Indeed, and no you are not off. We heard lots of feedback for building out business cases so we are will be working on that. Thanks a lot for the feedback
"Dynamic scaling ML based coordinator to minimize infrastructure resource costs"
Inferring the novelty of your firms value proposition would be more palatable to those that are risk averse to buzzwords. Note, simply dropping "AI" 128 times into a presentation like Intel/nvidia will unlikely work for a smaller firm.
This is gold! practicing this pitch in front of a mirror right now. Agree on the AI part, time has changed....(we figured it was a great buzz word 6 months ago...now not so sure any more) T_T
It's my understanding that doing what you propose will still use up the crawl budget, because the bot will have to download the page and parse it to understand that it is no-indexed.
Then you could also block those pages in robots.txt, no? (You do need to do both though, as otherwise pages can be indexed based on links, without being crawled.)
Exactly. This should be solvable without actually deleting the pages. I assume they're only removing articles with near-zero backlinks, so a noindex,nofollow should generally be fine, but if crawl budget is an issue robots.txt and sitemap can help.
The real answer is that there's a non-zero cost to maintain these pages, and even more so if robots.txt entries and such have to be maintained for them as well. And if they have no monetary benefit, or even potentially a detriment, it makes more sense for them from a business perspective to just get rid of them. Unfortunately.
> I don't have a need to limit myself; I'm good after 1.
Maybe in your social circles that is normal, but that is highly irregular from everything I have experienced over the last 20 years across 3 continents. And if you don't believe me, just look up the statistics on alcohol consumption. It's pretty clear that an extremely high % of people regularly abuse alcohol, especially in social situations.
Market value and fair value aren't necessarily the same thing.
The 38% is just the one day premium. The offer was at a discount to the stock price less than six months earlier. It was possible that the stock price had overreacted to a tech sell off, and if the market had rebounded by the summer the bid could have looked genius.
Market pricing in M&A is somewhat opaque and different than trading prices because it's based partly on synergy value to a bidder. To use your house example, if the house next door was willing to pay $1.5 million for your house, then the $1.38M is not above market even if Zillow and the list price say it's $1 million.
There were other potential suitors for Twitter, like Microsoft, Disney, Salesforce and private equity. They might have valued it more than Musk based on the benefits it brought their firms. Twitter would be a lot more valuable inside Amazon, Google or Meta but there were probably antitrust issues there.
Plus Twitter's board and management team had access to a lot of material non public information that investors did not. Even if you thought the market price in early April accurately reflected all the public info on Twitter, the Board was looking at 5 year projections and much more detailed pricing/demand/customer info.
The Delaware Courts give a lot of deference to board judgment in these situations, and Twitter's board would have been well within their rights to say "no, that 38% is not good enough" if that was their conclusion after a good faith and reasonable process.
May be a slightly different use case but moving from BigQuery to managed Clickhouse on clickhouse.com has been pretty great. Easy data injection, super fast querying, lots of control over the environment, and a nice SQL console for quickly looking at the data.
Either way he is still the guy who publicly mocked his own employee for having muscular dystrophy, offered another employee a horse if they gave him a handjob, called a cave diver who saved a bunch of children a pedo, spread conspiracy theories about an elderly man who was beaten by an intruder with a hammer....
I didn't say he was a good person. But it's obvious that he's not incompetent and that he's just trying his best to salvage his investment. The idea that he is intentionally driving Twitter into the ground is beyond ridiculous.
According to himself it has fallen 50% in value since he bought it. If he just wanted to salvage his investment he'd tweet once a week about about features or metrics. As it is he spends a lot of his time shitposting and making facially absurd claims.
Right...and I'm saying that if he tweeted less and delivered more, he'd be taken more seriously than he is. Hype/salesmanship is part of business, but in the case of SpaceX and Tesla, they're delivering bespoke and high-end manufactured products. People are willing to wait for infrequent product delivery while tolerating sometimes-fanciful claims of great potential.
Twitter is different because it's a real-time mass communication platform, so the hype is received and processed differently. And outside of his fanbase, few people seem impressed with the changes as manifested so far and this is reflected in the response of advertisers.
Long tweets seem to work OK and offer a clear, obvious user benefit. I'm having difficulty thinking of any other examples.
Then you can end up like Donotpay and be in trouble for giving legal advice by a chatbot that is not a lawyer and has no obligation or directive to be correct.
> The amount of unrestrained freedom makes me question why I'm even playing.
Well I hope you don't have the same feeling about life. Because we are all free to choose our own adventure (with some choices obviously better than others), and there are no clear objectives or goals besides what you set for yourself.
What would really help would be a concrete business case for when someone would use this and how it helps vs other options