Twitter Introduces Rate Limits for Users

[wanderingfool2]

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

Which is literally what I said. Maybe not doing great but not going bankrupt any time soon. As compared to musk's insistence that it was on the edge of the cliff, which is what I responded to. I guess you were too focused on trying to get an own to actually read what I wrote.

I read what you wrote and I stand by my assessment that you don't know what you are talking about.  You're too blinded by your hate apparently.  Or did you magically decide to make claim that @VanayadGaming's post about it heading towards bankruptcy meant more than what he actually said.

 

Here's a hint, Twitter WAS heading towards bankruptcy, sure not anytime soon but your literal response to someone saying it was headed towards bankruptcy was that it wasn't, and that it had some good quarters (which again there was funny business in regards to posted a profit in the 2019 year.

 

Having to take on billions of dollars in a year to stay solvent is a massive red flag, and when you aren't able to do public offerings to shore up those debts then yes it becomes a lot more of a crisis.

 

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

What are you talking about? I'm exclusively referring to events that are public knowledge and his own statements. I won't just assume that this is actually some genius move that will end up working out with absolutely no evidence (and in fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary). Even if I did assume that, at the very least it would mean Musk is outright lying about the whole situation for seemingly no gain... if there's some genius plan under the purchase why not just say so? The man is certainly not known for being shy with his posts and opinions.

So what do you think his plan was?  Let me guess your going to blurt out some half researched thing and claim it's the plan.

 

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

If you think the CEO of a company the size of Tesla gets personally involved with the details of the production chain you're sorely mistaken.

And this is why most other CEO's also fail.  He does get personally involved in a lot of it, and it's a very flat chain of command structure.

[WolframaticAlpha]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Having to take on billions of dollars in a year to stay solvent is a massive red flag, and when you aren't able to do public offerings to shore up those debts then yes it becomes a lot more of a crisis.

All companies were taking kn massive debt to fuel growth in the easy money era of the 2010s. Uber, Twitter, Snapchat, Airbnb etc etc. Taking debt doesn't mean you are insolvent without it. It just means you can't expand fast without it.

 

It is improbable that Twitter needed the loans and used them to just stay alive, because financial institutions don't provide loans to such companies. To say that they had all sources of capital fooled about their debts for many years, as a public company which is forced to disclose how it spends money would be utterly stupid.

 

Do you have any solid proof that Twitter was nearing insolvency or did you just put in numbers without context?

[WolframaticAlpha]

On 7/2/2023 at 10:31 PM, VanayadGaming said:

This is a limited throttling to escape the bots that scrape, and increase server capacity

You need a terribly inefficient platform infrastructure to have scraping be such a major issue that you need to rate limit evey one. Most websites can chuck out only but the most sophisticated web scrapers. There are a lot of libraries that can do that(though some of them aren't cheap).

On 7/2/2023 at 11:11 PM, Sauron said:

site is crumbling under the volume of requests

I just think musk is scrambling to make money and cut as much as he can. They are testing the waters to see how much they can cut.

 

Sorry state of affairs.

 

Selling people blue checkmarks for 8 bucks doesn't make as much money( https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/24/twitter-blue-subscriptions-spendings-mobile-users/). And the recent decision making is highly erratic and affects advertisers, which bring in a lot more money than selling subscriptions. Data brokering is also profitable and it seems they are sustaining off that.

15 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

making companies profitable

X.com(paypal survived in spite of x, not because of it) and Boring company aren't successful.

Tesla and spacex also relied heavily on government subsidies, tax breaks and contracts.

 

Also Tesla and Spacex have low pay, allegations of toxic work environments, delayed and often missed deadlines, products that were hyped up but never came out etc. etc. They have many failings. Their success in major parts came because of first mover advantage that they enjoyed.

 

Saying that the success of these companies is only because of him is stupid. Yes, he isn't an absolute moron, but his decision making in recent months has been questionable and somewhat idiotic.

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

So what do you think his plan was?  Let me guess your going to blurt out some half researched thing and claim it's the plan.

I think he had no plan. He offered to buy twitter for internet clout, hoping to be able to pull out of the deal with some excuse, then he found out it wasn't that easy and was forced to go through. The only part of this that is strictly my interpretation is that his idea was to pull out from the start, the rest is mostly just things he said. From offering to pay 4.20 per share to the whole free speech warrior thing it's obvious he was looking for internet points.

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And this is why most other CEO's also fail.  He does get personally involved in a lot of it, and it's a very flat chain of command structure.

Sorry, you're just delusional. He has no engineering competence and the projects he did clearly get involved with were the failures and vaporware, like the cybertruck. He has basically ignored Tesla for a year while he was torching twitter and Tesla itself seems none the worse for it; the only difference it made is that the stock price crashed because it's so tied to hype around him personally that seeing him behave like a moron was enough to turn people off. Not to mention his other companies, for which it's even more obvious he acts as nothing more than a mouthpiece.

[Monkey Dust]

47 minutes ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

All companies were taking kn massive debt to fuel growth in the easy money era of the 2010s. Uber, Twitter, Snapchat, Airbnb etc etc. Taking debt doesn't mean you are insolvent without it. It just means you can't expand fast without it.

 

It is improbable that Twitter needed the loans and used them to just stay alive, because financial institutions don't provide loans to such companies. To say that they had all sources of capital fooled about their debts for many years, as a public company which is forced to disclose how it spends money would be utterly stupid.

 

Do you have any solid proof that Twitter was nearing insolvency or did you just put in numbers without context?

Pre-rising interest rates, venture capital would throw money at anything vaguely tech related. Twitter were turning a small profit pre-Elon, so while they weren't on the most sound financial footing, they weren't going bust.

 

Their big problem was scale. They never got enough users to get enough ad revenue to reliably turn a profit.

 

Of course now, loaded up with more debt, too toxic for many advertisers to touch, and more famous for being a flaming shit show than what is actually said on it, it is now properly fucked. Along with Elon's reputation...

[HenrySalayne]

5 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Sorry, you're just delusional. He has no engineering competence and the projects he did clearly get involved with were the failures and vaporware, like the cybertruck. He has basically ignored Tesla for a year while he was torching twitter and Tesla itself seems none the worse for it; the only difference it made is that the stock price crashed because it's so tied to hype around him personally that seeing him behave like a moron was enough to turn people off. Not to mention his other companies, for which it's even more obvious he acts as nothing more than a mouthpiece.

Actually Elon has a deep understanding of the engineering behind his projects. Maybe less with the cars but definitely with the rockets.

Musk's achievements come from a particular kind of perseverance to make improbable things happen. A rocket is physically capable of landing. It's not easy, but it is possible. An all-electric car with a usable range wasn't even too revolutionary, but manufacturing techniques had to be adopted or "re-imagined" to push the costs to a competitive level.
But with Twitter he is not fighting manufacturing and control technologies, but the socio-economics of the userbase. And compared to electric cars and rockets he is not the first one to give it a try. Musk's past achievements have absolutely nothing to do with the current situation. Thinking he can achieve what dozens of players in the market haven't achieved in more than a decade is an unmeasurable amount of arrogance.

[WolframaticAlpha]

50 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

never got enough users to get enough ad revenue to reliably turn a profit.

The issue wasn't scale imo. The fact of the matter is that Twitter's user data for a user is much less valuable to advertisers and vrokers than that of FB. FB could provide advertisers with much better targeting and insights as compared to Twitter, since people post more personal info on FB than Twitter. Still, Twitter wasn't exactly bankrupt and was turning small profits year after year. They had basically reached that stage where adding users wouldn't be financially sensible. 

 

The bigger issue for the management was that of moderation and regulation. FB/meta, Twitter Google etc have massive compliance and policy decision departments which have become increasingly difficult to manage considering the change in online discussion. FB had burnt its hands with the whole graph API 2 exploitation(cambridge analytica etc). This was making the entire sector unattractive to investors and without having access to easy investor money, they wouldn't be able to fuel their blitzscaling.

[Quackers101]

twitter being for some jobs, a meeting place and tiktok in one.
sometimes quick and sometimes with good news or info, if one could plugin with a filter.
So if one could have a media user connected together on these different platforms for easy to get or find.

having so many platforms and some with no visibility for them kind of suck. For example finding a game dev that does a real project, or artist and their content, than going to art platforms that are currently being spammed with AI art. Threads from FB sounds sort of interesting, but hearing all the issues with it and maybe going to have the same issues like FB itself and whatsapp? no thanks. As with an get updated on all kinds of info, I do wonder if there will be more integrated FYP (for you page) in an OS/local browser? more direct, can filter the nonsense and can come from "any platform"?

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, HenrySalayne said:

Actually Elon has a deep understanding of the engineering behind his projects. Maybe less with the cars but definitely with the rockets.

Musk's achievements come from a particular kind of perseverance to make improbable things happen. A rocket is physically capable of landing. It's not easy, but it is possible. An all-electric car with a usable range wasn't even too revolutionary, but manufacturing techniques had to be adopted or "re-imagined" to push the costs to a competitive level.
But with Twitter he is not fighting manufacturing and control technologies, but the socio-economics of the userbase. And compared to electric cars and rockets he is not the first one to give it a try. Musk's past achievements have absolutely nothing to do with the current situation. Thinking he can achieve what dozens of players in the market haven't achieved in more than a decade is an unmeasurable amount of arrogance.

There's a big difference between knowing how something works well enough to give a youtuber a tour (which he certainly prepared for beforehand, reasonably so) and having a hand in designing any of it. If there's one thing I'd be willing to give him some credit for it's investing in technological ventures that aren't guaranteed to work from the start; throw enough trash at the wall and something is going to stick, but I don't think he has any special insight on which of those attempts are going to work... as demonstrated by the hyperloop, which most experts in the field saw as being a bad idea from the start. Being wealthy he has the luxury of being able to try things and fail; having a cult like following of fans who believe he's tony stark or something gives him the luxury of having those failures be ignored by the public and sweep them under the rug of the next unreasonable hype train about something that will more likely than not turn out to be vaporware or highly exaggerated.

[Kisai]

7 hours ago, Sauron said:

 but I don't think he has any special insight on which of those attempts are going to work... as demonstrated by the hyperloop, which most experts in the field saw as being a bad idea from the start. 

The Hyperloop had it been actually made (it never was), there was a bunch of theoretical's about it that could prove it feasible. It just would never have ever been cost effective.

 

Like put the three simple parts of hyperloop on the table, what's the way to reduce friction? 

1) levitate with magnets

2) operate in a vacuum

3) reduce drag

 

So if you do that, all three of those parts have already been tested, maglev and "pneumatic tube transport" exist, or previously existed, and "reducing drag" is why maglev trains are shaped the way they are. So it only makes logical sense to combine the two.

 

And it doesn't take much to get that inspiration, like 42 years ago there was an episode of Astro-boy that featured a runaway automated train, you know what was also invented about 5 years before, automated computer controlled trains (BART, Montreal Metro) 

 

The Hyperloop, if it was built, and worked, probably wouldn't see the gains necessary to justify it's use due to the need to repressurize and depressurize at each stop. So alighting would be extremely slow. 

 

But it's not new.

 

[Sauron]

13 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The Hyperloop had it been actually made (it never was), there was a bunch of theoretical's about it that could prove it feasible. It just would never have ever been cost effective.

Feasible, maybe. A good idea, no.

14 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Like put the three simple parts of hyperloop on the table, what's the way to reduce friction? 

1) levitate with magnets

2) operate in a vacuum

3) reduce drag

 

So if you do that, all three of those parts have already been tested, maglev and "pneumatic tube transport" exist, or previously existed, and "reducing drag" is why maglev trains are shaped the way they are. So it only makes logical sense to combine the two.

And there are excellent reasons it wasn't done despite being technically possible for decades. You might have noticed that even just maglev never really took off and that's mainly due to costs; it's just not sufficiently better than a regular train to justify the investment. But that's just a money problem. The real issue with the hyperloop concept is the vacuum tube, which is extremely dangerous if anything goes wrong. A leak in the train and you suffocate. A crack in the tube and it might implode. If anything happens to the train on route it would be extremely difficult to operate a rescue.

 

High speed railway is already very fast and efficient. If the investment that was wasted for hyperloop had gone towards a good high speed railway system it would have been infinitely more useful.

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

Feasible, maybe. A good idea, no.

Didn't say it was.

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

And there are excellent reasons it wasn't done despite being technically possible for decades. You might have noticed that even just maglev never really took off and that's mainly due to costs; it's just not sufficiently better than a regular train to justify the investment. But that's just a money problem. The real issue with the hyperloop concept is the vacuum tube, which is extremely dangerous if anything goes wrong. A leak in the train and you suffocate. A crack in the tube and it might implode. If anything happens to the train on route it would be extremely difficult to operate a rescue.

The only place I see a viable hyperloop is a Trans-Atlantic or Trans-Pacific route, and there are plenty of reasons why that idea is incredibly stupid (if the ocean can crush a submarine in half a second, it sure would do the same for any minor impact to the inside or outside of the tube.)

 

The Pacific side would be fairly easy since the shelf is pretty much an arc along the Aleutian islands . The Atlantic side however? it would have to go from Labrador to Greenland to Iceland to Faroe Islands before going to Scotland or Norway. 

 

I imagine the political implications of either would be difficult. Hence it will never happen. I could see maybe just a much smaller Wales, Alaska to Naukan Russia hyperloop under the Bering Strait, or even just a more conventional tunnel (which has been proposed by Russia and China before) along with just bridges. Nothing ever comes of it because the strength of a bridge or tunnel not in bedrock runs the risk of ice flows and ship anchors striking critical parts of it (like what happens to fiber cables all the time.)

 

Ultimately I don't see any reason to have a "hyperloop" in an exposed system. Sure, you can tunnel one, that solves one problem, assuming you are running compression/decompression equipment along the entire route for safety redundancy, but time and time again, we've basically been shown that billionaires are idiots and should put their money where their mouth is. If Elon wants to build a hyperloop, he can buy the land and build it himself. 

 

Realistically, don't trust a car guy to build transit of any kind. We should have learned from the destruction of the street car era by general motors in the 30's what their true motives are. Build rubbish transit so people still drive cars.

 

Every time someone proposes a rail project that is not automated, high speed and high frequency, call it out for the scam it is. It does not need to maglev, it does not need to be a monorail or any fancy technology.  Cause cities keep getting suckered into gadgetbahns (which both maglev and hyperloop are.)

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

23 hours ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

All companies were taking kn massive debt to fuel growth in the easy money era of the 2010s. Uber, Twitter, Snapchat, Airbnb etc etc. Taking debt doesn't mean you are insolvent without it. It just means you can't expand fast without it.

 

It is improbable that Twitter needed the loans and used them to just stay alive, because financial institutions don't provide loans to such companies. To say that they had all sources of capital fooled about their debts for many years, as a public company which is forced to disclose how it spends money would be utterly stupid.

 

Do you have any solid proof that Twitter was nearing insolvency or did you just put in numbers without context?

Companies do get loans if there are enough assets to back those loans.  As long as there are hypothetically enough assets to back the loans they can get those VC type of funding loans because if they do declare bankruptcy those loaning effectively get first in line.

 

Again, I've already said enough in terms of why they weren't necessarily a stable company.

 

First they really didn't make profits, they posted profits in 2018 and 2019 but I find it sketchy when it seems the majority came from "deferred tax assets".

 

Second, they were taking on an average of about $164.25m of additional debt per year in just the loans themselves (based on their loans and their repayments).  It's common for companies to take on large loans throughout a year but not typical of not paying back those loans.

 

Nothing really points to Twitter being a company that was in a good financial position.

 

23 hours ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

X.com(paypal survived in spite of x, not because of it) and Boring company aren't successful.

Tesla and spacex also relied heavily on government subsidies, tax breaks and contracts.

 

Also Tesla and Spacex have low pay, allegations of toxic work environments, delayed and often missed deadlines, products that were hyped up but never came out etc. etc. They have many failings. Their success in major parts came because of first mover advantage that they enjoyed.

 

Saying that the success of these companies is only because of him is stupid. Yes, he isn't an absolute moron, but his decision making in recent months has been questionable and somewhat idiotic.

The fundamentals of what paypal became was drawn from what x.com was.

 

"Government subsidies" is an asinine argument.  SpaceX is delivering payloads to space for commercial at a rate lower than the competition; the government contracts are bid on and SpaceX had been chosen because they are getting paid less than the competitors.

 

If the whole "government subsidies" held any weight, you would see Blue Origin or Boeing actually being successful as well.  Lets see, Boeing is bleeding money on the recent Starliner, where SpaceX's dragon capsule got less money and has been successful (Starliner was supposed to be the first).

 

If those subsidies made any real difference, then the Bolt would have been the one to take off and be the first popular EV vehicle. 

 

What is stupid is seeing someone entering into or creating companies and making millions and billions and somehow thinking that it was just luck or abusing the current system.  Creating a company where there is a short chain to the top, and ones where you are able to go around your boss and submit a proposal to a higher up/musk himself is not common (although in the latter, you better well make sure the idea is correct).

 

The companies are very much run like software development using the AGILE approach.

 

22 hours ago, Sauron said:

Sorry, you're just delusional. He has no engineering competence and the projects he did clearly get involved with were the failures and vaporware, like the cybertruck. He has basically ignored Tesla for a year while he was torching twitter and Tesla itself seems none the worse for it; the only difference it made is that the stock price crashed because it's so tied to hype around him personally that seeing him behave like a moron was enough to turn people off. Not to mention his other companies, for which it's even more obvious he acts as nothing more than a mouthpiece.

Cybertruck's delivery is this year, high production by 2024.  The 9000 ton giga press they needed for the castings made it through the port earlier this year.  Unlike the "competition" they will actually be able to produce more than just a 25,000 vehicles a year.  I'd rather a product that after being announced takes 4 years to come out, than a product that comes out but takes 8 years to match production that Tesla will hit in year 1 of full production.

 

He hadn't "ignored Tesla" for a year; in the photos take by people you could see him touring the production lines etc.  Was he there less, yes, but you are delusional not me, if you assume he ignores it

 

As for the stock price crash, you along with all your hate Elon group failed to also notice the other similar stocks dropping at the same time (albeit Tesla dropped the most but Tesla has always had the largest swings)

 

Apparently you are too anti-Elon obsessed to actually take merit that a CEO who creates structures that allows employees to actually think outside the box or do their work more efficiently.  A good CEO is one who can surround themselves with people who can get the job done and that's what Elon has done, and has often done so by letting employees with ideas often run with them (assuming it's a good idea assessed by him).

 

22 hours ago, Sauron said:

I think he had no plan. He offered to buy twitter for internet clout, hoping to be able to pull out of the deal with some excuse, then he found out it wasn't that easy and was forced to go through. The only part of this that is strictly my interpretation is that his idea was to pull out from the start, the rest is mostly just things he said. From offering to pay 4.20 per share to the whole free speech warrior thing it's obvious he was looking for internet points.

And you have the gull to call me delusional.  It's just plain stupid to say he's an idiot and pretend to know his plan only to come back when challenged that he had no plan.

[WolframaticAlpha]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

paypal became was drawn from what x.com was.

False. Paypal become what it was from the Cofinity/paypal, which was run by Peter thiel and levchin. X.com wasn't the part that succeeded.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

government subsidies" held any weight, you would see Blue Origin or

Exactly, my second point. Spacex succeeded in no small part because of the first mover advantage. They were pioneers and by no means ak I saying that their success is completely reliant on government subsidies. To say that their success didn't depend on the subsidies would be fallacious, however.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

AGILE

If so, it must be heavily modified version of AGILE. Which many companies have had similar versions of, thanks to the permeation of the toyota model.

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

First they really didn't make profits,

That's the thing. You wouldn't say Uber was dying circa 2017, because they were unprofitable. The fact of the matter is that many tech companies during the QE period were not chasing profitability, and focused on scaling. Current profits are still de emphasized today as compared to prospects of future growth. Which you can find in any of their investor prospectuses.

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

As long as there are hypothetically enough assets to back the loans they can get those VC type of funding loans because if they do declare bankruptcy those loaning effectively get first in line.

They were receiving heavy investments from institutions, which shows confidence.

 

Finding Twitter financials pre acquisition is a bitch of a task, but I wouldn't be surprised if their debts exceed their total hard assets.

[HenrySalayne]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Apparently you are too anti-Elon obsessed to actually take merit that a CEO who creates structures that allows employees to actually think outside the box or do their work more efficiently.  A good CEO is one who can surround themselves with people who can get the job done and that's what Elon has done, and has often done so by letting employees with ideas often run with them (assuming it's a good idea assessed by him).

No, a good CEO has friends with benefits in the government and just let the taxpayer fund his endeavours:

Quote

In 2015, then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo exalted the plan for Tesla’s billion-dollar factory in Buffalo as “too good to be true.” Now, state lawmakers say he might have been right. Elon Musk’s vision for the site to be the largest solar-panel factory in the Western Hemisphere has fallen short of those lofty expectations. [...]

The state paid to build the quarter-mile-long factory, which it leases to Tesla for just $1 a year. But despite Musk saying that the factory would make enough product to cover 1,000 roofs every week, it’s reportedly only averaging 21 weekly installations. “In terms of sheer direct cost to taxpayers, this may rank as the single biggest economic development boondoggle in American history,” said E.J. McMahon[...]

https://www.newsbreak.com/buffalo-ny/3081583198735-1-billion-tesla-factory-in-new-york-has-been-a-total-flop-lawmakers-say

 

But maybe we can stop the Musk-fan-club and the Musk-not-a-fan-club, which has very little to do with the topic...

[Commodus]

4 hours ago, Dean0919 said:

Another nail to the Twitter's coffin by Elon... People who do infinite scrolling & are addicted to social media, they will still continue their behavior, just on a different social media. All this stupid decision will do & already did is to move away people from Twitter to another alternative & from the perspective of Twitter owners is a horrible decision for their business. It's like, that this guy is ruining the platform, just don't know if it's intentional or by stupidity.

To paraphrase Hanlon's razor: never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

 

Musk has done well in cars and spaceflight, but he doesn't seem to realize that a social network is a very different beast. He keeps trying to impose his hardware business model, and keeps struggling. That and he's letting his increasingly extreme political ideology override rational decision making, to the point where Twitter is becoming a toxic cesspool.

 

As it turns out, people want a well-moderated social network where bigots and misinformation are banned. And they're willing to switch platforms to get it. Musk and Twitter have to realize this before it's too late... if it isn't already.

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

No, a good CEO has friends with benefits in the government and just let the taxpayer fund his endeavours:

Quote

In 2015, then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo exalted the plan for Tesla’s billion-dollar factory in Buffalo as “too good to be true.” Now, state lawmakers say he might have been right. Elon Musk’s vision for the site to be the largest solar-panel factory in the Western Hemisphere has fallen short of those lofty expectations. [...]

The state paid to build the quarter-mile-long factory, which it leases to Tesla for just $1 a year. But despite Musk saying that the factory would make enough product to cover 1,000 roofs every week, it’s reportedly only averaging 21 weekly installations. “In terms of sheer direct cost to taxpayers, this may rank as the single biggest economic development boondoggle in American history,” said E.J. McMahon[...]

https://www.newsbreak.com/buffalo-ny/3081583198735-1-billion-tesla-factory-in-new-york-has-been-a-total-flop-lawmakers-say

 

But maybe we can stop the Musk-fan-club and the Musk-not-a-fan-club, which has very little to do with the topic...

It related when people start bringing up Twitter, their finances and how he's not a good CEO as the reasoning for rate limits (and how he's running it into the ground)

 

For example, it's great to call them "Tesla", but the actual deal was signed with SolarCity prior to Tesla buying them out.  (Musk was only a chairman there).

The whole 1000 roofs a week as well, the weekly install rate is apparently by Tesla...from what I could gather (and I don't want to scour for the source) the 21/week is only Tesla, but doesn't include the 3rd party installers who are getting the panels.

They still need to eventually have 5000 employees by I think 2027...I think that was the date, so while I do think it might be a waste of money by NY, the fact remains the article you posted just now only covers the "negative" aspects and ignores some of the basics.

[Mark Kaine]

17 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

But maybe we can stop the Musk-fan-club and the Musk-not-a-fan-club

After that hilarious take you just had that "Elon" (you know him personally i guess) "knows engineering"? Ok 

[TheReal1980]

Fantastic idea, maybe spend less time looking at a screen and more time speaking to the people around you?