular there's this underlying implication that not only his skill in "business" is what brought him here but also that it is the reason some of his companies have come out with arguably good products or technology, which is a complete non sequitur.

Good business takes into account the entire business. A good business doesn't outsource. A good business eats it's own dogfood. A good business is on the level and is honest with it's stockholders/investors and customers. B2B is often a miles better experience than end-customer/consumers.

 

When you have to lie to the customers, stockholders and regulators to paint a picture to keep up the appearance of being, that's a problem.

 

Like the only reason Facebook is still in business is because of FOMO. The reason people are still on twitter is FOMO. You've invested years of your life, building relationships, etc on this social media platform, you're just not going to rip up those relationships and move, because you can't take those relationships with you.

 

Realistically, Facebook, Twitter and apps that behave and have overlapping functionality like them (skype, teams, discord, youtube, twitch, whatsapp, instagram, tiktok, etc) that facilitate communication between two people, should be regulated in a way that they can not design algorithms to benefit themselves. When I use one of these websites or apps, I should not be exposed to advertising that looks like other users content, the owner should not be able to decide what users see at the expense of others, the site should not be permitted to kick off anyone or censor anyone (short of systemic abuse), but the users should be able to block/mute anyone they don't want to see.

 

There are ways of solving that. Livejournal figured that out. Twitter only recently figured it out. Only show content from mutual followers, and the abuse disappears. Can't complain about content you willingly subject yourself to. Was that a mistake and maybe you don't really want to see that content? Unfollow, or mute that mutual's posts about their bathroom habits, or whatever.

 

A lot can be improved to give a better "freedom" platform, but you can't force people to see content they don't want to see, because as we've seen with advertisements on all platforms, and mediums, people don't want to waste their time on it, and if your platform is 95% ads (like fashion magazines) or 80% ads (news/editorial sites and print) people will pick platforms that don't have ads. If your platform is "subscription, but still ads" people are just going to balk at that. Twitter Blue offers no benefits that are worth paying for, and Elon is out of his mind if the thinks anyone is going to pay for blue to get back features that were previously standard functionality.

 

Removing the chronological timeline has done nothing but destroy engagement and discovery, and people look at their timeline and go "wow, it's the same posts I've been seeing every day for the last 3 months, wow this site is dead."

[HenrySalayne]

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

First, "Tesla stock plummeted as a response" is the most laughable thing ever.  You clearly have never watched the stock before or you would have looked and noticed it's been on a downward trend for the last month approx. and early in the week a few of the analysts downgraded their stock estimates.  So yea, the Spongebob quote more applies to you for thinking that that tweet was the cause of it "plummeting".

"If the stock is already on a downward trajectory, who knows if this incident made it worse."  This is a terrible argument, but at least it's entertaining, I'll give you that.

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Seriously, for a second imagine if you were told by HR that employee XYZ had a medical excuse to not type, and based on what was tweeted by Halli it seems the reports he did were more in person ones instead of written...yet you see him typing paragraphs on twitter.

Even if we ignore that the CEO of a 44 billion USD corporation (at least that's what he paid) was involved in this Twitter feud, it still paints a devastating picture.

1) In general it shows a blatant lack of trust to suspect an employee made up their disability. Even worse if you base it simply on the fact they send out a tweet.

2) If you employ a person with a known condition in the first place, they obviously did their job under their limitations so far, so why should it be a problem now?

3) If you are so ignorant and narrow-minded that you don't understand  their condition, don't share your wild theories with the world on Twitter.

3a) If you have the audacity to share your wild theories on Twitter, don't start with "The reality is".

3b) If you have 300 million followers on Twitter and you don't even do a sanity check of the things you post, you lack the redponsibility to be on Twitter.

And especially:

4) It's next level idiocrarcy to do all the above to a well-known public figure. A online search would have taken 20 seconds.

 

So, no, I don't sympathize even a little bit with Musks actions. And if you do, there is something seriously wrong with you.

 

[Uttamattamakin]

23 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

4) It's next level idiocrarcy to do all the above to a well-known public figure. A online search would have taken 20 seconds.

 

I swear if Elon bough Brawndo the thirst mutilator he could sell it to several million people .... because it has electrolytes. 

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

There are ways of solving that. Livejournal figured that out. Twitter only recently figured it out. Only show content from mutual followers, and the abuse disappears. Can't complain about content you willingly subject yourself to. Was that a mistake and maybe you don't really want to see that content? Unfollow, or mute that mutual's posts about their bathroom habits, or whatever.

Did they though?  My Twitter seems to make certain I don't see my followers but see things from people who want to eradicate me from public life.  (Which may be a good thing that I am alerted ... but...).  The problem with Twitter is that the whole structure of it, the whole edifice, is built on causing misunderstandings.  Limit people to just enough characters to say something bluntly but not enough to give any nuance. 

 

[Guest]

I thought everyone was planning to leave Twitter if Elon bought it.

Why are people still complaining about Twitter on Twitter if they're not using it?

[wanderingfool2]

9 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

"If the stock is already on a downward trajectory, who knows if this incident made it worse."  This is a terrible argument, but at least it's entertaining, I'll give you that.

Back to your standard "argument" of "Oh, there is reasonable explanation for an event that explains what I'm seeing...I'll reject that and substitute my own reality".  The fact is, literally claimed it was the reason for it plummeting, which is an asinine claim when literally during that same period a few analysts lowered their exceptions.

 

22 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

In general it shows a blatant lack of trust to suspect an employee made up their disability. Even worse if you base it simply on the fact they send out a tweet.

Again, trying to shoehorn in a reality that isn't quite true.  It's funny how everyone here jumps on board with the "made up their disability" and chastises Musk for always "lying" or misrepresenting...yet you make comments like this.

 

There is a very very large difference between saying "a disability is made up" vs "disability is being exaggerated to avoid work".

 

As I mentioned, we know from Musk's apology that he was told information (probably from HR) that wasn't true, if Musk was lets say told Halli couldn't write reports because he can't type or that there wasn't documentation he did xyz because he can't type, then yes seeing someone typing could change the basis...just like watching someone drive for 3 hours in a day is a good basis to question why someone can't drive at work.

 

So I'd argue that it's the reliance on trusting (HR or managers or whoever it was feeding him information) a different employee too much.  (Wouldn't be surprised if you see the person feeding him that information get fired).

 

37 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

If you employ a person with a known condition in the first place, they obviously did their job under their limitations so far, so why should it be a problem now?

Oh, "great" insight, except that it doesn't specify when he approached HR saying he couldn't type.  It could have been a week ago, month ago, years ago for all we know.  It also becomes a problem when people start looking for what accomplishments someone has done at a company.  If there isn't any paper trail, if there aren't projects linked to him (as again, not a paper trail), it becomes harder to judge what he did.  Mix that with being fed the wrong information, and there lies the problem.

 

41 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

If you are so ignorant and narrow-minded that you don't understand  their condition, don't share your wild theories with the world on Twitter

If he was told Halli couldn't type at all for work, and you see him typing paragraphs then it's not a wild theory.  It's more like a conjecture, but one where the underlying axioms you were told were wrong.

 

Similar to how we are grown up and taught that multiplication is commutative, which in reality it's not (only the subset of real/imaginary numbers it's that); but if you make an assumption off of it being commutative then it's not a wild theory it's just a misinformed one at best.

 

1 hour ago, HenrySalayne said:

So, no, I don't sympathize even a little bit with Musks actions. And if you do, there is something seriously wrong with you.

Didn't say I sympathize...do you not see the irony that you blabber on about wild theories and how Musk should somehow not do it...yet you literally started this whole mocks disable person with the following and I quote "ows them now roughly $100,000,000 for the termination of their contract?".  I didn't say there was better ways of him conducting business, I don't agree with everything he said.

[Uttamattamakin]

59 minutes ago, fpo said:

I thought everyone was planning to leave Twitter if Elon bought it.

 

The looking for alternatives was due to the idea that Elon would destroy Twitter with mismanagement.  You know by firing the people who know how it all works, then making changes that break crucial parts of it. 

 

59 minutes ago, fpo said:

Why are people still complaining about Twitter on Twitter if they're not using it?

Twitter having technical, and other difficulties is newsworthy.  If Twitter goes down it will take out a leg of the web 2 architecture. 

 

44 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

.....

Elon Musk himself apologized

 

Elon Musk is a megalomaniac who is hurt that his money cannot buy him respect and real temporal power.  Real power is partly a matter of luck and partly a matter of work.  He got the luck to get the money to invest and make MUCH more money.  That's it.  

A frustrated megalomaniac like him having the integrity to apologize speaks volumes. 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/12/20/2142943/-The-Emperor-Elon-has-No-Clothes

 

 

(I do like that even back then the cartoonist knew that having more belly than booty wasn't a good look). 

 

Elon is worse than the emperor from the fairy tale.  At leas that emperor was a bonafide emperor.  Gladly he is one I will never have to support, protect, or defend. I swear how some people act about any criticism of Musk is exactly like what was in that story. 

[HenrySalayne]

25 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Oh, "great" insight, except that it doesn't specify when he approached HR saying he couldn't type.  It could have been a week ago, month ago, years ago for all we know.  It also becomes a problem when people start looking for what accomplishments someone has done at a company.  If there isn't any paper trail, if there aren't projects linked to him (as again, not a paper trail), it becomes harder to judge what he did.  Mix that with being fed the wrong information, and there lies the problem.

If he was told Halli couldn't type at all for work, and you see him typing paragraphs then it's not a wild theory.  It's more like a conjecture, but one where the underlying axioms you were told were wrong.

Similar to how we are grown up and taught that multiplication is commutative, which in reality it's not (only the subset of real/imaginary numbers it's that); but if you make an assumption off of it being commutative then it's not a wild theory it's just a misinformed one at best.

Sure, it was probably years ago, when he was already working years for Twitter.

This discussion is over. I can only recommend you actually read into this story and not just vent your crude opinion into the forum.

[Uttamattamakin]

1 minute ago, HenrySalayne said:

Sure, it was probably years ago, when he was already working years for Twitter.

This discussion is over. I can only recommend you actually read into this story and not just vent your crude opinion into the forum.

Agreed.  

Musk himself said he was wrong.  He is not one for usually admitting he has done wrong.  There can be no better proof he really was in the wrong.   

Getting back on track and on topic.  This diversion brings me to a reason he might feel he needs guards.  

Elon may feel a sort of guilt about how he treats employees there.  I'll bet he himself would not likely take working for someone who acted the way he does.  He knows this.   He fears that someone might act towards him the way he would act towards a boss like him.   That's where we have to look for everything strange that happens at Twitter.  Elon's need to project power and importance on par with other VIP's in the world requires the trappings of such power.  Elon's need for money to keep Twitter going will motivate those changes.  I think he also would like to be able to effect things in the real world with his tweets the way other powerful people and entities do. 

Those two motivations explain a lot.  Elon wants to make money and also exercise as much power as the law will allow him to. 

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, HenrySalayne said:

Sure, it was probably years ago, when he was already working years for Twitter.

This discussion is over. I can only recommend you actually read into this story and not just vent your crude opinion into the forum.

"$100,000,000" you claim Musk owes the guy.

 

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Musk himself said he was wrong.  He is not one for usually admitting he has done wrong.  There can be no better proof he really was in the wrong.   

Your failure to understand the apology Musk made was NOT an apology for "mocking a disability" which is why this bit was even brought up.  What you consider "proof" is always half baked anyways, after all you think credential stuffing is proof Norton itself got hacked.

[Uttamattamakin]

8 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

"$100,000,000" you claim Musk owes the guy.

 

Your failure to understand the apology Musk made was NOT an apology for "mocking a disability" which is why this bit was even brought up.  What you consider "proof" is always half baked anyways, after all you think credential stuffing is proof Norton itself got hacked.

The emperor himself admits he was really naked.  Yet you still insist he has on a fine suit. 

[HenrySalayne]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

"$100,000,000" you claim Musk owes the guy.

"Claim."

If you would have read into the story, you may have stumbled across this number as well. Do you need to prove at any possible point you haven't read a single bit about this? It has never been more clear that the interaction was beneath basic standards of human interaction, yet you try to normalize it. It's honestly sad that you either don't understand how degrading it was (and on how many levels) or you realized it by now and you are just too proud to crawl out of the hole you dug throughout this discussion. Either way, it shows a lack of character, just like Musk's sorry attempt to publicly humiliate an employee.

[Kisai]

6 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

 

Did they though?  My Twitter seems to make certain I don't see my followers but see things from people who want to eradicate me from public life.  (Which may be a good thing that I am alerted ... but...).  The problem with Twitter is that the whole structure of it, the whole edifice, is built on causing misunderstandings.  Limit people to just enough characters to say something bluntly but not enough to give any nuance. 

 

They've been regressing. Like peak twitter usability was the chronological timeline with the ability to restrict who can reply to you. 

 

They didn't, however, stop short of making it so nobody can retweet/link/Quote-retweet a post, or "close" a post so that no further replies or quote retweets can be made.

 

Part of the reason abuse has been escalating on twitter is because twitter has been twitter blue, and pretty much burying everyone who isn't twitter blue, burying everyone you don't interact with, and thus only elevating "most engaging" content, which keeps putting "for you" posts in front of people who will be enraged by it.

 

Twitter was wasn't perfect before Elon came along, but they were progressively finding the point where their platform was "the best" social media platform and everyone was using it. Elon came along and promptly stuck that into reverse.

 

Now people are ripping out support for twitter, telling people to go elsewhere, and using other platforms like *shudder* instagram, instead. Nobody should be using instagram because facebook.

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

"Claim."

If you would have read into the story, you may have stumbled across this number as well. Do you need to prove at any possible point you haven't read a single bit about this? It has never been more clear that the interaction was beneath basic standards of human interaction, yet you try to normalize it. It's honestly sad that you either don't understand how degrading it was (and on how many levels) or you realized it by now and you are just too proud to crawl out of the hole you dug throughout this discussion. Either way, it shows a lack of character, just like Musk's sorry attempt to publicly humiliate an employee.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/twitter-slaps-misleading-label-on-claim-twitter-faces-100-million-payout-for-sacking-employee/news-story/7313819b37e6547b2713b07751abc7bb
 

Oh you mean reading this story?  Lets see now, you were going about bashing Musk for not knowing while you peddling conspiracy theories.  YOU ARE WRONG! Let me say this clearly, your $100 mill false claim was based on the amount it was sold to Twitter...which surprise surprise the source of the $100 mill claim just guessed at (which the guy later admitted he didn't know the actual terms and selling price)

 

[ravenshrike]

23 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Musk needs to sell Twitter the way the Duke brothers needed to sell their Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice. 

 

Not really. The Duke Bros were rendered homeless and destitute following Trading Places as shown in Coming to America. For Elon it would merely be a 20-30% haircut. Painful, but not complete devastation.

[Uttamattamakin]

2 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

Not really. The Duke Bros were rendered homeless and destitute following Trading Places as shown in Coming to America. For Elon it would merely be a 20-30% haircut. Painful, but not complete devastation.

YES.  BEST callback ever.  I wish I had been old enough to see that in a theatre.  

 These two are more like the owners of the bank in my other thread.  Sadly. 

[HenrySalayne]

6 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/twitter-slaps-misleading-label-on-claim-twitter-faces-100-million-payout-for-sacking-employee/news-story/7313819b37e6547b2713b07751abc7bb
 

Oh you mean reading this story?  Lets see now, you were going about bashing Musk for not knowing while you peddling conspiracy theories.  YOU ARE WRONG! Let me say this clearly, your $100 mill false claim was based on the amount it was sold to Twitter...which surprise surprise the source of the $100 mill claim just guessed at (which the guy later admitted he didn't know the actual terms and selling price)

 

Let's rewind back to your first post and see how the narrative has changed. You did not care a little bit about the amount two pages ago. And now you pull out to create a diversion while you quietly drop all the other things you said. I can only hope this means that you finally realized how shitty Musk's behaviour was and what a sorry attempt it was to normalize his actions. Good job!

On 3/9/2023 at 1:06 AM, wanderingfool2 said:

I would say it depends what one considers to be "mocking a disabled person".

Breach of confidential information, sure that's on the table with the tweets.

While Musk admitted he had been misinformed in terms of what Halli did at the company, I wouldn't call it mocking though.  He never made fun of the disability from what I saw, he did question why someone who is unable to type for work can tweet so much, and did imply that he used that as an excuse not to work...but that isn't exactly mocking the disability.

 

[mr moose]

22 hours ago, Sauron said:

I can concede that it's possible to be better or worse at "business" than others (although what "good at business" means is up for debate) and that it has some influence on how well your companies do but I don't accept the idea that it's the main reason you succeed or fail as a multimillionaire, let alone a billionaire.

 

I should also note that whenever we have this argument about Musk in particular there's this underlying implication that not only his skill in "business" is what brought him here but also that it is the reason some of his companies have come out with arguably good products or technology, which is a complete non sequitur.

Contrary to what people may think about my opinion on musk, I actually don't like the guy.  But my reasons will just start an entirely derailed argument,  suffice to say I think he is good at business and generally speaking those who are good at business will bounce back from the odd failed endeavour or even from bankruptcy and they don;t necessarily need a hand out to go big.   Which means that there are no absolutes at any level, what there is is just those who can and those who cannot when you get to much higher levels.  

 

[wanderingfool2]

8 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Let's rewind back to your first post and see how the narrative has changed. You did not care a little bit about the amount two pages ago. And now you pull out to create a diversion while you quietly drop all the other things you said. I can only hope this means that you finally realized how shitty Musk's behaviour was and what a sorry attempt it was to normalize his actions. Good job!

 

Or you can prove that you don't have the ability to read and notice that I have been consistent in saying that the part I'm against is saying that he mocked a disabled person because you are associating the mocking with the actual disability/