The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

Status
Not open for further replies.
surely the bigger issue is the optics here, that as soon as elon hosts Desantis so the Densantis can launch his campaign on twitter, Desantis then less than a week later, signs a bill that helps Elon.

Perhaps the bill is fine, but it reeks of 2 rich buddies just helping each other. This all from the guy that users were trying to pretend elon is centre o the road, fair balanced guy.

What happens if Desantis wins presidency? we're going to see a lot more of this. It's all fine from the elon fan bois because it helps elon, but isn't this the exact sort of nonsense they've been "crying" about with hunters laptop?

On top of the bad optics, you've had elon showing he can't be trusted to do what's best for others, with how he's run twitter of late. It's all about profits, not about being fair to the humans that work there. So seeing a new bill come in, that's just been signed by Desantis, the guy elon just scratched the back of, that reduces elon of being held accountable, it is understandable many are like, hold on a minute, this doesn't look right.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Roar no one is anywhere near that rocket when it launches or they certainly shouldn't be. As you have read the whole bill, what happens if the rocket crashes into the mission control building which is several miles away and kills/injures workers, can they or their families sue? And as they say, the devil will be in the details when it comes to negligence, lawyers are very clever at wording these things in such a way that it makes it almost impossible for someone to prove negligence or just too damned expensive.

I can think of jobs far more dangerous. Oil industry, fishing industry, mining industry, logging industry, the police. I just don't see what makes rocket companies special.

What has that last sentence got to do with the price of bread? No one has said people don't want to work there, they are questioning why rocket companies are getting this exemption.
Click to expand...
That's the thing that occurs to me, with rockets there is an inherent danger, but somehow the number of major accidents with them are relatively low, which is pretty remarkable given the technology that the likes of NASA and Russia were using for manned launches hadn't changed much since the 70's.

The big risk of reducing liability, especially when you are dealing with someone who likes to "move fast and break things" and has a disregard for established safety regimes, is that you encourage them to take more unnecessary risks at all sorts of levels.

Having said that IIRC with the big rockets the likes of the NASA launch facilities at Cape Canaveral (and the spectator stands) are all technically within the "danger area" hence you have waivers to sign/agree to if you go there during a launch, however the waivers don't strip NASA of all responsibility, as NASA still has a duty to ensure they are as careful as "reasonable" and take all "reasonable" precautions*, they're just indemnified from the completely unexpected or things that are completely out of their control. IIRC the actual risk to someone in the stands from the rocket going up at CC are extremely low, because it would require a whole host of things to go wrong, including basically the rocket to end up going in completely the wrong direction at low level, and the buildings nearer the launch pad are designed to withstand certain accidents..



*The difference in launch tower design between NASA with and Space X's, and that NASA worked out the danger of launching from a bare concrete pad, whilst Musk decided it was more important to get a launch in despite that well established risk.
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
That's the thing that occurs to me, with rockets there is an inherent danger, but somehow the number of major accidents with them are relatively low, which is pretty remarkable given the technology that the likes of NASA and Russia were using for manned launches hadn't changed much since the 70's.

The big risk of reducing liability, especially when you are dealing with someone who likes to "move fast and break things" and has a disregard for established safety regimes, is that you encourage them to take more unnecessary risks at all sorts of levels.

Having said that IIRC with the big rockets the likes of the NASA launch facilities at Cape Canaveral (and the spectator stands) are all technically within the "danger area" hence you have waivers to sign/agree to if you go there during a launch, however the waivers don't strip NASA of all responsibility, as NASA still has a duty to ensure they are as careful as "reasonable" and take all "reasonable" precautions*, they're just indemnified from the completely unexpected or things that are completely out of their control. IIRC the actual risk to someone in the stands from the rocket going up at CC are extremely low, because it would require a whole host of things to go wrong, including basically the rocket to end up going in completely the wrong direction at low level, and the buildings nearer the launch pad are designed to withstand certain accidents..



*The difference in launch tower design between NASA with and Space X's, and that NASA worked out the danger of launching from a bare concrete pad, whilst Musk decided it was more important to get a launch in despite that well established risk.
Click to expand...

Exactly. When you remove regulations and risk of liability it can tempt companies into cutting corners to either save money or save time. I still don't get why they require this exemption.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Elon trying to avoid being deposed in FSD death case. In 2016 he claimed his cars could drive more safely than a human, that is 7 years ago and it still can't, how that isn't fraud is beyond me.

Click to expand...
Worse still Tesla was selling cars with extra add-ons for FSD at quite a cost, with buyers promised FSD would come within a year or 2. That surely is a big liability
 
Last edited:
Tony Edwards said:
Social media is a real eye opener on how mental some people are. There are people in that thread that are doctors, lawyers, police and ex soldiers and they sound completely unhindged.

This guy claims to be a fact checker.


It really is a crazy and scary world with people like those saying Trump won 2020.
Click to expand...

Tom Fitton is a MAGA hack who larps as someone with legal credentials. I doubt he believes even half of what he says, it's all for the grift. And if he does believe it, he's even more mental than I give him credit for.
 
Last edited:
GaryTheSnail said:
He will be. He needs to increase income sharpish. I have no doubt he will do it.

I would have liked to see a breakdown on what made it drop 67% in a not so long timeframe.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that it might, possibly, perhaps be something to do with scaring the living daylights out of the companies that pay to advertise on the platform...
 
Exacerbated by the threats from the EU to ban access to Twitter.

And yes, I'm sure a few people will get round it with VPNs and whatever, but few serious players are going to pour money into an EU focused marketing campaign on a platform that their target audience shouldn't have access to.
 
VincentHanna said:
A) He overpaid, after being legally obliged to complete the purchase

B) His decisions/leadership since owning it.
Click to expand...

Twitter was never worth $44bn on paper, but he had to pay a high price in order to secure the purchase.

If someone wanted to buy it from Elon they'd also have to pay way above what Twitter is deemed to be "worth". Therefore the valuation of something on paper doesn't always match what you have to pay to buy it. A house that is "worth" £150k might actually sell for £300k if the owner doesn't wish to sell the property but the buyer really wants it and has a lot of money.

I'd say that considering how important the role is Twitter plays in politics, the true value is pretty high.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
Twitter was never worth $44bn on paper, but he had to pay a high price in order to secure the purchase.

If someone wanted to buy it from Elon they'd also have to pay way above what Twitter is deemed to be "worth". Therefore the valuation of something on paper doesn't always match what you have to pay to buy it. A house that is "worth" £150k might actually sell for £300k if the owner doesn't wish to sell the property but the buyer really wants it and has a lot of money.

I'd say that considering how important the role is Twitter plays in politics, the true value is pretty high.
Click to expand...

Well no - he paid that amount because he wanted the share price to have a silly number in it, not because he thought it was actually worth anything.

Given the whole thing was meant to be a joke from the start and not an actual purchase, I’m surprised he didn’t offer $69 billion, because sexy number funny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom