Ex-Tweep mocked by Musk for asking if he'd actually been fired A Twitter employee unable to work out if he still had a job - even after a call to the head of HR - took to tweeting CEO Elon Musk to resolve his employment status. It went about as well as expected - if not worse. Haraldur Thorleifsson (a.k.a., Halli), said in a tweet yesterday that his work computer was locked nine days ago …
I read a very insightful critique elsewhere about what motivates his defenders. Musk is an ignorant, narcissistic asshole. These supporters are also ignorant, narcissistic assholes, so they have a psychological need to support him because he validates and justifies their own terrible behaviour.
Basically the exact same dynamic as Trump and his own brainless supporters.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
— ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
There we have it!
It used to be fun to laugh at his stupid antics, but this one crosses the line, and takes a dump on it.
He is officially on my Richard Nixon list! https://www.enemieslist.info/
Preparing for downvotes …Musk “supporter” here. His behaviour in this episode is horrific. He genuinely has reached a new low, and that’s saying something. It’s a mixture of the punching down, failing to have any insight that a one-liner on Twit might not capture the full situation, and the sheer inappropriateness. I just don’t understand how anyone could rise above a first Line Manager role like that. He’s a genuinely vile human being, and a total failure as one.
The problem, is that he has actually made a real difference and the world a better place, with SpaceX, Tesla, and arguably PayPal. PayPal would have happened anyway, but SpaceX would *not have happened without his vision and insight*. It’s all very well saying that Gwynne Shotwell runs the place now, and she’s clearly a force of nature and a stunning manager (name any other person who could run a company like that, any at all. I’ll wait). But without Musk, it didn’t happen. Even now, 90% of the space industry is in flat denial, and just *laughs* at the company which outperforms their efforts over the past *sixty years*, and refuses to adopt any of the way SpaceX do stuff.
Right *now*, humanity’s commercial workhorse access to space is totally dependent on Falcon9. Totally. Ariane 6 isn’t ready, they retired Ariane5 too early because they fooled the politicians that a Soyuz was Ariane just because they’d slapped their logo on it. There’s no Proton available. Japans H3 blew up (teething troubles, but that’s where we are). Vega is a 3 for 8 serial epic disaster area. ULA is being sold to asset strippers. Virgin Orbit is in last chance saloon. Falcon9 is *it*.
And the fact that Musk started Tesla, the most valuable car company on the planet, is just icing on the cake. Tesla makes really shitty cars - poor quality chassis. Tesla self-driving is obviously BS. But Tesla electric forced the other car companies to produce something viable ten to fifteen years earlier than they otherwise would have. Tesla changed electric cars from “yeah, but they’re crap” to an existential “if we don’t make this, we’re out of business in eight years”.
That’s why Musk has fanboiz. Because he’s a horrific human being, who actually changed the world for the positive. If you want to pretend he’s just an image merchant, ok, but you are deluding yourself. I’m just sad that his epitaph is probably going to be Twitter and what he’s doing now. Perhaps it always had to end this way.
Does that matter? We are where we are. Do you think electric cars would actually be on the roads, in volume, if Eberhard and Tanning were still CEOs? Tesla was not the first electric car. There are, even today, at least half a dozen electric car startups. How many have been a threat to the century-old incumbents?
I expect you’ll point to the fact that the history is similar with PayPal. Again, does it actually matter? Now, PayPal is more systemically important than Amex. Think how hard you would have laughed at anyone challenging Amex 25 years ago.
Fine. He made Tesla *successful*. Happy?
How about Apple? Are you going to say it was Wozniak? Because it was Wozniak who founded the company, designed and built the Apple I, well done that man/genius. But without Jobs, it would have been gone and quickly forgotten. How do we know that Jobs was ultimately the success factor? Because when he was forced out, Apple was after a few years on life support during which Jobs founded Pixar. Then he came back and then re-made Apple into the worlds first trillion dollar company.
Jobs was also famously a hugely unpleasant narcissist, all-round raging asshole, credit-taker, waste of oxygen as a human being.
That's different though... because the Woz *was actually a co-founder*. Elmo was *not* a co-founder of Tesla.
As for Jobs, well, he's no longer amongst the living or maybe, he would've shown more of his true colours. Who knows. The fact is that Elmo *is* showing his true colours, time and again. That he made SpaceX successful is not in dispute. Neither is is in dispute that Tesla became a household name under his (by all accounts hands-off) direction. But he's a dick, he behaves like one, and now he punches down on people who don't deserve it, which proves just more what a dick he is.
Weell, SpaceX was cobbled together out of several failing aeronautics companies. And wouldn't be half as successful as it is without Gwynne Shotwell and others. And he was a cofounder of X.com which merged with Confinity and he blagged his friend Theil into making him CEO of Confinity. It was renamed PayPal after he almost destroyed Confinity & Theil sacked him.
"Better Place?"
Sorry, but shilling a bunch of toys for people who have more money than brains is not "improving" the world, and if you think Tesla's vehicles have had such a HUGE impact on carbon emissions, guess again - there aren't anywhere NEAR enough of them in the field to make a significant difference.
There aren’t. And I think there were never intended to be. Tesla isn’t a car company, it’s a poking stick. Automotive engineering is not the most “interesting” industry, it’s mostly about how to make a comfortable user experience combined with perfection focus on cost-engineering. Engineering the clunk of the door to sound “quality”, and that’s not what Tesla came to do. And boy, does it not do it: it’s panel gaps are famous!
No, Tesla is there for one reason, and one reason only. It’s a loaded gun pointed at the heads of VW and GM execs. Make a goddam electric car that excites people, do it now, or you and you company won’t exist in ten years. It’s an existential threat. And it does it very well. I wouldn’t dream of buying a Tesla, I’m not an idiot, but I will buy the response to it.
Don’t kid yourself that he’s some green-eyed uber-capitalist in shining armour just trying to get rich, allowing honest pension funds to ride to wealth on his coat-tails. He has only one aim in life: to be the greatest-est saviour of humanity there has ever been (in his own eyes, of course). The biggest con trick that guy ever pulled was convincing Wall Street to lend him a trillion dollars, to make his own vision of The Future a reality, with himself firmly astride. By the time he’s done, he will have burned every cent of his and everyone else’s money.
Surprisingly few people really want money as such. They almost all want some variant of: Being Winner; Legacy; Power over Subordinates; Daddy-Approval. Daddy-approval and Winner are the most common among senior professionals. Musk is: son of emerald-mine owner now estranged from father (Daddy-Approval alert); Power over Subordinates (this story); Legacy (SpaceX…but also has 10 children); Being Winner (Musk is always right, and has to tell everyone). I doubt that Musk thinks about how much money he has from one year to the next - but cares a lot about what someone says on Twitter.
Who's kidding themselves? He's just trying to get richer and appear more popular (not of late obviously). He got onboard with Tesla to make more money because there was a clear gap in the market - people were asking about electric cars but the incumbents had no interest in producing them when they could just keep knocking out variations on current models. There was the added bonus that the eco-fanboys that came along blew plenty of smoke up his arse, and what self-respecting narcissist can refuse that kind of rectal breeze. He couldn't give two shits about the environment, which is probably why he got the arse with the guy who kept tweeting where his personal jet was.
He has plenty of shills to laud him for free, unfortunately.
People will become enamored of the most despicable of human beings, forgiving glaring faults just because they hate someone else even more. In this case, I think a lot of the fanbois see Musk as some sort of knight in shining armor who is going to take on all the evils in government and industry through sheer force of "will" (sheer arrogance and bullheaded ignorance, more like.)
Calling Jim Jones! Got some kool-aid here...
Sure he pushed people around, and maybe the worked harder. Any jerk with money and no fears of hunger or homelessness can push people around.
Let the votes fall where they may!
And NO vote either way for you... validation and such.
And the fact that Musk started Tesla, the most valuable car company on the planet, is just icing on the cake.
He didn't start it, someone else did.
Any valuation that puts Tesla as the most valuable car company on the planet based on the tiny numbers they punch out per year is pie in the sky nonsense, known in financial circles as "hopium"
I wouldn't worry about it, the hypocrisy on here is plain to see, faux outrage for mocking an attention seeking wheelchair user, but the same people who call every single person who voted for Trump as deranged / low IQ etc, which is ironic really as he did a better job than the demented spastic who's running the show over that side of the pond now
**** Basically the exact same dynamic as Trump and his own brainless supporters.
Agreed, but considering the update at the end where Musk apologized to Halli there is a difference. tRump would never have apologized; in fact he would have doubled down on his shitty behavior.
It does not excuse his shitty behavior in the first place, but Musk can at least admit he was wrong. tRump has no such ability.
I will defend what SpaceX has achieved as they have consistently done incredible things that are literally changing the world. This is quite possibly more due to Gwynne Shotwell being the adult in the room who can mitigate some of Musk's idiocy. If this is the case, then kudos to him for the smart hire.
However, Musk has done too many other really stupid things that are simply indefensible. Calling Vernon Unsworth "Pedo Guy" after he pointed out that Musk's sub rescue idea was stupid was a real low. Followed by his handling of the Twitter acquisition from the start right up to this.
> they have consistently done incredible things that are literally changing the world.
Like what exactly?
Commercial sattelites already existed. Commercial Spaceflight existed. Sattelite internet already existed (and did so without putting up tens of thousands of sattelites). And no, I will not take promises about Mars into account until a) I see tech that actually proves that they can walk the walk by actually walking it all the way to mars, and b) because there is no reason to send humans to an irradiated, dry, boring, frozen, toxic wasteland filled with rocks and abrasive dust.
A few things off the top of my head:
- Provide boosters that can be reliably reused multiple times, dramatically lowering launch costs
- Derive a reusable heavy lift capability using said reliably reusable launchers
- Provide a reusable manned capsule so that US has native launch capability to ISS (that traditional big space player Boeing completely failed at, despite higher funding)
- Maintain a 100% successful mission record with the Falcon 9 B5 & Falcon Heavy
- Maintain a launch cadence that other rocket providers can only dream of
- Get their next generation launch system to orbital test phase in a timeframe that should make NASA/EASA/Etc weep
Just look at JAXAs failed launch this week. This was their great hope to compete with SpaceX. SpaceX are succeeding where state space agencies are failing.
The fact that they pretty much own the commercial launch market now and for the foreseeable future shows how successful they have been. SpaceX had more launches just in April last year than Ariane managed in the whole of 2022.
There were 78 launches from the US last year. 61 of them were SpaceX. 3 of the 78 launches were total or partial failures. None of the failures were SpaceX.
Not NASA tech. NASA tech was used for SLS, which is a prime example of what happens when you give money to NASA to build a rocket. Massively late, massively over budget and a technical dinosaur.
While it is true that a lot of funding for SpaceX came from NASA, Boeing were given more for the calamity capsule than SpaceX were given for Dragon. It is what you do with the money that counts. Who else would you have given the money to? For that money, they got a reliable launch system and a man rated capsule that actually launches. Without spending it, they would still be giving a lot more to Russia for launching to ISS.
Starship is privately funded by SpaceX.
Like I said, I credit Ms Shotwell with their success more than Musk. Very likely that the more he stays away fiddling with Twitter, the more successful SpaceX will be.
The science of rocketry is hardly new. NASA used research from Werner Von Braun.
A lot of engineering is iterative design of what has come before. Example is parts of the Merlin engine design were subbed out to a company called Barber-Nichols. They used a clean sheet design process, but part of the design was likely informed by work they had previously done for RocketDyne & NASA. It is still an entirely new engine though, which itself has gone though an iterative process. They are now on the 4th major version.
The fact is, SpaceX have built kit that has redefined access to space. Not using engines or rocket designs from anyone else.
If all this old NASA tech was apparently just lying around waiting to be used, why are no other companies able to do what SpaceX can currently do? Should be easy right?
Existing NASA tech?
Landing a booster upright on a precise target that might be a floating barge somewhere mid ocean?
NASA might get there in 50 years.
We can admire the achievements of engineers at SpaceX knowing that there is no direct involvement of Musk. If he is responsible for any of the impetus of SpaceX I have no idea.
NASA might get there in 50 years.
Errr... What about the DC-X, which was conceived in the 1980s and flew in the 1990s? A NASA / McDonnell Douglas project that successfully vertically landed a rocket several times.
As with many of NASA's experimental projects, funding was cut and the project canned before the tech was put into use. Imagine where NASA would be with it now if that hadn't happened?
So no, NASA won't get there in 50 years' time, but maybe they will 32 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39cjZTCay24
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/dc-x-the-nasa-rocket-that-inspired-spacex-and-blue-origin
The Delta Clipper was a tech demonstrator. Analogous to the F9 Grasshopper. NASA weren't even really interested in being part of the program as they were more interested in VentureStar. It launched 12 times, reaching a maximum height of 10,300 feet on its penultimate flight. On its next flight it fell over on landing and destroyed itself.
Sure NASA could have pursued it, but they really didn't want to. They continued to chase VentureStar until that got cancelled as well. Joining the ranks of "coulda shoulda" projects like the Skylon, Roton & HOTOL. The result is that when NASA need to actually build their "next big thing", they ended up using refurbished 40 year old shuttle engines to build the boondoggle that is the SLS. Yet they STILL need SpaceX to be successful with Starship to actually land anyone on the moon, despite everything they have spent on SLS.
The difference is SpaceX built an actual orbital rocket that can launch useful payloads then land again, which is also man rated. When any other companies can also do this, I will be at the front cheering, as the more access there is to space the cheaper it will get. At the moment though, no-one else can.
The main tech behind the reusability of their boosters, which is the ability to land them back safely instead of ditch them, was developed by SpaceX not NASA. I'm not much into space stuff detail so corret me if I'm wrong, but I don't think NASA had much or any prior work on this.
That reusability is, in essence, the cornerstone of SpaceX's commercial success
As mentioned above, DC-X was specifically developed to be made from cheap, off the shelf parts and be reusable. It was developed in the 1980s and first flew in 1991. It was a NASA / McDonald Douglas project and is said to be the inspiration for both Blue Origin and Space-X.
So NASA was working on it over 30 years ago and its tech has been a stepping stone for what's come later. Even to the point where many of the DC-X engineers are now working at Blue Origin.
"On the shoulders of giants" as they say.
Musk understood early on that *cost engineering* is the key element.
The industry spent sixty years bluntly masturbating over the best propellant based on specific impulse, because then you could use “less of it”. He didn’t. A quick back-of-the-envelope shows that fuel, despite the glorious fireworks, only costs you 2% of the launch cost. Handling costs you more. He optimised on “how can I make this a normal industrial process”. The industry spent sixty years playing around with crazy “aerospace” materials to save weight because of the rocket equation. He made bits of Starship out of steel *because then he could hire available welding teams rather than spec’ing expensive specialist skills he didn’t have.
He understood that Boeing 747 costs more to manufacture than an Ariane, takes nearly as much fuel for a flight, but is economic because it is made on a production line and flies thousands of times over life. Jeez, did we really need anybody after Henry Ford to tell us that? Well, it seems so, because the spacecraft manufacturers have spent sixty years *not* doing that.
Which distracting fanboi post are you replying to? The one containing the sentences "Musk has done too many other really stupid things that are simply indefensible", "mitigate some of Musk's idiocy" or the one that contains the sentences "His behaviour in this episode is horrific" "He genuinely has reached a new low".
So you missed the part in my first post then where I said that I can defend what SpaceX have achieved, but find Musk indefensible.
I have a Twitter account I originally set up to follow Lester Haines & the SPB when they were in Australia following the solar challenge. I stopped using it for a while but have found it a useful channel to follow what is happening in Ukraine. However, I have blocked Musk as I grew tired of his childish rants and pandering to conspiracy theorists.
As to how SpaceX is changing the world, they have done this by dramatically lowering the bar for access to space. This is something others have been promising for years but failing to deliver. I have long read about vehicles like Roton, Skylon, etc that have promised everything and delivered nothing. Blue Origin started life in 2000 and have basically produced a glorified fairground ride. Virgin Galactic started a few years later and all they have managed to do is kill a test pilot.
In less time than Blue Origin took to produce their joyride rocket, SpaceX have built an ultra-reliable mass-produced orbit rated launcher that pretty much owns the current commercial launch market. It can launch reliably, regularly and land again, something that no other current launcher can do. They have a heavy lift rocket for payloads beyond what the F9 can launch, and a next generation rocket that will be amongst the most powerful launchers in the world. As well as flying cargo & crew to the ISS on re-usable capsules.
If NASA had just relied on the traditional rocket industry, they would still be hitching rides with Russia & the cost of putting stuff into orbit would still be a lot higher. So yes, they have changed the world. There is also the intangible benefit that kids see a Falcon land and get excited about space again, encouraging more of them to potentially become involved in STEM subjects.
I hope others can catch up so we have multiple companies doing stuff like SpaceX, as this will drive costs even lower and provide redundancy to orbit. At the moment though, they are the only game in town if you want to launch something more than a micro satellite.
Unlike you, it seems I am able to separate the company from the man.
Not a defender of Elon, I think he's a cunt but
"because there is no reason to send humans to an irradiated, dry, boring, frozen, toxic wasteland filled with rocks and abrasive dust."
Because unfortunately we are killing Earth and as far as I'm aware Mars is the only other safest place for us to move to if needed.
"Mars is the only other safest place for us to move to if needed."
A bit off topic, but surely the moon is better simply because it's close enough to the sun to power solar panels properly. Otherwise both are basically barren rocks into which we would have to burrow for shelter and find ice to melt for water. The only other advantage offered by Mars is size, ie a gravity comparable to Earth.
Yes, Musk behaves like a grown-up baby, surprising (or not?) how many adults have never actually grown up but simply learned how to disguise their obnoxious behaviour in most public situations most of the time.
Otherwise both are basically barren rocks into which we would have to burrow for shelter and find ice to melt for water
I.e. far inferior to adverse environments available here on Earth, such as Antarctica. Perhaps we are "killing Earth" (though that's a rather strong claim, even accepting AGW, pollution, etc), but it will take a lot of work to make the Antarctica or the Sahara or other less-convenient spots on this planet less amenable to human life than the Moon and Mars are.
Space exploration as primary research? Fine. But human colonization of other planets would have enormous costs and offers very little return.
Allow me to be blunt: Even after a nuclear war, earth would probably still be a more inhabitable planet than Mars.
- There is next to no atmosphere on mars. Not only is there almost no oxygen, it's surface pressure is also less than 1% that of earths
- The AVERAGE temperature is -63°C. For comparisons sake, the RECORD LOW temperature measuerd at the McMurdo station in Antarctica was -50.6°C
- There is no arable soil on mars, and no accessible sources of nitrogen
- Almost the entire surface is contaminated by toxic perchlorate salts
- The gravity is 1/3 that of earth, which is likely to play havoc with human physiology at prolonged exposure
- Most of the surface is covered in micro-abrasive dust. Think of a planet-sized sandbox filled with asbestos.
- Mars has almost no magnetic field. Meaning no protection from solar winds.
- As a consequence, living on mars means being exposed to about 8rads of radiation per year. The average human in developed nations on earth, is exposed to ~0.62 rads / year
- The above of course doesn't factor in sudden radiation blasts from solar flares, which were measured to cause exposes of up to 2 rads in *a single day*. During its 18month mission, the Martian Radiation Experiment, or MARIE mission measured 2 events of this magnitude.
- Mars has no fossile fuels. We have no idea if there are any exploitable fissionable materials, and solar power is severly limited in comparison to earth
- Mars experiences frequent planet-wide dust storms, which can last for weeks. Consider what I said about the abrasive dust above, and now imagine that stuff clogging and covering every piece of equipment for weeks, while blocking out the already diminished sunlight
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station#Climate
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/20137/how-does-the-efficacy-of-solar-cells-on-mars-compare-with-earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Radiation_Environment_Experiment
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-bad-mars.html
Two points:
- There really isn't anything we could do to Earth that would make it less inhabitable than Mars. (And before you get into terraforming, if we knew how to terraform Mars to be earth-like it would be comparatively trivial to fix Earth's climate instead.)
- Even if that weren't true, you're suggesting that it's acceptable to write off ~8 billion people if a few dozen survive on Mars. I'd rather we focus on protecting this basket than putting a few eggs in a different one.
"I will defend what SpaceX has achieved as they have consistently done incredible things that are literally changing the world. This is quite possibly more due to Gwynne Shotwell " Just as everything else Leon has "achieved", i.e. he took credit for others ideas and work. Now he is alone it is really showing what a total incompetent he really is.
"
.. if any of his businesses needs more staff, because only the truly masochistic/deluded will fall for that now that he has removed any doubt as to just how vile his character really is. I'm hoping some of the responses he will get will be public, just for entertainment's sake. That said, provided he pays a lot more he may be able to get some people back - but only if he pays upfront. I suspect Tesla is facing the same problem by now, and AFAIK they're using JIT supply chains so any of those not being paid means an immediate stop..
That said, it won't be Twitter of Tesla. The first T is doing its last twitches, and the latter has pretty much lost its shine (thanks to the former) and is facing mounting competition.
Being a first mover brings along the shark problem (no, no lasers, focus): you have to keep moving or you die. Tesla stopped moving.
A good thing Space X is doing well, but that merely suggests someone has found a way to keep him away from the controls..
and like in any case where HUGE! MONEY! is involved, you get the most skillful arse lickers there are, true virtuosos, way above the average 'arse-licking world-class master'. Who could resist that, not even Musk himself!
Elon, you're an idiot. Firing someone with Muscular Dystrophy, then making fun of them because YOUR managers didn't communicate things correctly.
No, you're not an idiot. You're a C***, with a capital C.
Congrats. Your the first person to get that word out of me in 30+ years. I hope they sue you into oblivion.
On the plus side, I can't think of a better way to scare off any advertisers. He reminds me of those cartoon characters that have just run off a cliff and are still running while suspended in the air for a few more seconds.
Disaster awaits, it's 100% self inflicted and only his deluded fans will be sorry while the rest of us continue our search for smaller violins..
That's doesn't make him an idiot. There are other words for that behavior.
What makes him an idiot is not knowing what is going on. He publicly ridiculed a guy while confirming that he was Most Definitely Fired. Except this guy wasn't a regular salaried at-will employee. He was on a retention contract that was part of a company purchase, roughly hire-by-buy. Firing him didn't save any money, instead it dramatically bumped up Twitter's burn rate by moving the long term payout into an immediate lump sum.
For anyone else that would be a career-busting (if not career ending) screwup. We shouldn't judge Musk, a high profile titan of industry, by a lower standard.
Apparently when Elon bought Twitter, HR gave him a sheet of paper listing people he should not fire under any circumstances. There were only two names on it and one of them was Halli's, because the acquisition deal he's part of would mean he'd be owed a huge lump sum if he were fired.
…. disabling all of the accounts, trying to work out how to unravel something when the inevitable occurs sometime in the future. No one will know anything about who did what. But, I guess this is what happens when you shake it up, after all Twitter is losing money, so it ain’t working now.
Can’t believe tens of billions was paid for it!
Ah yes, the good old "disabled people are just lazy / faking it" trope, trolled out in the inevitable thoughtless rant.
As someone with some moderate mobility limitations, let me just first knock down the laziness accusation : everything physical now takes me twice as much effort as it did before my accident, but I produce no less work, so stop spreading ignorance whilst thinking it makes you sound clever, because it doesn't.
Secondly, if you're such an idiot that you think amount of typing = productivity, I'm glad that your company will be the disaster that will inevitably follow from that.
It it that Elon is going to get sued and lose again, and because he couldn't just tell HR to handle the situation and outed someone's catastrophic medical condition in front of the world, he's personally in the line of fire not just the company.
And the old I didn't read the email defense is right out the window here. He's not ever going to be able to claim ignorance of this one. It's like setting up people to sue him for boatloads of cash is a fetish of his or something. Actual malice is a very hard burden of proof to meet in the US courts and he just tied it up in a bow. The HR people are screwed here too, both for the initial office space style ghosting, the firing itself, and not addressing Musk's obvious choice to ignore and blatantly violate the ADA and a bunch of other stuff. Bonus points if his position and team was still assigned to California.
Yes, it's a bit like Fox's internal communication in the Dominion Voting machine case. Normally such a case is hard to prove, but Fox's internal communication made it clear it was wilful and a conscious act to mislead their audience, even with Murdoch stating that it wasn't blue or red, but gree (not related to politics but money). I don't think it's possible to get intent more clearly documented than that..
I don't think it will go to court, Fox cannot afford their audience to find out that theye were stone cold lied to. At the moment they only get their "news" via Fox so Fox is very carefully avoiding to mention the lawsuit (a bit like they edited out the violence of the Jan 6th insurrection), but if this goes to court properly this is going to get properly public with their audience and that will cost them a lot more than $1,6M..
That said, whoever advertises there now ought to get banned everywhere else IMHO, but ala, that's not how things work.
Fox's audience don't give shit one that they're being fed a constant diet of warm, comfy lies because those lies dovetail perfectly with their own beliefs.
They'll rationalise it as some woke, lib, lefty conspiracy from the deep state or big pharma or whatever to undermine them, trump, 'murrica etc. and if fox crumbles then they'll find another sewage outlet to mainline.
Is anyone surprised by this... it's just another attempt by a narcissistic manbaby to create drama and try to get people talking about him to boost his fragile ego.
Attention is attention... he doesn't care that he's become a laughing stock to the entire world because he's got his own little echo chamber that he paid/borrowed billions for...
Meanwhile, reports coming out that hate, trolling, child abuse and political manipulation has increased dramatically since the fuckwit took over... insiders describe it as a building that looks fine from the outside, but is a raging inferno inside with no teams left to deal with and reduce the hate speech.
For some reason I've had the theme tune to Mr Ed running through my head as I type this....
A cunt is a cunt of course of course. unless of course that cunt of course is the cuntish Elon Musk.
I now understand how he got to that conclusion.
Trolling and hate speech isn't down, his perspective simply got much worse. Would anyone else in good conscience call someone with Muscular Dystrophy lazy?
So, when he states that content moderation is better, just keep in mind that that is only from his uniquely sick perspective.
"Just add it to the pile of unpaid bills Twitter is racking up and we'll see if this one actually gets paid."
I wonder if they have the liquidity to meet all these bills. Maybe someone will go nuclear and apply for the US equivalent of a winding up order, assuming such a thing exists in the US.
Isn't there something in the UK that allows you to basically shut the doors of a company if they owe you money? I think it had to be around £700 or so, but it's a long time ago I came across this.
Wouldn't it be fun if that existed in the US too? That would pretty much drive a stake through al the non-paying there.
than tweet!
Straight from the horse's mouth.
Mr Musk replied: "Based on your comment, I just did a video call with Halli to figure out what's real vs what I was told. It's a long story. Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet."
Thorleifsson’s next move: “I’m opening a restaurant in downtown Reykjavik very soon,” he tweeted. “It’s named after my mom.”
Good luck and every success in your new venture.
Musk really should have said nothing on this. As a result of his comments he's left the company open for a civil suit over discrimination. Who knows, it could even get a class action and he could even be made personally liable for damages by the courts: people have been sent to prison for less. Much better to sack people who are apparently no longer required by the company and pay whatever settlements arbitration deem reasonable. But, whatever you do, don't comment on any individual case.
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." The owner of Twitter right there.
Errrm nope. The moral of this story is get your facts before opening your mouth or doubly so if you are communicating on a publicly visible forum.
I would say that failing to do so has made Mush look a fool to his millions of followers, but he's done it so many times he hasn't actually made himself look a fool he's just confirmed that he's a fool.
He's really played a blinder here though throwing himself and Twitter open to all sorts of potential legal troubles. Firstly by being an utter dick and then secondly by apologising. The apology makes it worse because he's admitting he did wrong. OK so imaging this one employee doesn't decide to sue, so what? Not sure about the law in Iceland, but is a lot of territories this thread could be admissible as evidence in court if anybody else were to sue for unfair dismissal. Sure it's not directly relevant in their case, but it's great evidence of what an utter disorganized clusterfuck these layoffs are.
What do you even say to someone who thinks he can manage an entire company (including HR matters) via Tweet, in public. Then when someone kindly points out that he's being an mega asshole to a person that EVERYONE LIKES he backs up and lamely apologizes.
Twitter's bankruptcy is going to be hilariously terrible. I can't wait.
this whole 'saga', which keeps un-rolling (he's been 'generously' offered to 'stay') reminds me of one Black Mirror episode. Life imitating art. I do hope that with each 'Musk' tweet the stock value goes down by a billion or two.
Someone on Twitter pointed out that Musk's original defamatory tweet was in his own feed, but his apology was a response in the feed of some guy who has 2000 followers. Deliberately trying to minimize the reach of his apology, while leaving millions of people with the misimpressions created by the earlier tweets. However, it didn't stop the nauseating sycophancy of fanbois reverentially praising his amazing generosity in apologizing.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
