Elon Musk is a bully
As all billionaires are. Along with unempathetic sociopathic psychopaths.
I can’t fathom having the power to save our at least change millions of lives…but instead choose to leech more wealth from the people that need it most. And systematically make the world worse. It’s a sickness.
There are no good billionaires.
I would build SO much low income, homeless, and transition housing. I would also start my own line of bamboo products and packaging to replace plastic.
The most important part of what you said is that you’d build “SO much” housing. If we’d just let the free market build all the housing it wants without letting NIMBYs get in the way, we’d have largely solved the housing crisis.
Except we already have more houses than there are homeless people. The problem is the empty houses have ridiculous price tags due to corporate landlords and landlords refusing the sell and only rent (also at ridiculous prices)
Vacancy rates in the places where people actually want to live are really low. Besides, are people not allowed to have vacation homes?
Market price is a function of supply and demand. We’ve been under building housing for years.
According to Hwang, the company now formerly known as Twitter did offer “an alternative handle with the history of the @x account” so that his original account, complete with its posts and followers, could live on and continue to be used.
What short, catchy username did Musk’s company change Hwang’s handle to? @x12345678998765.
You can’t make this shit up. God damn!
that sounds like what an idiot would have for a password.
So you are saying one could log into @x with that…
It’s the same password I have on my luggage!
Who the hell downvoted an Airplane! quote?
Quick someone check if it’s Elons password!
Nah his password would definitely include an “42069” in it.
Let’s be real now. That name is temporary until he chooses his new one. Read the whole article. It’s rediculous enough without making things seem even worse.
But look at that username. It definitely not randomly generated. Someone at Twitter pick that new name. They just give someone with the shortest username possible (1 character) the longest possible username (15 characters), and they do so by pressing the number row back and forth until they hit the username characters size limit. If it’s not a mockery then I don’t know what is.
To be fair, no user “owns” their account. Everything about your Twitter account, from the user name to the data you tweet belongs to Twitter. I hesitate to call it a dick move. It’s more of an Elon move.
I really hope phrases like “he got Musked” and “they Musked up” become a thing.
Musk is an overpaid idiot, but anyone has to expect not to have any real rights on any website.
Imagine how amazing the PR would have been if the title had been: “User gets spectator seating for a SpaceX launch in return for lost handle”
What short, catchy username did Musk’s company change Hwang’s handle to? @x12345678998765.
It could have been worse.
They could have named him “X Æ A-12” 😵💫
This can be done with any centralized social media. You don’t know your username.
Another example of Musk being a cunt, what a surprise
Man…
I was pretty bummed when I heard that Twitter was going to die. There are some cool moments in history that happened on Twitter. It was a hell of a ride, but the writing was on the wall well before Elon bought it. It was time to go.
But not like this.
It deserved a good death. Not to have it’s corpse raped on full display over and over.
A lot of very talented people committed so much time and energy to this. When it launched, it was a novel idea and they really forged some roads in our understanding of how we communicate and receive information.
It was clear at the end that it would never produce the kind of ROI on advertising to make investors happy, and that Nazis had clearly taken over the platform and used it to bastardize journalism further. It was time to go to pasture.
But not like this.
Hopefully its mutilated, humiliated and desiccated corpse will feed the growth of the federated web.
I hope you find peace, sweet prince.
there was a time when twitter was the place for internet sensation. if you want to see what’s going around the world, twitter was a great place to visit. movements like #metoo wouldn’t have happened if there was no twitter. sad to see that musk just plays with it like a toy and making it’s credibility to lose everyday and giving it a slow death.
movements like #metoo wouldn’t have happened if there was no twitter.
That’s exactly why Musk is doing what he’s doing.
Twitter was profitable before Musk took over.
The purchase itself saddled Twitter with $13 billion in debt. Musk paid $26bn, other investors (including the Saudi prince) together paid $5bn, and the remaining $13bn was a loan Twitter took out to buy itself on their behalf.
The new owners only paid tax on the $31bn they paid, not the $44bn that was paid to shareholders. (Here’s something I’m not sure about: Musk was one of the largest shareholders. Is the $44bn the total value of all shares - does that include Musk’s shares? Did he basically buy shares from himself?)
The interest on that $13bn was comparible to Twitter’s revenue, before Musk started fucking around. Twitter could not afford that debt.
The buyout itself was what killed Twitter. Everything since then has been nothing but a clown show to distract from the fact that was the original intention.
the remaining $13bn was a loan Twitter took out to buy itself on their behalf.
That’s truly some Hollywood-accounting-style bullshit. I couldn’t even imagine the paradoxical mathematics it took to make that happen.
It would be like me paying you to buy a candy bar from me.
Wait, that sounds like a leveraged buyout. I overlooked that detail in the news. It changes everything.
I know that some investment firms use leveraged buyouts to drain every bit of money from a company before they chop it up, sell the good bits and let the rest go bankrupt due to the massive debts left in the carcass of the old company. It’s so scummy I wonder why it’s not illegal.
deleted by creator
What short, catchy username did Musk’s company change Hwang’s handle to? @x12345678998765.
That’s some really !funnyandsad material…
Sounds like someone trying to type a random number on the keyboard, looking at it, and thinking, what ever
https://twitter.com/x12345678908765/status/1684047458341642240
Edit: fake post, my bad
I’m not sure what you are trying to do with this link, the two
xaccounts are not the same…Reportedly Twitter changed the guy’s X account to that one.
I think we’re talking past each other, the
xwho lost his account (I think) is nowx12345678998765the post behind the link was made by the accountx12345678908765they are not the same account, so the link does neither disprove nor prove the article in the main post which makes the comment by sam just useless and deceiving
I hate to say it because Fuck Elon, but this is just one of those things you sign away when you agree to the terms of service.
True, but it’s still worth criticizing because of him being so dickish about it. He even renamed the account @x12345678998765.
And he could have gone down the “Mike Row Soft” route and offered the guy some free stuff as compensation. Terms allowing them to do something doesn’t mean they have to be dicks about it.
It’s still really petty - Elon is one of the richest guys on earth. Take the username, but send him a Tesla. Invite him to a SpaceX launch.
Well you don’t get rich by giving away 100k cars to everyone…
Exactly. You get rich by being a dick.
Yeah why would they pay the “owner”? It’s their platform they do whatever they want. What a dumb thing to complain about.
the main problem with this is that with them doing it without asking or time to prepare all the people the guy knew where lost or have a problem finding him.
And the huy was seemingly not even a nobody but instead had a company so even more company contacts could get lost or customers wanting to directly reach out to him could sent private data to a 3 party (twitter) about confidential informations.Secondly it says that the company can and will take over accounts when they have some reason, even if it is only the name.
That means the trust in the handle gets completly broken because it could be a twitter account in just a few seconds without warning.
So they have the power to take over an official governement or news account without warning and only leaving a reason. This is theoretical but if there is a news station with a handle like “xnews” i can really expect that it gets taken over in some time in the future.Why would the bank give you your money, its their business and you gave it to them.
Not defending the Musk here, but literally it’s not your money anymore as soon as you put it in a bank account.
The money you put in your account belongs to the bank, and the account functions as an I.O.U… A very privileged one compared to other debts, and in most cases redeemable without notice, but you’re in fact just another creditor.
Former banker here. You’re just fucking wrong about that. You’ve said zero true things.
Well I’m interested now. It certainly is the case where I live, and presuming we are talking about the US here, I did a quick skim through the first few results on google and they seem to agree that it’s a debtor/creditor relationship.
How else would you describe the legal arrangements of a bank account then?
You own the money in your account, simple as that for individual accounts.
The transaction is “I give the bank money, and they have to give it back later”. How can we arrange that legally without transferring ownership? I only know these ways:
Bailment: That would mean the bank keeps the physical bills (or other valuables) in a proverbial or literal safe with my name on it, to return the exact same items later. Of course banks offer that service, but that’s not what we’re talking about.
Trust: The bank takes my money and invests it on my behalf. It does not go on the bank’s books, and they cannot use my money for their own purposes (e.g. as security for loans, to fulfil capital requirements, invest it themselves and keep the proceeds, etc.). This is obviously not the case.
Agency: The bank takes my money and executes transactions on my behalf, according to my orders. Again, obviously not the case.
Am I missing something? Is there some special law for bank accounts? I’m genuinely interested.
Think about it this way, if I’m going after your money, do I sue you, or do I sue the bank?
It’s funny you mentioned bailment, the bank is absolutely required to keep enough cash on hand in order to satisfy what the FDIC deems to be a reasonable amount of coverage for their deposit accounts. (search “demand deposit account”)
