Chief Twit

[mangocrazy]

I wouldn't call Trump strong personally, or a great leader. I'd say he manipulates, he doesn't lead.

He's loud, for sure.

I once saw him described as "a weak man's idea of a strong man and a dumb man's idea of a smart man", which seemed pretty fair to me.

That is both insulting and nonsensical.

Rather than trading insults, which will only lead to a ban (ask me how I know), wouldn't it be better to deconstruct the comment?

It would appear that Screwd is actually feeling insulted on behalf of Donald Trump. The comment is not aimed at Screwd, but at Trump, so why is he taking it personally, but on The Donald's behalf? This is the interesting thing for me.

As for 'nonsensical', all I can say is the comment that The Donald was described as "a weak man's idea of a strong man and a dumb man's idea of a smart man" makes perfect sense to me, but that's all I can offer. Obviously this didn't make sense (or he didn't want to acknowledge the veracity of the comment) to Screwd.

Carry on.

[weeksy]

I feel I should add a comment to the lock

[weeksy]

Open again. Play nice hey. I've got things to do today, discussion is great, but there's a line of course.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Egalitarianism...hallmark of the left!

[Count Steer]

I don't understand this twitter thing, the sale stuff

Why does Musk need to make so much to keep afloat? Was it privately owned before, so didn't need to make so much?

Probably a stupid question, but I've never taken much notice of that sort of thing, especially around the social media sites

He overbid for it Noggin. Tried to back out when he realised but got stuck with it. The user figures and financials may have been given a bit of cosmetic treatment (although he didn't seem to prove it) so it was still attracting investment. It was delisted ie went private when he bought it. Turns out it's losing something like $4M/day. Bearable if it's investors money but if it's your own...(Although I assume he borrowed it. Even the disturbingly rich don't usually risk their own capital).

So yes, it's gone from losing investors money, effectively, to losing the owner's money - borrowed or not.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Like I said, IMO loads of what people consider normal British behaviour is fairly left anyway. Or socialist at least.

I don't think being left is a bad thing and I also don't think being woke is the same as being left.

[Saga Lout]

Has anyone ever shifted their view on anything as a result of a thread on here?

Same question was asked on TRC and Vd before.

The answer (no links, before anyone demands them), is 'yes'. But not in any area of politics etc.

[And not in maintenance either, WD40 on brakes is still acknowledged as best practice ]

But we don't do it to change minds. Well, not primarily. We do it to reaffirm our own beliefs and to show those arguing on "our" side that they are not alone.

I think I posted the following quote on the TRC thread you mentioned:
“That one can convince one’s opponents with printed reasons, I have not believed since the year 1764. It is not for that purpose that I have taken up my pen, but rather merely to annoy them, and to give strength and courage to those on our side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.” G.C. Lichtenberg (1742 – 1799)

Which is a bit more eloquent.

[cheb]

I don't understand this twitter thing, the sale stuff

Why does Musk need to make so much to keep afloat? Was it privately owned before, so didn't need to make so much?

Probably a stupid question, but I've never taken much notice of that sort of thing, especially around the social media sites

He overbid for it Noggin. Tried to back out when he realised but got stuck with it. The user figures and financials may have been given a bit of cosmetic treatment (although he didn't seem to prove it) so it was still attracting investment. It was delisted ie went private when he bought it. Turns out it's losing something like $4M/day. Bearable if it's investors money but if it's your own...(Although I assume he borrowed it. Even the disturbingly rich don't usually risk their own capital).

So yes, it's gone from losing investors money, effectively, to losing the owner's money - borrowed or not.

He also backed himself into the corner by dismissing the need for due diligence before he made his offer.

The world's most expensive drug induced purchase ever?

[Saga Lout]

He overbid for it Noggin. Tried to back out when he realised but got stuck with it. The user figures and financials may have been given a bit of cosmetic treatment (although he didn't seem to prove it) so it was still attracting investment. It was delisted ie went private when he bought it. Turns out it's losing something like $4M/day. Bearable if it's investors money but if it's your own...(Although I assume he borrowed it. Even the disturbingly rich don't usually risk their own capital).

So yes, it's gone from losing investors money, effectively, to losing the owner's money - borrowed or not.

By "investors", do you mean shareholders?

If so, what's the difference between shareholders (i.e. owners) losing money and owners losing money?

[Mr. Dazzle]

Shareholders don't necessarily lose money when a company does anyway. People always seems to forget that the only times shareholders actually directly put money into a company is during its IPO and then if said company asks for input. If you just buy shares in a company your money doesn't go to said firm.

[Bigjawa]

Anyway, has anyone pointed out that Musk has shot himself in the foot?

the advertising side is starting to go wrong for him.

Any idea why - are advertisers responding to the potential for change or reacting to an actual change?

Are there particular types of companies that advertise there?

I think it's because there's uncertainty over the direction Twitter will go under his leadership.

It was the big companies pulling out, like VW, Ford, Pfizer, GM etc that will do the damage, those won't be small accounts and a platform that relies on ads for 90% of it's revenue can't afford to lose too many.

Musk himself says the platform has started losing money massively, but he's blaming "activist groups" instead of knowing when to shut his mouth and not talk the company into oblivion. He's wanting to rely less on adverts and more on subscriptions but doesn't realise that people will just move to another platform that's free.

If he's not careful, Twitter will be talked about alongside MySpace and Bebo.

[Bigjawa]

The world's most expensive drug induced purchase ever?

That was my Mk2 Escort.

But seriously, he comes across as Branson on steroids, the only difference is, Branson knows when to get the hell out with his loot intact.

A lot of the success of Tesla and Space X is that it's seen as sexy, Rocket launch broadcasts presented by scientists that could be in Baywatch, Tesla cars with ridiculous features like "Ludicrous Mode" that are so overpowered they'll destroy anything on the road. It's hard to make an app sexy.

I think he has started to see himself as some sort of infallable deity, that never works out well.

[Mr. Dazzle]

If you're the world's richest man it's probably quite hard to not back yourself TBF.

[Ant]

If big companies pull out of Twitter as a result of Musk coming in, then what is it that they're saying about free speech?

As the people with an issue are worried that they'll no longer be in the company of those who massage their own egos by agreeing with every word they say. The safe space anti democracy and anti discussion left bubble is about to pop. I bet James O Brien is shouting into his cous cous from the comfort of his multimillion pound house that he won't have any refugees in.

[Count Steer]

Shareholders don't necessarily lose money when a company does anyway. People always seems to forget that the only times shareholders actually directly put money into a company is during its IPO and then if said company asks for input. If you just buy shares in a company your money doesn't go to said firm.

Yeah. I was trying to keep it simple. A company can borrow in the basis of value, so the 'banks' are investors, the 'company' (not the executives) the borrowers. Now Musk is THE owner so the funding, borrowing is on him. Shareholders are a different, very large, kettle of fish. However, if a fund manager 'owns' a significant slice of the issued shares they have a serious interest in the share value and losing $4M a day wouldn't reassure them that they aren't going to lose quite a lot.

[Saga Lout]

Shareholders don't necessarily lose money when a company does anyway. People always seems to forget that the only times shareholders actually directly put money into a company is during its IPO and then if said company asks for input. If you just buy shares in a company your money doesn't go to said firm.

If shareholders are the owners and shareholders don't lose money when a company loses money then it follows that owners don't lose money when a company loses money. Which is nonsense.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I assume Musk has a plan here, but I'm buggered if I know what it is . Maybe that's why he's a billionaire and I'm not.

SpaceX don't make a profit AFAIK, but their finances are murky.

Tesla make big profits but not from making cars. Their profit comes from selling emissions credits to other manufacturers so said firms can keep their average emissions below legal minimums (green washing if ever I saw it). With more and more 'traditional' builders launching their own EVs that business model won't last much longer and Tesla will be left with a range of not that well made, not actually that good cars.

So I'm not sure where Musk is going with this, like I said.

[Mr. Dazzle]

If shareholders are the owners and shareholders don't lose money when a company loses money then it follows that owners don't lose money when a company loses money. Which is nonsense.

Depends where the company are getting their finances from. I bet you've got/had shares in a loss making company at some point (if you had private pension you probably did). Did anyone ever come knocking on your door asking for debt payments?

It's a complicated affair, but "shareholder" doesn't necessarily mean "financier".

TBF it does more in Twitter's case cause there's a very limited number of shareholders now.

Edit: think about what happens when a comapny loses money. They have to get more from somewhere...that's doesn't have to be the shareholders and in fact frequently isn't. You can even make profit as a shareholder from a loss making business...if you buy right at the bottom of share price, then sell when the shares climb youd make money even if the underlying business was loss making throughout.

[Horse]

Has anyone ever shifted their view on anything as a result of a thread on here?

Same question was asked on TRC and Vd before.

The answer (no links, before anyone demands them), is 'yes'. But not in any area of politics etc.

[And not in maintenance either, WD40 on brakes is still acknowledged as best practice ]

But we don't do it to change minds. Well, not primarily. We do it to reaffirm our own beliefs and to show those arguing on "our" side that they are not alone.

I think I posted the following quote on the TRC thread you mentioned:
“That one can convince one’s opponents with printed reasons, I have not believed since the year 1764. It is not for that purpose that I have taken up my pen, but rather merely to annoy them, and to give strength and courage to those on our side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.” G.C. Lichtenberg (1742 – 1799)

Nope, not on any thread I was referring to. As I said, nothing political.

It was in the context of informing, or countering perhaps either poor or no understanding.

People have acknowledged that.

[Bigjawa]

I assume Musk has a plan here, but I'm buggered if I know what it is . Maybe that's why he's a billionaire and I'm not.

SpaceX don't make a profit AFAIK, but their finances are murky.

Tesla will be left with a range of not that well made, not actually that good cars.

So I'm not sure where Musk is going with this, like I said.

I'd bet my house a lot of nations would love to be able to build reliable rockets with orbital capability, although I suspect it's the suborbital capability that's most interesting to them. The wee fat bloke with the dodgy haircut and cheese habit springs to mind.

Tesla will never die completely for one reason, Toyota or VW will never release a family saloon with the power of a Model-S. at least not at the same price.