The way he looks at the audience, expecting a positive reaction, it seems to me that the memes have really got into his head and he thinks people still love him for being so edgy and 'funny'. Instead, he comes across as a dangerous lunatic with too much power and money.
No, not since The Tweet(tm). He fell from Nerd Jesus to Nerd Satan in one day, so armchair pathologizing or insulting Musk has been highly encouraged on HN since that day.
Elon has claimed to be slightly autistic, as the parent of an autistic kid I believe him, perhaps we all are to some extent.
He is an extremely busy man, and the same set of skills that lead to his success at engineering don't translate at all to success in the social realm. To simplify his social interaction decision making he looks for huristics, such as the tried and true: woke = bad!
So increasingly in following a simple heuristic he seems to have outsourced much of his personal philosophy to the Joe-Rogan-O-Sphere, and all the anti vax, transphobic, supplement pill pushing, pizzagate conspiracy believing, Jew-baiting quackery that entails.
The macho attitude of doubling then tripling down on unforced blunders works well if you are a contrarian podcast host "just following the questions...", but less so when you are CEO with obligations not to rock the boat, not to become a clown presiding over a circus.
It's worse than I expected. Musk is out of his gourd. I don't know if it's the drugs or actual insanity but I don't just see an asshole but someone losing touch with reality. It's not autism or even "outsourcing his politics", he is barely coherent. This man will likely need institutional help.
I don't think that would be a fair to Howard Hughes - he was a real deal engineer and suffered his illnesses and injuries mostly in private.
I see Musk more on the Tony Hsieh / John McAfee / John DeLorean type trajectory: the drugs, the ego, the need for attention and probably a few indictments as things fall apart.
As an autist myself, I’ve never acted like Musk. My autistic family and friends have not either. Musk may be autistic but he is also extremely narcissistic and egotistical, that much should be clear. Let’s maybe focus on that instead of autism causing his bad behavior.
Yeah I agree, his actions could also be explained by narcissism, or a combination of factors.
A topic that I became aware of at University is how society casts people with disabilities (sorry if that term if that offends anyone) as villains, ie Captain Hook becomes a big old meany because an alligator took his hand. Of course this is a harmful stereotype and should be retired as a crutch for lazy writers, thinkers and society at large.
But I also believe that anyone can be the hero or the villain, or think they are doing good when they are clearly misguided. Wouldn't it be just as weird if neurodivergent people were never actually the bad guy? Isn't never being allowed to think of someone as both autistic and in some way maladjusted also a harmful stricture?
Not saying we neurodivergents can’t be bad people or villains (I think Kingpin is supposed to be autistic), nor that we shouldn’t be called out where appropriate.
But we have enough social stigma going against us. Musk’s antics are on the morning news now, so I’d much rather the word “narcissist” be on people’s mind than “autist”. Because when I tell people I’m autistic, I don’t want them to think that means I’m prone to screaming “go fuck yourself” to a live studio audience.
That’s a good point about Hook. Villains are also frequently queer coded. Hook is an example of this too. So is Jafar, Scar (disfigured), and Ursula (overweight). Probably more examples. This is to draw a contrast to the blonde haired, blue eyed, able bodied, conventionally attractive hero.
trojan13 says >"The way he looks at the audience, expecting a positive reaction, it seems to me that the memes have really got into his head and he thinks people still love him for being so edgy and 'funny'."<
No, it did make an impression on me he does constantly say something edgy or (an attempt at being) funny and then looks around for approval, that isn't there.
This is no surprise. Aside from his Twitter bubble, he's in a bubble even offline. Tesla presentations are full of people profiting off Tesla YouTube videos, selling investment "lessons", crypto bros, and fanboys.
They DO laugh at all his jokes. They DO clap at everything edgy he says. And so he, almost reasonably, believes the rest of the world is like that, and the mass media just hates him for dropping heavy truths with a hammer.
He admits the company will die if advertisers pull out, and his solution is to document it and let the world know that the advertisers were the reason the company died.
He seems to contradict himself. On one hand he says “fuck you“ to anybody pulling advertising like he’s throwing caution to the wind because he just doesn’t care, but on the other hand, he says the company is doomed if advertisers pull out, and that seems to really upset him.
So… Twitter is shutting down? There’s really no other plan other than blaming advertisers for pulling out, and ranting about how earth will judge them?
He's saying he'd rather let the company go bust rather than give into blackmail.
Which seems nuts to me. I mean they are not blackmailing as far as I can see, just not wanting to be associated with him endorsing anti semitic stuff and pizzagate conspiracies.
Many of us might feel that way internally or in private when we’re frustrated, but few would go up on stage, say that in front of the whole world and wait for applause afterward. Regardless of his political opinions or personal temperament, he seems to have lost touch with reality.
The reat of us who run businesses would say "oh, when I do X, I lose revenue. I will not do X anymore. Maybe I will do some anti-X and try to grow it instead."
What, no? He’s behaving erratically, flailing, and blaming everyone but himself for his failure as a leader. That’s not how we all act, and clearly narcissistic behavior. The sociopathy is evident the other day from his “graveyard” tweet.
He's responsible for his actions and words to his employees, remaining customers and co-investors. How's this behavior not sociopathic? he's not accounting for the impact to others.
I think I’ve figured out what he’s doing. He knows Twitter is going to flop due to its tremendous debt, dwindling audience and the failure of his paid premium subscription scheme.
But this way, when it happens he gets to blame all of that on “woke corporations“, rather than on himself.
I would hope it was blatantly obvious that was exactly what he is doing. It doesn't require any particular skill to decipher that he's engaging in blameshifting, he's flatly stating it.
Yep. He didn't want to buy it in the end. Once he was forced to, he fired almost everyone to lower overhead as much as possible. He also pulled some heroics in doing so, if you read about the "moving the servers" fiasco, which was an impressively intrepid bit of "getting your hands dirty" getting shit done.
I don't know to what extent he has made or could make it profitable, but I don't think he wants it to die. It dying, though, isn't the worst thing, and here he can turn it into a Braveheart moment to boot, winning hearts and minds -- like mine. I see what he's doing, but I love it; fuck advertisers. They've ruined the Internet. Or, rather, monetization in the abstract has.
It's disgusting to me how he was asked about trying to bend the knee to suits like Iger, turning the platform into some anemic, anodyne corporate candy world of devout Good Behavior, an eternal kindergarten where we're all trapped forever with the advertisers as our mental jailors, since that's how profits can flow most frictionlessly.
What he's doing is stupid -- people's 401ks are on the line. But it's wild how it doesn't seem to bother anyone how that's an argument for spinelessness. It's a New Hampshire license plate "live free or die" moment, and 90% of posters here are advocating for content slavery with tone policing and personal attacks.
He was NEVER forced to buy twitter. At any point he could have cut a check for a billion dollars and walked away. He just couldn't swallow his goddamned drug fueled pride.
Numerous people (Matt Levine, etc) smarter than me have written about how there was no $1B break up fee. That fee only came into play if something prevented the deal, like regulators blocking it. Him having buyer's remorse was not sufficient to trigger that clause.
This is true, but he could have negotiated a breakup fee with Twitter if he'd wanted to. The board likely would have been more than happy to take $10B from him to kill the deal, which would have saved him a bunch of cash and headache in the long run. But obviously cutting losses isn't how Elon likes to roll; he'd rather burn the company down out of spite.
This is such an instructive story in how social media messes up discourse. Yes, fine-tuned shadow banning of stuff one does not like politically is BS (point taken, Musk). But promoting a bunch of randos with personal endorsement so they run important debates is also a very questionable service to democracy (see https://www.cip.uw.edu/2023/10/20/new-elites-twitter-x-most-...). Overreacting to some of the stuff that then floats to the top on the part of advertisers and commentators is again not right, but calling this reaction "blackmail" is probably a little over the top. So what have we learnt? Make time for reading paper books and sniffing the flowers sometimes maybe?
"[C]alling this reaction 'blackmail'" isn't "a little over the top," it's petulant and incoherent. The basic idea of blackmail is "I know a secret about you and I'll reveal it if you don't give me money."
Musk's present position is that he keeps saying and promoting repulsive stuff in public and so some advertisers prefer to stop supporting or being associated with his business. This isn't remotely like "blackmail": the repulsive stuff is all public to begin with.
The Sorkin guy said maybe advertisers don’t want to be associated with it, and he said “let’s see what the courts say“.
So he’s going to sue people for not advertising with him? How can anyone who says this kind of thing claim to believe in free markets, libertarianism or capitalism?
I'm not sure, but he could be referring to the case filed against Media Matters. In any case, you're right, nobody will be forced to come back and yelling the f-word after them will likely not persuade anyone either. I think Musk has principles, but they reliably go down the pipes when he's losing it, which seems to happen regularly.
True, but... personally, I've never been in the position of having 40 billion dollars vaporize because of my bad decisions. I like to think (or hope) that I would stick to my principles in such a situation, but I can't be sure I would...
40 billion is a ton in absolute terms but is only, I don't know, 1/7th his total wealth. Many people have had that kind of loss without turning into raving lunatics.
Correct, and the basic pattern persists: Someone in a larger group of people does something objectionable, and this is then attributed to one "side" in the debate (fundamental attribution error). This transgression of the "side" is then interpreted as being indicative of its intentions (ultimate attribution error). The imagined intention is then being fought with polemic and exaggerations. I'll stick with my flowers and I appreciate your correction.
No, you're as wrong as he is about blackmail. The links you cite show that.
There is no coercion. Your first wikipedia link says "[c]oercion involves compelling a party to act in an involuntary manner by the use of threats." Saying, effectively, "I no longer wish to be associated with you" is not a threat.
It's also not extortion. Your second link says "[e]xtortion is the practice of obtaining benefit (e.g., money or goods) through coercion."
Again, there is no coercion, and advertisers choosing not to advertise on his platform are not "attempting to gain benefit" at all. They are trying to avoid what they perceive as harm to themselves.
He is not "off by a hair," and neither are you. You're both miles away from even being able to see the ballpark.
> "I no longer wish to be associated with you" is not a threat.
Some people take this as a threat, because they believe they have a right to force you to listen to their opinions. To my eye, this belief is what caused Musk to buy Twitter in the first place. I think it’s breaking his brain that he still can’t get what he wants out of Twitter after spending $44 billion on it and reshaping it in his image. Must be tough.
If somebody walks past a shop and does not buy the wares on offer because they are offended by the horrible decor, I assume, under this definition, this will be called coercion in that that they 'coercing' the owner to change the decor?
The person I most feel sorry for is Linda Yaccarino, CEO and head of advertising at X. She was sitting in the audience when he did this. Imagine how awkward her near-term conversations with advertisers who were with X as of last week will be.
Those emoticons are like a hilarious and alarming comorbidity of the personality required to make the posts you're making. NB: I love the posts you're making.
> The person I most feel sorry for is Linda Yaccarino, CEO and head of advertising at X.
Why? It's not like she was at Twitter when Musk bought it. She knew what she was signing up for. If she didn't, she's a moron. I feel sorry for all the H1B engineers getting the short end of the deal now that the tech job market is shit. Linda is going to be fine.
Uh. It's not like she suddenly found herself in the middle of this nonsense like those H1-B employees. She explicitly chose to be part of the shitshow. She is the person requiring the LEAST sympathy here.
Are we all ignoring the part of the interview where he gets the reporter's name wrong after calling him a "good friend"? Personally I think that's way more interesting. Like, who does that?
I find it sad that almost nobody is willing to take a nuanced view on Elon. I can highly recommend people to read Isaacson‘s biography of him. You don’t have to like him (you won’t), but it’s good to have a well formed opinion.
We spend too much time thinking about celebrities in general. Irrespective of your opinions on Musk, Zuckerberg, Sam Altman etc, it's probably healthier to spend time thinking about your friends and family instead.
I bin celebrities into "insane people with too much money" bucket and spend minimal time on them. This allows me to keep them away from my life.
They have to display that they're worthy of being followed or listened to. It's their burden, not mine, and this proved to be very effective filter for regulating my brain time on people I don't know.
I have a reasonably nuanced view on him and admire his ability to cut through bullshit and build, but he needs to stop visiting the website formerly known as Twitter and go back to working on real concrete problems.
Twitter is this thing he's most ill fitted to be on and work on and also what he can't get away from. Hope it isn't his undoing because that would be a pathetic end.
I disagree with this. I think there's believable evidence from people who have worked with him that he's an effective technical administrator who focuses on learning his area of business[0], but also a bully and a braggart whose opinions on broader society are awful.
The main answer to the paradox of “how does he succeed while making so many bad decisions?” is that he’s the most focused person in the world. When he decides to do something, he comes up with an absurdly optimistic timeline for how quickly it can happen if everything goes as well as the laws of physics allow. He - I think the book provides ample evidence for this - genuinely believes this timeline, or at least half-believingly wills for it to be true. Then, when things go less quickly than that, it’s like red-hot knives stabbing his brain. He gets obsessed, screams at everyone involved, puts in twenty hour days for months on end trying to try to get the project “back on track”.
This is from a person who has failed to understand that most of what Elno says e.g. at those big Tesla day events is just baits for his followers and baits for investors. He's regularly promising the impossible. He's a confidence artist a.k.a. con man a.k.a. notorious liar, someone who lures people into giving him money in exchange for things he'll likely never deliver, and if and when he delivers, it's rather too late, too little. He's done that countless times with e.g. the Tesla semi, including his ~2017 assertion "this is something we can do now, right now". He could not do it then and he hasn't done it since. This is just one example. He feels entitled to say like anything he feels he can get away with and gets mad if his minions don't manage to get it done. This guy's a fraud in and out.
Yeah most of the specific engineering praise I see about him is by people paid to have such opinions. We know Musk fires anyone who pushes back, so we are left to assume employees have fallen in line. When you actually look at their praise critically it is faint, comparing him to a toddler as if that’s a virtue.
The ridiculous number of companies that he's involved in seems to be more part of the problem than the solution, especially given how many waking hours he's apparently spending on social media (another trait shared with the former president)
One, that book is filled with BS (https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/1/23895069/walter-isaacson-...). Second, I don't care if Elon had a tough childhood or is autistic or is high on ketamin all the time. He's got too much power, too much wealth and is displaying alarming behavior.
is the Elno supposed to be comedic or just derogatory?
It doesn't really strengthen your point like you think it might. And ironically is right out of Trump's playbook (who you are railing against a few comments above)
Ok I guess one can take different standpoints on this one. Part of it is naming taboo / damnatio memoriae, also observed for years by Stephen Colbert who had all written references to Trump starred out (as in, T*p or similar) and only referred to him in the spoken as "the former president" (even when reading out a quote that had "Trump" written). Other than that, Elno is derogatory, yes. The "right out of T*p's playbook" makes me think, of course.
I flagged the post because it's extremely unlikely to lead to a worthwhile discussion in any way or form. There will be some who support Elon and will state so. There will be some who don't and will also state so. Both of those people will flame each other in various capacities.
For example, if I suggested that the world would be better if he hadn't basically done a right wing radicalization speedrun, didn't endorse people with hateful ideologies, didn't act in ways that even made his trans daughter want nothing to do with him, or if he was just nicer in general. That point of view is known, yet doesn't add much, aside from grounds for disagreement in the eyes of some.
As for the actual impact of running a company like Twitter/X is run, a few years are probably needed to gather all the facts - then it can be used as an example of what not to do in business school, or how big/small the impact of certain choices actually is. I look forwards to this being reposted in maybe 2026.
I really hate flagging. What is the point of a discussion forum where you're not allowed to discuss things just because a minority of people are experiencing cognitive dissonance every time they get in their Tesla?
If you claim it won't be a "worthwhile discussion", what exactly qualifies as a worthwhile discussion to you? Are we changing the world when we talk about Rust or the latest Nvidia GPU?
And how is it not worthwhile for the HN community to reason about the impact of a quarter-trillionaire who insists on putting himself in the center of EVERYTHING from kids trapped in mines, to Ukraine/Russia, to Israel/Palestine, to climate change, to space exploration?
If getting a handle on this guy isn't worthwhile, what is?
> If you claim it won't be a "worthwhile discussion", what exactly qualifies as a worthwhile discussion to you? Are we changing the world when we talk about Rust or the latest Nvidia GPU?
Talking about programming languages, hardware or even things like biology, nature and so on can be useful learning experiences, when wonderful people with relevant knowledge drop by and share what they know, how things have gotten to where they are and how they might evolve in the future. Some of the more grounded and practical discussions might lead to actionable advice, such as which languages and frameworks to look into over a weekend, what databases to toy around with for a bit, what coding approaches might save a headache in the future, or even just empathy towards the challenges that someone has faced in the past, or that someone might have to deal with in the future, as well as advice for that.
Threads like this won't always lead to worthwhile discussion, because someone like me might be upset at someone like Elon for being rather mean towards others (sometimes bordering on sinister), someone else might celebrate some of his behavior as breaking a very watered down mold, yet not much of that would change as a consequence in the world. It will, however, almost inevitably lead to arguing with one another, even in communities like HN, or just feeling bad about the state of the world.
> And how is it not worthwhile for the HN community to reason about the impact of a quarter-trillionaire who insists on putting himself in the center of EVERYTHING from kids trapped in mines, to Ukraine/Russia, to Israel/Palestine, to climate change, to space exploration?
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.
In that regard, all I can say (aside from the example above, which is probably already over the line) is that there was probably a more tactful way for him to get his message across, that wouldn't be so brash. That the way the company is run is quite far off from how most companies are run and future will show how that works out. I wish people were nicer. That's about it.
As for geopolitical events, I guess I can (and have in the past) send donations for humanitarian aid to Ukraine, as well as support initiatives like Wren for carbon offset, in addition to personal life choices in regards to my environmental footprint. I don't need to care about what some rich guy has in his personal agenda, because I have no impact on that, so it shouldn't live in my head rent free.
But maybe I'm wrong and someone else will "get a handle on this guy", whatever that means. It feels to me like any sort of progress would most likely be made in the court system, not any comments section. Or maybe I'm just wrong in that what he said deserves to be seen and saved, as a historical record or something.
The problem with this chain of discussion is that no self-respecting expert in the relevant fields would give armchair diagnoses or discuss evidence for them like this on a public forum, so all you will end up with is speculative garbage from unqualified people.
news on Elon is toxic, but he's a runner up for richest man in the world and leads a couple most prominent companies in the world... there is a lot to take interest in
This man is taking a personal interest in a war zone, that if it spirals out of control, could lead to WWIII. And he’s on stage acting like this days later.
What would happen if Twitter died tomorrow? Would its community simply reform around the next-biggest clone or fragment into many platforms? And where would people go?
Bluesky is pretty lively and active considering how slow they roll out invites. Closest thing I’ve seen to a credible Twitter replacement so far. Lots of good accounts have already migrated there.
I finally got an invite code to Bluesky. During onboarding, it gave me a list of feeds to choose from. For some reason, they've decided to have no tech whatsoever in that list of feeds. I guess I'm a bit of a loser, but I don't have many interests outside of tech, so I picked nothing and now I have an empty feed.
Is that the goal of Bluesky, to be Twitter for non-tech people? Seems like a surprising approach, given that the first users of Twitter were exclusively tech peeps.
You need to teach it what kind of stuff you like. If you go on Twitter and look at peoples’ bios, they often list their blue sky handles. Start following tech journalists such as
https://bsky.app/profile/gergely.pragmaticengineer.com
Then, peek into their own “following“ lists, and follow everybody you recognize/like.
Then go into their “following” lists, and do the same. Rinse and repeat.
Eventually, the algorithm will take the hint and start recommending you more tech stuff.
>Musk responded that the advertising boycott is likely to kill the company. "What this advertising boycott is going to do is it's going to kill the company, and the whole world will know that those advertisers killed the company and we will document it in great detail," Musk said.
The level of entitlement and social disconnect this guy has is astonishing.
He bought the company for 43 billion? Then he can't sell it for anything less without losing face, but now it makes him look weak since advertisers are pulling out and he can't deliver on his promises.
This seems like him trying to turn the narrative around in order to kill the company without making it look like a failure. He was just trying to save the world, but these companies were blackmailing him and he had to put his foot down. Better scuttle the ship than to let it fall into the hands of the enemy!
"By the numbers: Engagement metrics are down across the board.
App downloads fell roughly 38% globally between October 2022 and September 2023, according to Sensor Tower estimates. In the U.S., mobile app downloads fell 57% in the same time period. Data from Data.AI, another app tracking firm, shows similar trends.
Usage has also decreased, with monthly active Android users falling 14.8% globally and 17.8% with mobile users in the U.S. year-over-year for the month of September, per SimilarWeb.
Average time spent, daily per user, fell 2% year-over-year globally in the third quarter of 2023. Sessions dipped 4% in that same time period, per Sensor Tower.
User churn, or users who stop using the app, increased more than 30% year-over-year as of September 2023, per Sensor Tower.
Web traffic was down 7% globally and 11.6% in the U.S. for the first nine months of 2023 compared to the same period in 2022, per SimilarWeb."
Twitter has always been a power-user platform, but lacks mass appeal.
MAUs are down 15-20% YoY, gross churn is up 30%, but time spent is only down 2%.
How can a true source of truth free speech platform be anything other than a non profit model like Wikipedia? Free speech requires speaking the truth, and the truth makes most people, including companies / advertisers uncomfortable.
This is someone who people suggest is the wealthiest person on Earth saying he cannot afford to run a personal website without others financing it. WTF.
He is calling this a "business" but what were Twitter's profits. Perhaps it's not a business. Perhaps it's just a website having special agreements with some cellular carriers that has grown too large.
Regardless of whether the Twitter "business" survives, the ability to run a "Twitter"-like website is never going away. And the cost of doing so should continue to decline. Website size and inclusion of other peoples' content is a separate issue.
"I want to control a website with hundreds of millions of pages of content uploaded by other people" <--- If this is prohibitively expensive then perhaps that is rightfully so. What are the damaging effects of so-called "social media". Why are advertisers pulling out. "Blackmail". No doubt Zuckerberg is similarly delusional.
Musk is free to run his company as he sees fit. If he decides to follow a particular ideology to run his site, that is his prerogative. And lets say left wing users find it terrible. They can't say - "Hey Musk, you are *blackmailing* us to use this site with this right wing nonsense". If they did others would kindly remind them that one, no one is forcing them to use the site. and two, if they don't like it, they can go somewhere else.
And the left wing users can try to "document" all the right wing stuff on Twitter which they think is nonsense. Except some hardcore left wing users, no one would care.
Same logic goes for the advertisers. They can spend their money as they see it. Saying GFY and "it is blackmail" is pure nonsense.
Except his hardcore followers no one is going to care for his "documentation".
I used to big a big Elon Musk supporter, way before it was fashionable. When SpaceX sent supplies to the ISS using their brand new dragon capsule, I was in awe. This was before the mass production of model S had started.
I loaded up the boat with Tesla shares and made a lot of money(that I’ve since spent on drugs, alcohol and women, no regrets). I figured a man who can kickstart our space ambitions like Elon did, he can build a car, a toy in comparison to a rocket. Elon restored my hope in humanity.
I reevaluated my views on him when he called the diver trying to help those lost boys in the Thai caves a pedo and wasted everyone’s time with some dumb contraption.
When he purchased Twitter for $45B is when I lost faith in him as a businessman. Elon is flying too close to the sun, and I hope he makes it back on track. For all his faults, Elon Musk is a great engineer, I just hope he stops with this X nonsense and get back to working on things that matter.
An idiot who is the chief engineer of SpaceX and Tesla, who transforms entire industries, who gives away his companies’ IP for free to competitors! It’s a shame how the majority HN mindset has shifted in the last few years. People used to have more optimism here. Go on, hit the downvote button and feel better, sort of.
In the interview he states that Tesla has open sourced “all” their patents, and that SpaceX doesn’t register patents except occasionally to stop patent trolls.
Perhaps! Should be an easy one to prove. Feel free to point me in the direction of any evidence, such as a Tesla patent that has not been open sourced. Or in fact any concrete, straightforward evidence for your claim that he “lies a lot”. I’m interested. I have found him to be one of the most direct and honest people in big tech.
> On June 12, 2014, Tesla announced that it will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use its technology.
with the following definition:
> A party is "acting in good faith" for so long as such party and its related or affiliated companies have not:
> * asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla or (ii) any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment;
> * challenged, helped others challenge, or had a financial stake in any challenge to any Tesla patent; or
> * marketed or sold any knock-off product (e.g., a product created by imitating or copying the design or appearance of a Tesla product or which suggests an association with or endorsement by Tesla) or provided any material assistance to another party doing so.
In other words, Tesla is giving away all of their patents only to entities that grant Tesla access to all of _their_ patents. That is hardly open-source in the software development sense of the word.
Interesting, thanks. But I’d disagree that this makes it “hardly open source”. It makes it more ‘GPL’ than ‘MIT’, but both of those qualify as open source. It seems a pretty reasonable condition in this case, imo. In any case it would be a stretch to call it a “lie” that they open sourced their patents, which is the claim I challenged here.
He's an idiot who hires smart people who do great things in spite of him. He's not really an engineer. It's merely a title he probably bestowed upon himself.
FU money or not, Twitter has bills and interest (nearly a billion a year the last I heard) to pay. High spending advertisers redrawing from Twitter hurts. Several hundred million dollars is still several hundred million dollars even if you are a billionaire.
Not guts, billions of dollars he can afford to loose. And he's got a plan to screw the banks that loaned him the money to buy Twitter, I'm now convinced this is his tactic.
Anyone with access to an internet browser can see that what Media Matters did was orchestrated and coordinated among the media and engineered as a hit piece. It was done exclusively for political reasons. Media Matters doesn’t care about anti-semitism, they’re a political lobby and their purpose is getting Democrats elected.
My opinion: it will backfire more on the advertisers than it does for X, with so much of the country taking Elon’s side.
> Anyone with access to an internet browser can see that what Media Matters did was orchestrated and coordinated among the media and engineered as a hit piece.
I have access to an internet browser. How can I see that? Who orchestrated it? Which companies were coordinating things together?
> It was done exclusively for political reasons. Media Matters doesn’t care about anti-semitism, they’re a political lobby and their purpose is getting Democrats elected.
How do you know that? What was wrong with their reporting?
The argument is that you had to press refresh on your browser several times before a neo-Nazi post coincidentally lined up with an ad from Disney, and media matters just kept on doing it until they got the desired result. But aside from that, Musk isn’t even disputing it happens.
I still wondering if those advertisers set guardrails with Twitter regarding around which content they want to be shown. If not, then it is mostly the advertisers fault in my opinion.
The scary thing is he got an extremely pro Trump judge in Texas, who is famous for making nonsensical rulings that even the current Supreme Court heavily disagrees with. So there’s a good chance he will win this and it will drag out in court for ages, despite the fact they are very obviously protected by the facts of the matter and the first amendment.
I doubt it will backfire on them at all. No one cares about who is spending money on Twitter. Moreover, Twitter is an irrelevant advertising platform and also an atrocious one as well (still lacks DR). Twitter's influence is exaggerated by media dependence and loquacious users.
Twitter has 360m MAUs, 225m DAUs globally. That's less than what Facebook does in Europe.
Does your really care about that? I mean, I'm on HN so I know I'll hear about him here, but isn't Twitter mostly irrelevant ? The only people who use it are politicians, journalist and grifters anyway?
I think I've read twice about him in the last 6 months, and I read 3 different weekly papers.
