So about Musk..

[scorpiomover]

Were you aware that Liz Truss is the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

No. I quickly looked at her wiki page. She seems like a clown.

Boris gained the household name of "BoJo the Clown". Liz Truss did far worse than Boris did.

Musk has progressively lost my good graces in the past couple years. Started shifting perspective on him with that one incident where he called a rescue diver a pedophile. The diver died, the news wouldn't publicize it, but I don't think he ever apologized for that. He just got assmad when the diver told him to mind his own business.

I didn't think he was an outright scam artist till the last two years or so. I just thought he was overly optimistic like a child.

Billionaires are always in a purgatory for me, because they inevitable have contributed to a stupid system that stifles competition and says profits over people. I don't condemn them for this until they cross certain lines that I can see as shameless, entitled, manipulative. All qualities which Musk seems to brag about.

Edison convinced everyone in his time that Tesla was a hack whose inventions would kill them all. Do people still think that Tesla's AC is too dangerous to be allowed?

I don't understand what you wrote at that last part, but if that means that they are maximizing profit, then yes I agree.

They LIKE Musk, because he makes them money. They HATE you, because you don't. If they're turning on Musk because doing so right now will make them a few bucks, then they will do even worse to you in the future, when it will make them a few bucks to turn on you. Do you realise that?

 

[Old Things]

Just saw this. It makes sense.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Elon sacrificed substantial part of his wealth and connection. He could found other 1000 personal spermbanks to aid one of longtermism agendas.

I forgot he's a fucked up longtermist. Probably twitter will be used to proselytize all of their retarded ideas and convince masses to make personal sacrifice for the elites.

 

[dr froyd]

apparently musk told twitter employees today they either have to work "long, intense, hours" or get the boot. Now that's how a tech company should operate.

twitter had about 8,000 employees and operating expenses of something like $4bn annual. How in the fuck one needs that amount of people and money to run essentially a messaging board is unknown to me. One can probably replicate the entire business with 50 ppl.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Doubt all of the were were coding related. Youd need a large workforce to coordinate high-medium ticket advertisers for example. Possibly for different countries as well. 8000 for an international company is pretty low imo

 

[dr froyd]

Doubt all of the were were coding related. Youd need a large workforce to coordinate high-medium ticket advertisers for example. Possibly for different countries as well. 8000 for an international company is pretty low imo

when instragram was acquired by facebook it had 13 employees and 50 million users. your assessment is bs imo.

 

[Hadoblado]

I think layoffs are probably required for a company that's failing like this one, but I think the cost will probably outweigh the benefit of ripping off the bandaid all at once. The 1-9/2-8 principles have some (probably exaggerated) merit I'm sure, but these changes are drastic. He's going to lose a lot of good people.

But we'll see. Musk always has a horde of simps and a second horde of detractors. It's tricky to sift through the mountains of bias.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Doubt all of the were were coding related. Youd need a large workforce to coordinate high-medium ticket advertisers for example. Possibly for different countries as well. 8000 for an international company is pretty low imo

when instragram was acquired by facebook it had 13 employees and 50 million users. your assessment is bs imo.

Oh yeah, the over 10 year old company vs a 2 year unicorn startup. Really comparable. Way to apply your critical thinking skills

 

[dr froyd]

Doubt all of the were were coding related. Youd need a large workforce to coordinate high-medium ticket advertisers for example. Possibly for different countries as well. 8000 for an international company is pretty low imo

when instragram was acquired by facebook it had 13 employees and 50 million users. your assessment is bs imo.

Oh yeah, the over 10 year old company vs a 2 year unicorn startup. Really comparable. Way to apply your critical thinking skills

this was about what scale of operation you can run with a certain no. of people, no? it has nothing to do with the age of the company, or whether you can call it "startup" or not. Dont start with your smoke and mirror bullshit again

 

[Daddy]

apparently musk told twitter employees today they either have to work "long, intense, hours" or get the boot. Now that's how a tech company should operate.

twitter had about 8,000 employees and operating expenses of something like $4bn annual. How in the fuck one needs that amount of people and money to run essentially a messaging board is unknown to me. One can probably replicate the entire business with 50 ppl.

Right? lmao.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Doubt all of the were were coding related. Youd need a large workforce to coordinate high-medium ticket advertisers for example. Possibly for different countries as well. 8000 for an international company is pretty low imo

when instragram was acquired by facebook it had 13 employees and 50 million users. your assessment is bs imo.

Oh yeah, the over 10 year old company vs a 2 year unicorn startup. Really comparable. Way to apply your critical thinking skills

this was about what scale of operation you can run with a certain no. of people, no? it has nothing to do with the age of the company, or whether you can call it "startup" or not. Dont start with your smoke and mirror bullshit again

There are no smokes and mirrors. That would imply a trick.

You're conflating two things that aren't the same. I am stating why you shouldn't do that. Now you're acusing me of equivocating. I would say you're projecting, but you're just wrong.

There is no trick. There are people who know what venture capitalist silicone valley startups are, and distinguish that sort of business strategy from a mature business that operates independently and has for over 10 years. You can believe what you want to I don't really care.

Your characterization, and many of the other characterizations of Twitter in this thread as an already failing company before Musk purchased have been wrong too, I just care that little to mention it. What is your metric? Market share? How much YOU use it?

8000 is small for an international company. Every other social media company has that many if not MORE employees than that.

Pretty much solidifying this forum for me as useless for any business advice. I remember bringing up Project Management as a useful skill and people saying it's a waste of time. Yeah if you work alone, no shit.

 

[Old Things]

Elon sacrificed substantial part of his wealth and connection. He could found other 1000 personal spermbanks to aid one of longtermism agendas.

I forgot he's a fucked up longtermist. Probably twitter will be used to proselytize all of their retarded ideas and convince masses to make personal sacrifice for the elites.

From what I can see, Musk wants Twitter to be like an open-source news outlet. Meaning, he wants it to focus on news form all different sources and from different people.

 

[Kuu]

twitter had about 8,000 employees and operating expenses of something like $4bn annual. How in the fuck one needs that amount of people and money to run essentially a messaging board is unknown to me. One can probably replicate the entire business with 50 ppl.

That's because they were not employed to code. They were probably employed to be the thought police and propagandists, perhaps not just via twitter but other platforms too.

Even with a bloat of managers, HR, sales, support, accounting, PR, etc overhead, a company that basically maintains a website, an ios and android app, and the backend for a fucking text messaging service shouldn't be much higher than a hundred or two.

 

[Daddy]

Doubt all of the were were coding related. Youd need a large workforce to coordinate high-medium ticket advertisers for example. Possibly for different countries as well. 8000 for an international company is pretty low imo

when instragram was acquired by facebook it had 13 employees and 50 million users. your assessment is bs imo.

Oh yeah, the over 10 year old company vs a 2 year unicorn startup. Really comparable. Way to apply your critical thinking skills

this was about what scale of operation you can run with a certain no. of people, no? it has nothing to do with the age of the company, or whether you can call it "startup" or not. Dont start with your smoke and mirror bullshit again

There are no smokes and mirrors. That would imply a trick.

You're conflating two things that aren't the same. I am stating why you shouldn't do that. Now you're acusing me of equivocating. I would say you're projecting, but you're just wrong.

There is no trick. There are people who know what venture capitalist silicone valley startups are, and distinguish that sort of business strategy from a mature business that operates independently and has for over 10 years. You can believe what you want to I don't really care.

Your characterization, and many of the other characterizations of Twitter in this thread as an already failing company before Musk purchased have been wrong too, I just care that little to mention it. What is your metric? Market share? How much YOU use it?

8000 is small for an international company. Every other social media company has that many if not MORE employees than that.

Pretty much solidifying this forum for me as useless for any business advice. I remember bringing up Project Management as a useful skill and people saying it's a waste of time. Yeah if you work alone, no shit.

I'm a little confused. Activision/Blizzard has about ~10,000 employees versus Twitter's 8,000 and they make a lot of games. So a lot of those people are making graphics, writing code, game design, AI and more and that's all for one game. Twitter has very little changes over time and is more or less set up to run itself ath this point, aside from doing maintenance on the servers, paying for bandwidth, building costs for housing hardware. Another example is Youtube, which according to Google has ~2,800 people. Youtube has a lot of the same costs as Twitter, but probably has to pay for more bandwidth, so possible it costs more to run, but they have significantly less employees.

Now granted, I don't have a business degree and don't run a large business and probably am ignorant to a lot. So can you please enlighten me on how those numbers make sense? Cause I really don't get it. You don't have to get into a lot of details, just how is that justified?

 

[Old Things]

twitter had about 8,000 employees and operating expenses of something like $4bn annual. How in the fuck one needs that amount of people and money to run essentially a messaging board is unknown to me. One can probably replicate the entire business with 50 ppl.

That's because they were not employed to code. They were probably employed to be the thought police and propagandists, perhaps not just via twitter but other platforms too.

Even with a bloat of managers, HR, sales, support, accounting, PR, etc overhead, a company that basically maintains a website, an ios and android app, and the backend for a fucking text messaging service shouldn't be much higher than a hundred or two.

How many people do you guess would be needed to update the algorithm on a semi-frequent basis?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I'm a little confused. Activision/Blizzard has about ~10,000 employees versus Twitter's 8,000 and they make a lot of games. So a lot of those people are making graphics, writing code, game design, AI and more and that's all for one game. Twitter has very little changes over time and is more or less set up to run itself ath this point, aside from doing maintenance on the servers, paying for bandwidth, building costs for housing hardware. Another example is Youtube, which according to Google has ~2,800 people. Youtube has a lot of the same costs as Twitter, but probably has to pay for more bandwidth, so possible it costs more to run, but they have significantly less employees.

Now granted, I don't have a business degree and don't run a large business and probably am ignorant to a lot. So can you please enlighten me on how those numbers make sense? Cause I really don't get it. You don't have to get into a lot of details, just how is that justified?

Take Instagram for example. They operate semi-autonomously under Facebook. As a result Facebook absorbs a lot of the work that goes into maintaining and expanding their operations. Instagram itself has self-contained operations, and pass along certain activities and responsibilities to Facebook as a whole.

YouTube is very much as similar case. There are plenty of integrated tools that go into YouTube that I'm sure YouTube CEO doesn't have full control of such as Google's Adsense program, which is debatably the most sophisticated part of YouTube besides the recommendation engine.

So this "issue" that there is a "ideal" "best" way to run a profitable tech company is two-fold

This idea- retarded that it is, that these websites are essentially just servers with software running on them is LUDICROUS. Some of these are essentially web browsers and internet systems onto themselves. This company does business with GOVERNMENTS internationally. It's a little more complicated then your discord servers or subreddits.


Then there is the notion that many people need to brush up called "Division of Labor" that tries to solve the question about what is the best way to divy up responsibilities and tasks to people for the most utilitarian outcome (respective to the business). For example you may have a team composed of people with the same skills and knowledge, or you might have teams with people who all have diverse skills and knowledge.

I'll just end by saying that Twitter never sold out like Instagram, nor YouTube- to another company anyway. Some people have problems with publicly traded companies and I don't see why. Now that it is a private company, we'll see when Twitter was better off. Seems like a dumpster fire right now, but who knows, the stockholders are sure happy.

 

[Kuu]

How many people do you guess would be needed to update the algorithm on a semi-frequent basis?

Not more than 10?

 

[scorpiomover]

There are no smokes and mirrors. That would imply a trick.


You're conflating two things that aren't the same. I am stating why you shouldn't do that. Now you're acusing me of equivocating. I would say you're projecting, but you're just wrong.

There is no trick. There are people who know what venture capitalist silicone valley startups are, and distinguish that sort of business strategy from a mature business that operates independently and has for over 10 years. You can believe what you want to I don't really care.

Your characterization, and many of the other characterizations of Twitter in this thread as an already failing company before Musk purchased have been wrong too, I just care that little to mention it. What is your metric? Market share? How much YOU use it?

8000 is small for an international company. Every other social media company has that many if not MORE employees than that.

Pretty much solidifying this forum for me as useless for any business advice. I remember bringing up Project Management as a useful skill and people saying it's a waste of time. Yeah if you work alone, no shit.

Then let's consider your claim versus the other person's claim. Suppose Musk offers you a billion dollars to to prove if Twitter has too many employees, or if it doesn't have enough employees. How would you conduct a physical test that would prove the answer for certain?

 

[Grayman]

Guess he should have stuck to his strengths?

He's been pretty disappointing so far.

I think he is mostly after the servers anyway. Probably a good way to build a new type of text/communication platform for tesla phones off the starlink network.

Frankly I don't see why he would risk his mars dreams over Twitter when there are so many Twitter competitors emerging offering free speech.

 

[Grayman]

Twitter was infinitely better off before Musk attached to it.

Again, all he had to do was buy it and hold it and he probably would've been fine in the long run. It's a dumpster fire right now.

To go off the OP assertion that he should've stuck to his strengths, he made plenty of gaffs before, he just has always had the platform to yell over criticisms of himself unless you're specifically looking for the critisims. I wonder how he will do that now.

The money being generated with the content being made around this is competing with the negative losses to Musk's networth.

Holding onto Twitter wasnt feasible. It wasn't making a profit and was living off investor money and hype in the stock market. Once it went private, it had to be cut to be lean as possible. It's the only way this pig can win the race.

Edit: the only way this fat bird will fly

 

[EndogenousRebel]

There are no smokes and mirrors. That would imply a trick.


You're conflating two things that aren't the same. I am stating why you shouldn't do that. Now you're acusing me of equivocating. I would say you're projecting, but you're just wrong.

There is no trick. There are people who know what venture capitalist silicone valley startups are, and distinguish that sort of business strategy from a mature business that operates independently and has for over 10 years. You can believe what you want to I don't really care.

Your characterization, and many of the other characterizations of Twitter in this thread as an already failing company before Musk purchased have been wrong too, I just care that little to mention it. What is your metric? Market share? How much YOU use it?

8000 is small for an international company. Every other social media company has that many if not MORE employees than that.

Pretty much solidifying this forum for me as useless for any business advice. I remember bringing up Project Management as a useful skill and people saying it's a waste of time. Yeah if you work alone, no shit.

Then let's consider your claim versus the other person's claim. Suppose Musk offers you a billion dollars to to prove if Twitter has too many employees, or if it doesn't have enough employees. How would you conduct a physical test that would prove the answer for certain?

The thing is, there wouldn't be time to put this test into place. He's not behaving how typical new owners of a company behave.

Sure there are fires all along the corporate and production structure, but like, that's usually a year, or months into a ownership. Musk just walked into the office and decided within the week. I wonder what test he tried?

There is no way to tell when you cut out that many people all at once what could've been done. This action literally hides any insight that could've been drawn with more measured actions.

Whatever, probably over my head, this is apparently the business Jesus for some people. I think he's just more happy to run the company with fewer loses personally, even if at this rate it'll be worthless in a year.

 

[scorpiomover]

Then let's consider your claim versus the other person's claim. Suppose Musk offers you a billion dollars to to prove if Twitter has too many employees, or if it doesn't have enough employees. How would you conduct a physical test that would prove the answer for certain?

The thing is, there wouldn't be time to put this test into place.

Then let's consider your claim versus the other person's claim. Suppose when Musk took over, BEFORE he fired anyone or did any changes, he offered you a billion dollars to prove if Twitter has too many employees, or if it doesn't have enough employees, so he would be in a good position to decide if he should fire some of the employees. In that situation, how would you conduct a physical test that would prove the answer for certain?

He's not behaving how typical new owners of a company behave. Sure there are fires all along the corporate and production structure, but like, that's usually a year, or months into a ownership.

1) Musk is not just the owner. He's also the current CEO and President.
2) It's been common for the past 30 years, for new CEOs to replace the old management with his own people.

Why did you consider going into Project Management, when you don't even know basic business practice?

Musk just walked into the office and decided within the week.

The company lost over a billion dollars last year. Most companies who had shareholders and who had lost that much money, would find that their shareholders had unanimously agreed to remove the CEO immediately, and replace him with someone who had to turn around the company's finances within 3 months, 6 months at the most, or he'd be out as well.

Probably why they approved the takeover in the first place, was that Dorsey had been losing billions of dollars a year.

If your friends were shareholders of Twitter and it was losing a billion dollars a year, would you tell them that it was doing well?

I wonder what test he tried?

I've been reading about Twitter. The company lost over a billion dollars last year. Most of that went on salaries to employees in R&D who were tasked with figuring out how to stop Twitter being a dumpster fire that was full of cyber-bullying and flame wars. Would you consider that to be an invalid test?

There is no way to tell when you cut out that many people all at once what could've been done. This action literally hides any insight that could've been drawn with more measured actions.

The company has been losing a billion dolllars a year. If this was a medical problem, this would be a patient with COVID who is on the verge of death. If that was your mum, would you want the head consultant to wait a few months before deciding what should be done?

Whatever, probably over my head, this is apparently the business Jesus for some people.

From what people have been saying about Musk in the past year or so, I'd say that most people right now think he's the business version of Lucifer.

However, before Musk came out in support of Trump, so many Left-wing people were praising Musk and Tesla to the skies, it was sickening.

Can you explain why so many Liberals thought that Musk was the business JC?

I think he's just more happy to run the company with fewer loses personally, even if at this rate it'll be worthless in a year.

I read lots of left-wingers posting things like that. Before Musk took over, Twitter was the favourite place of Liberals. Twitter was the main focus of Obama's 2008 campaign that got the first African-American President of the USA. IIRC, Obama praised Twitter and Facebook for being used as the main instigator of the Arab Spring, although he conveniently forgot about all that when the Arab Spring turned into the Syrian Civil War. IIRC, Hillary and encouraged many people to use Twitter to encourage the Russians to revolt against Vladimir Putin and start a Russian Civil War. They even got so mad with Trump using their favourite echo chamber that they were screaming that Dorsey ban Trump's account.

So I'm a bit surprised that so many left-wingers have done a 180 over their love affair with Twitter. Can you explain why they've turned traitor against their beloved Twitter?

 

[birdsnestfern]

Endogenous Rebel, I ADORE the flickr diagrams, I am totally looking through those, they are amazing! Thank you for sharing those!

Also, the video by Thunderfoot is FABULOUS. I'm sharing those, great information.

 

[Old Things]

IMO, what Musk wanted to do was get rid of all the woke people working at Twitter who weren't pulling their weight with things that matter for how Twitter is run. There was this "before and after" pic someone did of Twitter before and after Musk fired people. The before picture was a bunch of women - you know, the kind that all do their hair the same way, and almost all of them were white. The after picture features almost exclusively men, many of whom are Asian, with a few white guys sprinkled in. So clearly, Musk wants this company to run like an actual tech company, which is baffling to some people.

[Edit] Found the Tweet! There were a couple with the same images.
Twitter media not showing on my end so here are the pics.

Spoiler

Before

After

 

[EndogenousRebel]

The company lost over a billion dollars last year. Most companies who had shareholders and who had lost that much money, would find that their shareholders had unanimously agreed to remove the CEO immediately, and replace him with someone who had to turn around the company's finances within 3 months, 6 months at the most, or he'd be out as well.

Probably why they approved the takeover in the first place, was that Dorsey had been losing billions of dollars a year.

If your friends were shareholders of Twitter and it was losing a billion dollars a year, would you tell them that it was doing well?

The whole premise of that part of your argument eats itself. But, eitherway, the media landscape has gotten increasingly competitive. Meta/Facebook are also losing money and they are pointing to a platform for TikTok for eating their market share and taking away from their revenue. You can say that they are being mismanaged, or you can say that it's a miracle that the current owners have let it survive so long in such a competitive environment.

He fired everyone and then sent out emails to get some people back. You aren't seeing how most people who acquire a company don't do that? You take my words out of context and

It doesn't matter if his title is Chief Twat or whatever, he owns the now private company that is Twitter Inc.

You're going to have to show me the data that points to liberals groveling at his feet. But if you're making me answer, I would simply say that he promised to advance the shift to greener energy, and people realized that he just did that for money, not for the sake of the Earth. But it is anyone's guess.

---
yes @birdsnestfern it is quite the good graph, and that video by Thunderf00t is quite good too, he has a playlist "Busted" where he debunks a lot science related malarkey. It is quite good.

 

[scorpiomover]

You're going to have to show me the data that points to liberals groveling at his feet. But if you're making me answer, I would simply say that he promised to advance the shift to greener energy, and people realized that he just did that for money, not for the sake of the Earth. But it is anyone's guess.

That's why I asked you how you would even tell if Twitter had too many employees or not, so we would have a valid proof that would determine the truth, one way or the other.

But you refused to even suggest any sort of physical test. So you have no way to tell if you're honestly telling the truth, or if you're defaming Musk.

But that's not the only problem: if I can't get Left-wingers like yourself to prove their arguments or admit that they are wrong, and I demand that people who express Right-wing attitudes like being anti-immigration to prove their arguments or admit that they are wrong, then I'm demanding a standard of proof to one group of people but accepting another group's claims without question. Then I'm being grossly unfair to Right-wingers.

But Left-wingers regularly talk about how society should be fair to everyone. So if I demand things of the Right that I don't equally demand of the Left, then I would be opposed to what the Left-wing stands for.

So that means that everyone is either one of 3 things:
1) A Right-winger who doesn't care about fairness,
2) A Right-winger who believes Right-wing claims without proof,
3) Someone who demands that Left-wingers produce proofs with solid logic and solid evidence, or admit that they are wrong.

There don't seem to be all that many people in the world who are not like #1, not like #2, and are doing #3, which means that right now, 99.9% of the world has become Right-wing, and thus it's no surprise that the world seems to be turning Right-wing.

Until Left-wingers generally hold other Left-wingers to that level of scepticism and scrutiny, 99.9% of the world are likely to support Right-wing values and claims, and the current Left-wing is over, and the world looks set to be ruled by the Right-wing.

What else is there?

 

[birdsnestfern]

 

[Old Things]

But that's not the only problem: if I can't get Left-wingers like yourself to prove their arguments or admit that they are wrong, and I demand that people who express Right-wing attitudes like being anti-immigration to prove their arguments or admit that they are wrong, then I'm demanding a standard of proof to one group of people but accepting another group's claims without question. Then I'm being grossly unfair to Right-wingers.

Sadly, people rarely, if ever, base their views strictly on the evidence. Even with science, things are skewed so badly that sometimes you can't tell left from right.

 

[dr froyd]

the twitter poll on the reinstatement of trump and musk's subsequent "vox populi" tweet show how foolish things have become. I understand the trick - when dems start shouting that trump is a "threat to democracy" musk can simply point to the poll and show that he was democratically voted back into twitter. But democracy is not majority rule - if you held a poll on the civil rights of Jews in nazi germany we know how that poll would turn out. That's tyranny of the majority. You can't hold a vote on whether the majority want to stick to democratic principles like civil rights and free speech. You either stick to the principles and have a democracy, or you don't have a democracy. That was a cowardly move by musk. When he called himself a "free speech absolutist" that was apparently bs.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

That's why I asked you how you would even tell if Twitter had too many employees or not, so we would have a valid proof that would determine the truth, one way or the other.

But you refused to even suggest any sort of physical test. So you have no way to tell if you're honestly telling the truth, or if you're defaming Musk.

But that's not the only problem: if I can't get Left-wingers like yourself to prove their arguments or admit that they are wrong, and I demand that people who express Right-wing attitudes like being anti-immigration to prove their arguments or admit that they are wrong, then I'm demanding a standard of proof to one group of people but accepting another group's claims without question. Then I'm being grossly unfair to Right-wingers.

??

He essentially destroyed already established highways to build his own highways that achieve a similar effect.

You're asking me how could he tell that the previous highways worked, and I would answer that the company was doing things well already before. We can disagree, but seeing as it was a multi-billion dollar company, the evidence is very much on my side.

You want a specific "test". When literally one could be testing for anything, to achieve any specific result If Twitter had an over employment problem then they themselves would've laid people off, and they very well may have as have Facebook and other social media companies since.

I'm not engaging with your whole argument because it's a symptom of psychosis that leads no where. IF I WERE MUSK, I WOULD HAVE WAITED TO UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE AND WHY IT WAS BUILT THAT WAY. Once I have determined that, I would chart the way forward from there. That's not my job though, and if it was, I'm sure it would take a couple business cycles before I decided to do anything.

So that means that everyone is either one of 3 things:
1) A Right-winger who doesn't care about fairness,
2) A Right-winger who believes Right-wing claims without proof,
3) Someone who demands that Left-wingers produce proofs with solid logic and solid evidence, or admit that they are wrong.

There don't seem to be all that many people in the world who are not like #1, not like #2, and are doing #3, which means that right now, 99.9% of the world has become Right-wing, and thus it's no surprise that the world seems to be turning Right-wing.

Until Left-wingers generally hold other Left-wingers to that level of scepticism and scrutiny, 99.9% of the world are likely to support Right-wing values and claims, and the current Left-wing is over, and the world looks set to be ruled by the Right-wing.

What else is there?

It's always been split 50/50, and hell, if it weren't for the electoral college the left would've long dominated the political landscape.

I have no idea what I would be holding a left-leaning person accountable for? I don't even know what a right-leaning person would be held accountable for. If I hear bs in earshot distance usually perk up a position. Terrible ideas don't come from political leanings, they come from dangerous ideologies. I don't really see people being critical of the most upper classes as a dangerous ideology personally.

Further more I'm not a soldier in a political battle, I'm a free citizen that gets to make my own choices.

 

[scorpiomover]

He essentially destroyed already established highways to build his own highways that achieve a similar effect.

What "highways"? It's a software company. All it produces is a piece of software that goes on the web.

If you mean that Twitter already had standard protocols & standards, then why didn't they follow the standard protocols & standards that already exist in most long-term successful software companies, and that address issues like those in Twitter?

You're asking me how could he tell that the previous highways worked, and I would answer that the company was doing things well already before. We can disagree, but seeing as it was a multi-billion dollar company, the evidence is very much on my side.

Enron was a multi-billion dollar company.
Barings Bank was a multi-billion dollar company.

You want a specific "test". When literally one could be testing for anything, to achieve any specific result

You're saying that it's impossible to prove anything with a test? Then scientific experiments are invalid! Do you believe that most scientific experiments are invalid?

If Twitter had an over employment problem then they themselves would've laid people off, and they very well may have as have Facebook and other social media companies since.

Barings bank didn't lay off Nick Leeson before the problem was discovered. So you're saying they did the right thing as well?

I'm not engaging with your whole argument because it's a symptom of psychosis that leads no where.

1) A symptom of psychosis is taking a fixed position on very little information where you have the option to be unsure until you gather more information, and where there's no downside to doing so e.g. the blue-ball-red-ball test.

E.G. you think that it's a good idea to burn down your neighbour's home, and you don't bother to get a 2nd opinion.

I'm not saying that Musk is perfect, or even all that wonderful. I am saying that painting the guy as an incompetent devil, is saying things that can damage his rep and Twitter's and thus has the same issues as burning down your neighbour's home.

2) Claiming someone has a symptom of psychosis is an Ad Hominem fallacy. Have you heard of Ad Hominem fallacies?

Do you even know why an Ad Hominem is called a fallacy?

IF I WERE MUSK, I WOULD HAVE WAITED TO UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE AND WHY IT WAS BUILT THAT WAY.

WHERE HAVE YOU SHOWED THAT YOU WAITED TO UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE IN TWITTER AND WHY IT WAS BUILT THAT WAY BEFORE DRAWING A CONCLUSION ABOUT THE SITUATION?

If you use caps, expect caps.

Once I have determined that, I would chart the way forward from there. That's not my job though, and if it was, I'm sure it would take a couple business cycles before I decided to do anything.

Did you wait a couple of business cycles before forming your opinion about the situation?

So that means that everyone is either one of 3 things:
1) A Right-winger who doesn't care about fairness,
2) A Right-winger who believes Right-wing claims without proof,
3) Someone who demands that Left-wingers produce proofs with solid logic and solid evidence, or admit that they are wrong.

There don't seem to be all that many people in the world who are not like #1, not like #2, and are doing #3, which means that right now, 99.9% of the world has become Right-wing, and thus it's no surprise that the world seems to be turning Right-wing.

Until Left-wingers generally hold other Left-wingers to that level of scepticism and scrutiny, 99.9% of the world are likely to support Right-wing values and claims, and the current Left-wing is over, and the world looks set to be ruled by the Right-wing.

What else is there?

It's always been split 50/50, and hell, if it weren't for the electoral college the left would've long dominated the political landscape.

How could the Left have long dominated the political landscape without the EC, unless for a long time, the majority voted for the Left? How can you claim it was ever split 50/50, when you believe that for a long time, the majority voted for the Left?

I have no idea what I would be holding a left-leaning person accountable for? I don't even know what a right-leaning person would be held accountable for. If I hear bs in earshot distance usually perk up a position.

If right-leaning people are not held accountable, then there's nothing to accuse or blame the right-wing for, and then the right-wing are reasonable, rational and moral. Is that your viewpoint, that the right-wing are reasonable, rational and moral?

Terrible ideas don't come from political leanings, they come from dangerous ideologies.

What is an ideology? To quote Google, "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy", i.e. those viewpoints that form political leanings.

I don't really see people being critical of the most upper classes as a dangerous ideology personally.

Is capitalism an ideology? Are socialists critical of the upper classes because they believe that capitalism is a dangerous ideology and the upper classes are capitalists?

Further more I'm not a soldier in a political battle, I'm a free citizen that gets to make my own choices.

You can make your own choices. But if you're choosing to support the left-wing ideology that the right-wing is dangerous, then in the current climate, you're backing a movement that behaves like it supports right-wing values like unfairness. How is that acting like you agree with left-wing values?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

You're actually colossally misconstruing the whole conversation. If someone else wants to interpret I would be glad to respond but I know where engaging with this guy entails, and it's pretty much not worth it despite any challenge to my beliefs he may actually levy. Beliefs I actually believe that is.

 

[scorpiomover]

You're actually colossally misconstruing the whole conversation.

You made some claims about someone firing too many employees, and were repeatedly defaming the person.

Half my extended family died in the Holocaust, because someone started saying that the Jews controlled all the money, and made everyone's life a living hell, until enough people were persuaded that they killed 12 million Jews, LGBT, atheists, physically disabled people, mentally ill people and anyone who disagreed with him.

Since I was a child, I've come across so many examples of anti-Semitism, in my personal life, in books regarded as classics of literature, and in politics, from the Left as much as the Right, that IMHO, if Hitler had not invaded Poland, the world would not have cared about the Holocaust.

So it's kind of a bug-bear to me, when people start defaming someone like that.

However, I'm an INTP. I have dominant Ti and inferior Fe, which makes me likely to not want to claim someone is a Nazi if they have a solid proof of their claims. So I was willing to give you a chance to show that you weren't following in that guy's footsteps.

So I asked you how you would test if he was firing too many employees or not, to give you the chance to show that you were being reasonable.
You said that it can't be done, which meant you can't prove your claims about the person, and yet you kept defaming the person.

Then you attacked me as well, by claiming this:

I'm not engaging with your whole argument because it's a symptom of psychosis

Is any of that wrong?

 

[dr froyd]

IF I WERE MUSK, I WOULD HAVE WAITED TO UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE AND WHY IT WAS BUILT THAT WAY. Once I have determined that, I would chart the way forward from there. That's not my job though, and if it was, I'm sure it would take a couple business cycles before I decided to do anything.

lmao so you would have waited like 20-30 years before making any changes? while the company is bleeding money out of its ass?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

IF I WERE MUSK, I WOULD HAVE WAITED TO UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE AND WHY IT WAS BUILT THAT WAY. Once I have determined that, I would chart the way forward from there. That's not my job though, and if it was, I'm sure it would take a couple business cycles before I decided to do anything.

lmao so you would have waited like 20-30 years before making any changes? while the company is bleeding money out of its ass?

Probably 8-24 months.

So I asked you how you would test if he was firing too many employees or not, to give you the chance to show that you were being reasonable.
You said that it can't be done, which meant you can't prove your claims about the person, and yet you kept defaming the person.

You don't realize you're begging the question? Hence why I called it psychotic.

This is probably where I would start once I have determined what KPIs and organization goals are optimal.

 

[scorpiomover]

So I asked you how you would test if he was firing too many employees or not, to give you the chance to show that you were being reasonable.
You said that it can't be done, which meant you can't prove your claims about the person, and yet you kept defaming the person.

You don't realize you're begging the question?

Begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.

I was repeatedly saying that it's not reasonable and not fair to assume Musk is guilty of things without proof. That's the exact opposite of begging the question!

Hence why I called it psychotic.

1) From what I understand, psychosis is when someone hold an opinion but refuses to accept overwhelming evidence that proves beyond doubt that the person is clearly wrong.

If you had proved your claims to everyone else's satisfaction, and yet I refused to accept your proofs no matter what, THEN that might be a sign of psychosis.

But this is nothing like that.

2) It's still an Ad Hominem argument, and has no place in a rational discussion or rational debate.

View attachment 6672
This is probably where I would start once I have determined what KPIs and organization goals are optimal.

You;re trying to answer the question AFTER you already stated that there was no way you could attempt to answer the question I posed, and AFTER you already stated that you did not want to continue the argument.

You're now proving that you knew all the time that you had such a test. If your test had been able to prove your claim right, you would have stated it then. You knew damn well that it would have proved Musk was right to fire those employees, which is why you refused to answer it.

In addition, you're NOW trying to evade answering if I was right about my summation of our little tête-à-tête.

You've proved that you were deliberately evading admitting the truth, and you're still evading admitting the truth.

If you want to salvage your viewpoint, then you're going to have to do the following:

1) Admit that you had a test when you claimed that you didn't.

2) Explain why you refused to answer my question about how you would test if Twitter had too many employees or not, when you had such a test.

3) Answer the last question I asked: if my earlier summation of our conversation was accurate.

4) If you answer that my summation was inaccurate, you'll have to provide a proof.
If you answer that my summation was accurate, you'll have to provide an reason why you claimed that I was "actually colossally misconstruing the whole conversation".

ONLY THEN is it reasonable to discuss what your test might indicate.

Till then, your behaviour is extremely inconsistent with you having a valid proof on your side, because if you did, you could have led with that and proved your case without evading my questions and without having to do a 180 on your own position that no test can be designed to answer if Twitter had too many employees or not.

But even if you want to argue your KPI argument:
1) You stated that Twitter had 8,000 employees.
2) Twitter lost over a billion dollars in a year.
That's - 1,000,000,000 / 8,000 = -125,000.
That's a KPI that on average, each employee was costing Twitter $125,000.
Employees are hired, because they make money for the company than they are paid. This is the exact opposite, and would be a serious justification to fire the lot of them and replace them all.

So even here, your own argument is making a very strong case that your claim is wrong.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Begging the question is essentially circular reasoning.

You told me that I have to propose a test that does X, because Y, which includes X.

Me: Elon Musk shouldn't have fired his entire work force.

You: Provide a test that shows how Elon should've fired his workforce.

Me: I don't think he should've fired his workforce I think he should've taken other measures

You: You must be evading my test because you are being dishonest.

Now you're trying to say I am simultaneously evading your "test" yet addressing it.

I'm starting to just see this as obfuscating your reactionary views behind a facade of languistic shrubbery. Unless I am missing something?

 

[dr froyd]

IF I WERE MUSK, I WOULD HAVE WAITED TO UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE AND WHY IT WAS BUILT THAT WAY. Once I have determined that, I would chart the way forward from there. That's not my job though, and if it was, I'm sure it would take a couple business cycles before I decided to do anything.

lmao so you would have waited like 20-30 years before making any changes? while the company is bleeding money out of its ass?

Probably 8-24 months.

then you should google what "business cycle" means

can you just admit you don't have the faintest clue about business, finance, or any of these things, and that you showed up with opinions gathered from some commie twitter feeds and mainstream media, and you're just clutching for random shit to retrospectively justify your opinion?

"twitter needs 8000 employees cuz it's an InTerNationAL cOmpANy, durrrrrr"

 

[dr froyd]

in general it's striking how a bunch of lefties and mainstream-media talking heads suddenly became OBSESSED with the profitability of twitter. The entire tech sector including facebook is a dumpster fire and employees are getting fired in tens of thousands, yet none of these people are talking about zuck.

could it be that they are freaking out for a completely different reason? hmmmmm

let's face it - they real reason is that they know they are losing their tyrannical control of the narrative. They had a good run of 5 years 2016-2021 but it's now coming to an end.

 

[dr froyd]

musk knows how things work

 

[EndogenousRebel]

IF I WERE MUSK, I WOULD HAVE WAITED TO UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE AND WHY IT WAS BUILT THAT WAY. Once I have determined that, I would chart the way forward from there. That's not my job though, and if it was, I'm sure it would take a couple business cycles before I decided to do anything.

lmao so you would have waited like 20-30 years before making any changes? while the company is bleeding money out of its ass?

Probably 8-24 months.

then you should google what "business cycle" means

can you just admit you don't have the faintest clue about business, finance, or any of these things, and that you showed up with opinions gathered from some commie twitter feeds and mainstream media, and you're just clutching for random shit to retrospectively justify your opinion?

"twitter needs 8000 employees cuz it's an InTerNationAL cOmpANy, durrrrrr"

Nice mind reading bro you got me.

Sureley business cycle isn't a relative term or anything, you should show me your definition because I'm just a fool who doesn't know what he's talking about.

This isn't funny anymore.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

in general it's striking how a bunch of lefties and mainstream-media talking heads suddenly became OBSESSED with the profitability of twitter.

Unless Musk decides to fund Twitter out of his pocket the profitability matters.
If Musk's actions drive away advertisers and other clients or users then Twitter will lose its already small reach and will be replaced by some other posting board.

So far I don't see how Musk is remaining faithful to his "platform for free speech" promise. He's allowed a bunch of trolls to impersonate accounts by removing identity verification, he's a political activist and uses twitter to push a number of his personal views to influence opinion.

How can a political activist take control over a platform and turn it into a haven for free speech? Don't see that happening.

It's basically the same thing as what happened on this forum. Admins can't both participate in the discourse and remain unbiased. They will naturally value a certain type of discourse that's going to alienate some percentage of the users and that's totally fine because a forum needs direction and values that the community forms around. The users who don't like the values on this forum will need to find a different place that matches theirs.

Another thing to note is that Twitter had enough moderation and stability to become associated with a certain type of discourse. Even if it was 'leftist' there is certainly a good profit to be made on operating a platform catering to left-leaning consumers and making the platform less safe for left-leaning people will drive away users.

There's definitely a lot of advertisers who had entire product niches carved out on Twitter that have now been endangered by the outflow of their target demographics and an influx of others. Those advertisers will value a mixed audience less and will have to be replaced by advertisers who want to bid on other ads.

 

[Hadoblado]

in general it's striking how a bunch of lefties and mainstream-media talking heads suddenly became OBSESSED with the profitability of twitter. The entire tech sector including facebook is a dumpster fire and employees are getting fired in tens of thousands, yet none of these people are talking about zuck.

could it be that they are freaking out for a completely different reason? hmmmmm

let's face it - they real reason is that they know they are losing their tyrannical control of the narrative. They had a good run of 5 years 2016-2021 but it's now coming to an end.

I don't really think this makes sense. Musk provokes, Zuck doesn't. Leftists tend to consider Musk an opponent, so in the culture war his loss is their "gain". Zuck is a billionaire, but he's not actively kicking the hornets nest.

I also don't think they're losing the parts of the narrative they had tyrannical control over.

 

[dr froyd]

@Glaensaeth
one gotta consider how it was that advertisers became flag-bearers for the left-progressive values of the US westcoast to being with though. It wasn't out of consideration for humanity, i tell you that much.

it was because of what companies refer to as brand risk - if you don't play along with certain cultural narratives, you might get the mob turned against you, and lose revenue.

so it ends up as a reinforcing mechanism:

1: the platform starts out with a certain bias
2: intolerant voices with a certain cultural/political leaning get amplified
3: advertisers see it as brand risk to not appease these voices, so they take on the same views
4: these views start percolating into society outside the platform
5: the platform starts enforcing their bias even more

and so on, until you converge to a scenario very much like twitter pre-musk takeover. A platform where discourse is very much ruled by corporate interests and political correctness.

once the discourse on platform becomes more balanced politically and culturally, and it becomes evident that advertisers who stay on the platform don't get "cancelled" despite sharing a platform with supposed menaces to society like jordan peterson, trump, and whatnot, they will all flood back into the platform and continue business as usual.

that's my prediction anyway, but we'll see. It will be interesting to see how things look in a year or two.

 

[Black Rose]

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

@Glaensaeth
one gotta consider how it was that advertisers became flag-bearers for the left-progressive values of the US westcoast to being with though. It wasn't out of consideration for humanity, i tell you that much.

They're value signaling for profit obviously, that can be useful though. If the social expectation stresses the right values then the companies might actually need to adopt things that are beneficial to us, regardless of why they do it.

I don't see how Musk's political beliefs won't start reshaping brand and social identity of Twitter in the same way just in another direction. They probably will so that negative aspect won't go away.

@Glaensaeth
that's my prediction anyway, but we'll see. It will be interesting to see how things look in a year or two.

I can't imagine Twitter going down with half-decent management. Musk is the owner and he shouldn't be making any decisions. Just fire 90% of the staff, and apparently they had 5000 people there, working on a website and what else? A web/phone app like this usually employs in the hundreds, not thousands. Just leave the core 400-500 staff who want to work there and are actually good, hire competent management and reset the whole product oriented on profit.

That thing will sustain itself based on sheer user count and ad revenue alone. The hard work has already been done, Twitter is a popular recognizable product and now the easy part is not destroying it and making a good profit on it.

Twitter will never be more than a message board with ads so the revenue is proportional to the user count and has a hard ceiling that won't be overcome. It's just a matter of realizing that it has to limit spending and ambitions down to what it really is and it will be fine.

 

[Rook]

musk is just some nerd lol. amazing how much brain estate he gets for free

 

[birdsnestfern]

Elon Musk calls for 'anyone' left at Twitter who can write software to meet him, or fly in, to help him 'better understand' Twitter's tech

Hundreds of Twitter employees effectively resigned on Thursday in response to an ultimatum from CEO Elon Musk.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[birdsnestfern]

Mr. Tweet is his new nickname: https://sfstandard.com/business/elon-musk-given-hilarious-new-nickname-by-lawyer-in-tesla-trial/

 

[ZenRaiden]

Buying Twitter isn't about making money, he already has enough.

Musk was born rich.
The problem is we don't know how much he really has.

Investors investing in companies that he does not own....
More importantly he acts in some capacity, but from what I have looked up on the internet its not clear what he actually does accept being the face for SpaceX and representative who draws attention to Tesla, Space X and associate companies.

Many things Musk proposed were never realized, but were enough to rally investors and people to buy some sort of shares, but these cannot be monetized if I understood correctly.

It seems some parts of these companies are real deal, but they are running a huge scam on investors.

I assume these are petty investors, but if you get enough of them you get millions of dollars virtually for free.

I think at this point Id argue he is rich, but I think it would be wrong to assume that he is actually running those companies or actually has some lions share of them.