Elon Musk to buy Twitter

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

the problem is going to be Federal, not local. That's what you keep missing but never mind ????

Oh right.  The problem you're predicting that's going to arise due to your "strong feeling based on experiences". It is to laugh.

Edited May 21, 2022 by placeholder

[metisdead]

Another inflammatory post has been reported and removed. 

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

who said it was necessary? ????

So, apparently, for no relevant reason, you introduced a piece of information about his national origin that suggests the possibility of unethical behavior on his part? That sounds believable.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

There is a variation on your two methods that may be practical and would be much fairer--Have people pay taxes in proportion to their net worth.

 

It's simple.  Determine the total financial needs of the government and the total private net wealth/assets of the people in the country.  Then make everyone pay in proportion to their net worth. 

 

Using the numbers of $7 trillion for the federal budget and $100 trillion for net assets (approximately correct), everyone would pay 7% of their net wealth in taxes.  A person with $1 million in assets would pay $70,000, a person with $1 billion would pay $70 million, and a person with $100 billion would pay $7 billion.  Poor people with no assets would pay nothing.

 

Since assets require the use of government resources in some form or another (regulations and enforcement for financial assets, utilities for manufacturing, distribution means for retail services, etc.) and assets benefit from rule of law and defense spending in proportion to the magnitude of the assets, people will be paying their fair share.

 

I'm sure you like this variation on your idea.

"I'm sure you like this variation on your idea." ????

 

Uh, no. 

 

But before I can dig into a critique of the idea, I need to know if you're talking about "Assets" or "Net Worth." You've said both. And you've used the word "Assets" more frequently. But "Assets" and "Net Worth" are not the same thing. 

 

Net Worth is the value of your Assets, minus your Debts. You could have $10 million in Assets but $12 million in Debt.......... and therefore have a negative Net Worth. <$2 million> 

 

So, to consider your suggestion, I first need to know if you're truly talking about "Assets" (which you said repeatedly).........… or "Net Worth".......... (which you said at the beginning.) 

 

Obviously having clarity on this is pretty important in America, a country notorious for living well beyond its means........... both personally and nationally! 

 

Cheers! 

 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

Using your second example, Elon Musk's space business should pay a proportionate share of the trillions of dollars of taxpayer money invested in the development of the aerospace industry.  I agree.  Elon Musk should pay much more in taxes, possibly more than he's worth.

Lol

 

You sound like some of the misguided customers I've had in the past........... 

 

They bought something from me for a couple of thousand dollars two years before............ so now they think they're entitled to have me do something special for them NOW. 

 

My answer to you......... is the same as my answer to them...........

 

The money you spent before paid for the work we did THEN; the merchandise we provided THEN. That transaction is complete. You paid for goods and services, and we provided them. So I'm not sure why you think we owe you something extra NOW. 

 

The money the government spent on the Space Program paid for what they did THEN. They paid for certain goods and services......... and they received them! Indeed---much like my customers---they seemed to be very pleased with what they got for their money!

 

But now you think Elon Musk should start reimbursing them retroactively, because he started recreating technology that had been sitting fallow FOR YEARS? 

 

Sorry, there's nothing ANYONE owes the government for that technology! The government paid for certain goods and services...... AND GOT THEM! Transaction complete! 

 

Now, if Musk is using certain PATENTED goods......... he's undoubtedly already paying the patent-holder a royalty. If the patent-holder is the government.......... he's already paying the government. If it's someone else............. he's paying them. 

 

But there's absolutely no reason for Elon Musk to reimburse the government for the billions they spent in the past............ because the government already received  the goods and services those billions paid for! 

 

I wonder...... 

 

By this thinking, shouldn't we all still be paying Edison's heirs for light bulbs, the Wright Brothers' heirs for air travel, and Arabs for our "Arabic Numeral" numbering system? ????????????

 

Cheers! 

 

[heybruce]

27 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Lol

 

You sound like some of the misguided customers I've had in the past........... 

 

They bought something from me for a couple of thousand dollars two years before............ so now they think they're entitled to have me do something special for them NOW. 

 

My answer to you......... is the same as my answer to them...........

 

The money you spent before paid for the work we did THEN; the merchandise we provided THEN. That transaction is complete. You paid for goods and services, and we provided them. So I'm not sure why you think we owe you something extra NOW. 

 

The money the government spent on the Space Program paid for what they did THEN. They paid for certain goods and services......... and they received them! Indeed---much like my customers---they seemed to be very pleased with what they got for their money!

 

But now you think Elon Musk should start reimbursing them retroactively, because he started recreating technology that had been sitting fallow FOR YEARS? 

 

Sorry, there's nothing ANYONE owes the government for that technology! The government paid for certain goods and services...... AND GOT THEM! Transaction complete! 

 

Now, if Musk is using certain PATENTED goods......... he's undoubtedly already paying the patent-holder a royalty. If the patent-holder is the government.......... he's already paying the government. If it's someone else............. he's paying them. 

 

But there's absolutely no reason for Elon Musk to reimburse the government for the billions they spent in the past............ because the government already received  the goods and services those billions paid for! 

 

I wonder...... 

 

By this thinking, shouldn't we all still be paying Edison's heirs for light bulbs, the Wright Brothers' heirs for air travel, and Arabs for our "Arabic Numeral" numbering system? ????????????

 

Cheers! 

 

 

We're discussing a society, not a shop.

 

However if you insist on commercial analogies, think of society as a rental property.  The taxes you pay are rent for being allowed to live and do business in a comfortable society.  The more you use of societies resources for your own enrichment, the more rent you must pay. 

 

If you think the rent is too high you have the option of moving to another society with rent and amenities more to your liking.  However, judging from the popularity of the US (people from unskilled laborers to billionaires have chosen the US as the society that provides best value for the rent) I don't think too many people will choose to leave.

 

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

"I'm sure you like this variation on your idea." ????

 

Uh, no. 

 

But before I can dig into a critique of the idea, I need to know if you're talking about "Assets" or "Net Worth." You've said both. And you've used the word "Assets" more frequently. But "Assets" and "Net Worth" are not the same thing. 

 

Net Worth is the value of your Assets, minus your Debts. You could have $10 million in Assets but $12 million in Debt.......... and therefore have a negative Net Worth. <$2 million> 

 

So, to consider your suggestion, I first need to know if you're truly talking about "Assets" (which you said repeatedly).........… or "Net Worth".......... (which you said at the beginning.) 

 

Obviously having clarity on this is pretty important in America, a country notorious for living well beyond its means........... both personally and nationally! 

 

Cheers! 

 

I was thinking net assets, which you define as net worth.  I didn't want to bog the post down with excessive details.

 

If you want to maintain that determining net worth is too difficult, I have a simple solution.  Again, I didn't include it for the sake of brevity.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

I was thinking net assets, which you define as net worth.  I didn't want to bog the post down with excessive details.

 

If you want to maintain that determining net worth is too difficult, I have a simple solution.  Again, I didn't include it for the sake of brevity.

Not permitting the hyper wealthy to determine how taxes for the hyper wealthy are calculated would prevent any misconceptions on the matter of tax calculation.

 

As it is they’ve already convinced people who are no where near wealthy to argue on their behalf.

 

There in lies an example of precisely why the hyper wealthy wish to

own the media and control to discourse.

Edited May 21, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[Rimmer]

A baiting flame has been removed

[CharlieH]

Reported troll post and responses removed

[KanchanaburiGuy]

Now, as for Musk buying Twitter........ 

 

I think Musk ought to tell Twitter the price he'll pay will go down by $1,000 for every bot post, and $100,000 for every bot........ 

 

If there are a million bot posts, price goes down by $1 billion. 10 million bot posts, $10 billion. 

 

Twitter, of course, would have to weigh that against potential lost advertising revenue, should the REAL numbers come out.......... 

 

Last thing an advertising outlet wants is for their advertisers to learn that they don't REALLY reach the numbers their rates are based on. LOL

 

Cheers! 

[Bkk Brian]

Bots obviouly don't like me all my followers on twitter are real people, I must be doing something wrong

[Slip]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Now, as for Musk buying Twitter........ 

 

I think Musk ought to tell Twitter the price he'll pay will go down by $1,000 for every bot post, and $100,000 for every bot........ 

 

If there are a million bot posts, price goes down by $1 billion. 10 million bot posts, $10 billion. 

 

Twitter, of course, would have to weigh that against potential lost advertising revenue, should the REAL numbers come out.......... 

 

Last thing an advertising outlet wants is for their advertisers to learn that they don't REALLY reach the numbers their rates are based on. LOL

 

Cheers! 

Musk will be lucky to get out with his skin.  The notion that he will be calling the shots seems surreal to me.

[Berkshire]

12 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Now, as for Musk buying Twitter........ 

 

I think Musk ought to tell Twitter the price he'll pay will go down by $1,000 for every bot post, and $100,000 for every bot........ 

 

If there are a million bot posts, price goes down by $1 billion. 10 million bot posts, $10 billion. 

 

What you're talking about relates to due diligence.  The problem is that it's something you do BEFORE you make a purchase.  Musk could have included these conditions before he signed the contract.  But he didn't.  It'll be tough for him to weasel out of this one.

[SunnyinBangrak]

All sorts of mayhem breaking out today, see Musks twitter for info not sure how to properly link it.

[SunnyinBangrak]

On 5/22/2022 at 7:16 AM, Berkshire said:

What you're talking about relates to due diligence.  The problem is that it's something you do BEFORE you make a purchase.  Musk could have included these conditions before he signed the contract.  But he didn't.  It'll be tough for him to weasel out of this one.

Well well well. A couple of months pass and a whistle-blower crawls out of the woodwork to seemingly confirm the minority voice here, that something is indeed very rotten at the head of Twitter. And I love it how CNN casually bury this little gem (that makes the mar a lago accusations look as serious as jaywalking.

 

"alleges that some of the company's senior-most executives have been trying to cover up Twitter's serious vulnerabilities, and that one or more current employees may be working for a foreign intelligence service."

 

but the main item of interest is the claim that Twitter is NOT having knowledge of how many bots are in play, and nor do they even want to know. hmmmmm Looks like Mr Musk will be winning this court case they said he couldn't win.

 

"The whistleblower also says Twitter executives don't have the resources to fully understand the true number of bots on the platform, and were not motivated to. Bots have recently become central to Elon Musk's attempts to back out of a $44 billion deal to buy the company (although Twitter denies Musk's claims)."

 

quotes from https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/23/tech/twitter-whistleblower-peiter-zatko-security/index.html

 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Well well well. A couple of months pass and a whistle-blower crawls out of the woodwork to seemingly confirm the minority voice here, that something is indeed very rotten at the head of Twitter. And I love it how CNN casually bury this little gem (that makes the mar a lago accusations look as serious as jaywalking.

 

"alleges that some of the company's senior-most executives have been trying to cover up Twitter's serious vulnerabilities, and that one or more current employees may be working for a foreign intelligence service."

 

but the main item of interest is the claim that Twitter is NOT having knowledge of how many bots are in play, and nor do they even want to know. hmmmmm Looks like Mr Musk will be winning this court case they said he couldn't win.

 

"The whistleblower also says Twitter executives don't have the resources to fully understand the true number of bots on the platform, and were not motivated to. Bots have recently become central to Elon Musk's attempts to back out of a $44 billion deal to buy the company (although Twitter denies Musk's claims)."

 

quotes from https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/23/tech/twitter-whistleblower-peiter-zatko-security/index.html

 

 

 

"And I love it how CNN casually bury this little gem (that makes the mar a lago accusations look as serious as jaywalking."

 

Yet CNN is reporting it and Fox news is not & no, its hardly makes the Trump Mar a Lago documents scandal any less serious, nice try but terrible fail.

[Berkshire]

3 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Well well well. A couple of months pass and a whistle-blower crawls out of the woodwork to seemingly confirm the minority voice here, that something is indeed very rotten at the head of Twitter. And I love it how CNN casually bury this little gem (that makes the mar a lago accusations look as serious as jaywalking.

 

"alleges that some of the company's senior-most executives have been trying to cover up Twitter's serious vulnerabilities, and that one or more current employees may be working for a foreign intelligence service."

 

but the main item of interest is the claim that Twitter is NOT having knowledge of how many bots are in play, and nor do they even want to know. hmmmmm Looks like Mr Musk will be winning this court case they said he couldn't win.

 

"The whistleblower also says Twitter executives don't have the resources to fully understand the true number of bots on the platform, and were not motivated to. Bots have recently become central to Elon Musk's attempts to back out of a $44 billion deal to buy the company (although Twitter denies Musk's claims)."

 

quotes from https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/23/tech/twitter-whistleblower-peiter-zatko-security/index.html

 

 

 

I'd already seen this news by the way....on CNN.  But to the point, don't you see that this news FURTHER supports the notion that Musk should have done better due diligence BEFORE he signed the contract?  I agree that Twitter has issues.  Which is why I don't understand why Musk agreed to buy the company in the first place.     

[John Drake]

5 hours ago, Berkshire said:

I'd already seen this news by the way....on CNN.  But to the point, don't you see that this news FURTHER supports the notion that Musk should have done better due diligence BEFORE he signed the contract?  I agree that Twitter has issues.  Which is why I don't understand why Musk agreed to buy the company in the first place.     

Perhaps I'm wrong, but didn't Musk arrive at his decision to buy based on Twitter's public filings? If as alleged in the whistleblower accusations  those filings were deliberately falsified, then I don't see how Musk can be forced to buy the company. Or the CEO and board keep from being fined and sent to prison.

Edited August 24, 2022 by John Drake

[bamnutsak]

It seems like one particular text message set Musk off so much he decided, somewhat erraticlly and in less than a minute, to purchase Twitter.

 

Elon Musk’s Text Messages Explain Everything

A disastrous year for the tech industry, captured for eternity in a billionaire’s private exchanges

 

Exhibit H also shows what happens when somebody with actual expertise questions the visionaries. The entire document is a demonstration of elite-level brownnosing, with the exception of one man: then-Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal. The two seem to hit it off—Musk likes that Agrawal is an engineer who can “do hardcore programming”—but then Agrawal sends Musk a text about his unhinged tweets. “You are free to tweet ‘is Twitter dying’ or anything else about Twitter - but it’s my responsibility to tell you that it’s not helping me make Twitter better in the current context,” he says to Musk. This small suggestion appears to enrage Musk and, it seems, alters the entire history of the company forever. “What did you get done this week?” Musk shoots back. And then, less than one minute later, the billionaire writes, “I’m not joining the board. This is a waste of time. Will make an offer to take Twitter private.”

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/elon-musk-texts-twitter-purchase-exhibit-h/672595/

 

 

The full Exhibit H filed in Twitter V. Musk.

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23112929-elon-musk-text-exhibits-twitter-v-musk

 

 

 

[placeholder]

On 5/21/2022 at 6:17 PM, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Now, as for Musk buying Twitter........ 

 

I think Musk ought to tell Twitter the price he'll pay will go down by $1,000 for every bot post, and $100,000 for every bot........ 

 

If there are a million bot posts, price goes down by $1 billion. 10 million bot posts, $10 billion. 

 

Twitter, of course, would have to weigh that against potential lost advertising revenue, should the REAL numbers come out.......... 

 

Last thing an advertising outlet wants is for their advertisers to learn that they don't REALLY reach the numbers their rates are based on. LOL

 

Cheers! 

What did it tell you that Musk didn't pursue the course you recommended? Possibly that he didn't have a case and advice such as yours was useless?

[riclag]

2 hours ago, bamnutsak said:

It seems like one particular text message set Musk off so much he decided, somewhat erraticlly and in less than a minute, to purchase Twitter.

 

Elon Musk’s Text Messages Explain Everything

A disastrous year for the tech industry, captured for eternity in a billionaire’s private exchanges

 

Exhibit H also shows what happens when somebody with actual expertise questions the visionaries. The entire document is a demonstration of elite-level brownnosing, with the exception of one man: then-Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal. The two seem to hit it off—Musk likes that Agrawal is an engineer who can “do hardcore programming”—but then Agrawal sends Musk a text about his unhinged tweets. “You are free to tweet ‘is Twitter dying’ or anything else about Twitter - but it’s my responsibility to tell you that it’s not helping me make Twitter better in the current context,” he says to Musk. This small suggestion appears to enrage Musk and, it seems, alters the entire history of the company forever. “What did you get done this week?” Musk shoots back. And then, less than one minute later, the billionaire writes, “I’m not joining the board. This is a waste of time. Will make an offer to take Twitter private.”

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/elon-musk-texts-twitter-purchase-exhibit-h/672595/

 

 

The full Exhibit H filed in Twitter V. Musk.

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23112929-elon-musk-text-exhibits-twitter-v-musk

 

 

 

In your opinion!

 

Vox seemed to hit it on the nail

in this opinion piece . The free speech absolute .mind you this is before the big buy which resulted in exposing the left and their sycophants.

Elitist dont go blow billions  on pet projects willy nilly imop

“Now, he’s Twitter’s largest shareholder after buying a 9.2 percent stake in the company. The move has prompted whirlwind speculation around why Musk has bought such a large stake and what the future holds for Twitter. After Musk walked back plans to join the company’s board of directors over the weekend, Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal said in a note to the company that the decision was “for the best,” and urged employees to “tune out the noise” surrounding recent changes”.

https://www.vox.com/recode/23022438/elon-musk-free-speech-twitter-stake-top-shareholder

Edited December 29, 2022 by riclag

[riclag]

16 minutes ago, riclag said:

In your opinion!

 

Vox seemed to hit it on the nail

in this opinion piece . The free speech absolute .mind you this is before the big buy which resulted in exposing the left and their sycophants.

Elitist dont go blow billions  on pet projects willy nilly imop

“Now, he’s Twitter’s largest shareholder after buying a 9.2 percent stake in the company. The move has prompted whirlwind speculation around why Musk has bought such a large stake and what the future holds for Twitter. After Musk walked back plans to join the company’s board of directors over the weekend, Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal said in a note to the company that the decision was “for the best,” and urged employees to “tune out the noise” surrounding recent changes”.

https://www.vox.com/recode/23022438/elon-musk-free-speech-twitter-stake-top-shareholder

Good purchase for truth and justice imop.
On March 25, before the news of his investment had come out, he created a Twitter poll asking if the platform “rigorously adhered” to the principle of free speech. Overwhelmingly, his audience voted no. 
See vox source

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, riclag said:

Good purchase for truth and justice imop.
On March 25, before the news of his investment had come out, he created a Twitter poll asking if the platform “rigorously adhered” to the principle of free speech. Overwhelmingly, his audience voted no. 
See vox source

And if they were polled again, given Musk's lies about banning, they should say the same. 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Good purchase for truth and justice imop.
On March 25, before the news of his investment had come out, he created a Twitter poll asking if the platform “rigorously adhered” to the principle of free speech. Overwhelmingly, his audience voted no. 
See vox source

Trump has banned many but you still claim he is the champion of free speech? Astonishing. Well, maybe not.

[riclag]

43 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Trump has banned many but you still claim he is the champion of free speech? Astonishing. Well, maybe not.

 

58 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Trump has banned many but you still claim he is the champion of free speech? Astonishing. Well, maybe not.

Astonishing in deed. Im sure the edit time allowance has expired  ! You’ll need help now to change the name ! 
 

 

[stevenl]

27 minutes ago, riclag said:

 

Astonishing in deed. Im sure the edit time allowance has expired  ! You’ll need help now to change the name ! 
 

 

Yes, should have been Musk of course.

But I'm pretty sure you know who I meant.

[Bkk Brian]

oops, back to working at home for some staff........

 

Reports: Twitter to close Seattle office and faces eviction

Twitter is reportedly facing eviction at its Seattle office and is asking employees to work from home as the social media giant looks to cut costs under new owner Elon Musk.

The New York Times reported Thursday that Twitter “stopped paying rent at its Seattle office, leading it to face eviction,” citing people familiar with the matter.

Platformer managing editor Zoe Schiffer also reported Thursday that Twitter is closing the Seattle office and asking employees to work from home, citing an email to staff.

https://www.geekwire.com/2022/reports-twitter-to-close-seattle-office-and-faces-eviction/

[placeholder]

On 8/24/2022 at 7:09 AM, SunnyinBangrak said:

but the main item of interest is the claim that Twitter is NOT having knowledge of how many bots are in play, and nor do they even want to know. hmmmmm Looks like Mr Musk will be winning this court case they said he couldn't win.

 

 

 

 from https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/23/tech/twitter-whistleblower-peiter-zatko-security/index.html

 

 

 

Any second thoughts you'd care to share with us?

[KanchanaburiGuy]

On 12/29/2022 at 6:49 PM, placeholder said:

What did it tell you that Musk didn't pursue the course you recommended? Possibly that he didn't have a case and advice such as yours was useless?

It tells me that you dug up a facetious post from all the way back in MAY, and...... even after all these months........ was unable recognize it for what it was. 

 

Is this really how desperate you are to try to make yourself feel superior?