My old rule for highway driving was to steer clear of cars with side damage, such as scrapes or serious dents.
My new rule is to steer clear of those cars, and also of Teslas because I don't know if I can trust "who" is in charge of steering it.
He might say this was said in jest, but I don't think so. I think @nohero means it literally.
I *literally* said it to my wife yesterday on the Parkway, as we passed a Tesla that had its left blinker on without actually moving into the left lane.
I also said that we can't be sure if it's the driver trying to go left and the car insisting on staying in the right lane, or the other way around.
Well however you want to parse, Twitter is privately owned with private equity owners that include Elon Musk. You're cagey in what you state beyond snark, so I need to read between the lines, but you seem to think there's some official "private equity company" designation or something, and for a buyout to have been a private equity deal, the owners can be only licensed and registered private equity firms. But there's no such designation.
What I think is that private equity itself means something specific, and that, in financing a deal, there’s a difference in substance between private equity, public stock and loans (just as I think that, in job losses, there’s a difference in substance between 70% and 6%).
Plouffe was not saying what you and Carville are saying. Here's what he actually said (while making an error in speaking extemporaneoulsy about what CRT stands for):
Culture race theory was a lie. We need to go on the offense a little bit. Terry McAuliffe tried to do this. Say it is a lie. You know it is a lie.
I agree that it's almost always a good idea to proactively try to head off lies you expect your opponents to make. So no disagreement from me with what Plouffe said.
Here's what Carville said:
You ever get the sense that people in faculty lounges in fancy colleges use a different language than ordinary people? They come up with a word like “Latinx” that no one else uses. Or they use a phrase like “communities of color.” I don’t know anyone who speaks like that. I don’t know anyone who lives in a “community of color.” I know lots of white and Black and brown people and they all live in ... neighborhoods.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with these phrases. But this is not how people talk. This is not how voters talk. And doing it anyway is a signal that you’re talking one language and the people you want to vote for you are speaking another language. This stuff is harmless in one sense, but in another sense it’s not.
and this:
We have to talk about race. We should talk about racial injustice. What I’m saying is, we need to do it without using jargon-y language that’s unrecognizable to most people — including most Black people, by the way — because it signals that you’re trying to talk around them. This “too cool for school” **** doesn’t work, and we have to stop it.
so Carville conflates academic discussions with what Democratic politicians are saying, and then blames the victims for Republicans lying about them. Just like you're doing.
It speaks volumes about your arguments when you keep paraphrasing what your sources said or wrote instead of actually quoting their words. Some of us are on to you, and we go to the sources themselves to see how you're misrepresenting them.
We all paraphrase. You're doing it right here about me.
I either directly quoted or provided links to a quote (as in the Plouffe case) so anyone who wants to challenge me has the actual words available to them.
One obvious error in your attempt to differentiate Carville and Plouffe is your suggestion that only Carville "blames the victims for Republicans lying about them." Plouffe clearly blames the Democrats -- the victims in this case -- for not responding adequately to the CRT lies.
I didn't paraphrase you claiming that's what you said. It wasn't a paraphrase at all. It's obvious to anyone that it's my conclusion about what you've written.
And Plouffe is not blaming Democrats for Republicans lying about them. He's blaming Republicans. Here's a longer quote:
Are you scared for your kids to learn about slavery or lynching or housing discrimination? Are we raising our kids that to be that weak? I think sometimes we answer with facts that we don't believe people will believe. They are not going to campaign on the level. They are going to lie. They will say anything.
If this is a boxing match, they are bringing heavier gloves and knives in their boots. We have to understand that.
I'm still wondering why this distinction is germane to the rest of this discussion.
I think we can all agree it was a leveraged buyout that took a publicly traded company private. If it had been a mainly private equity deal, that might have shed light on the financial pressures confronting Musk. Instead, the vast majority of the financing came from Musk’s sales of Tesla stock, which sheds light on how much control he has, and bank loans, which sheds light on how much pressure those obligations may bring to bear.
Smedley’s insistence on calling it a private equity deal, and his apparent need to have others affirm how wrong they are and how right he is, make me wonder (though admittedly only a little) what he understands private equity to be.
I'm still wondering why this distinction is germane to the rest of this discussion.
I think we can all agree it was a leveraged buyout that took a publicly traded company private. If it had been a mainly private equity deal, that might have shed light on the financial pressures confronting Musk. Instead, the vast majority of the financing came from Musk’s sales of Tesla stock, which sheds light on how much control he has, and bank loans, which sheds light on how much pressure those obligations may bring to bear.
Smedley’s insistence on calling it a private equity deal, and his apparent need to have others affirm how wrong they are and how right he is, make me wonder (though admittedly only a little) what he understands private equity to be.
Here is my understanding of private equity:
"Private equity, in a nutshell, is the investment of equity capital in private companies.
In a typical private equity deal, an investor buys a stake in a private company with the hope of ultimately realising an increase in the value of that stake. There is today an increasingly massive and variegated industry devoted to pursuing wealth creation in roughly this manner....
A private equity firm, in its most conventional form, is not the only type of institution engaged in private equity investing."
Yes, in that the executive editor of PEI Media’s nutshell doesn’t distinguish between the forms of capital, as I did. (I wouldn’t call a deal financed entirely by stock sales or entirely by loans a private equity deal, because that capital is not held in a private investment fund.) The differences matter for the reasons I gave in my reply to ml1.
Mr. Snow says a typical private equity deal involves an investor buying a stake in a private company, which Musk didn’t do. Unless you’re joining others in deeming the Twitter takeover a contrast with typical PE deals, perhaps you, too, differ with Mr. Snow’s understanding on some level.
Meh. To me that's splitting hairs. Every dime put in to acquire Twitter by Musk et al was earmarked for a stake in a private Twitter. So just because that investor money was committed when $TWTR was still publicly traded doesn't make it not a private equity deal.
On Nov. 1, 2018, at 11:10 a.m., some 20,000 Google employees, along with employees of Waymo, Verily and other Alphabet companies, stopped working and walked off the job in cities around the world. A week earlier, The New York Times reported that the company had paid tens of millions of dollars to two executives who had been accused of sexual misconduct toward our co-workers, staying silent about the alleged abuse and letting them walk away with no consequences.
People speaking at the protests that morning recounted their own experiences of harassment and discrimination at the company. In San Francisco, one woman held up a sign reading, “I reported and he got promoted.” Others read, “Happy to quit for $90 million, no sexual harassment required” and “Unfair workplaces create unfair platforms.”
Updated Jan. 20, 2023 9:56 am ET / Original Jan. 20, 2023 6:08 am ET
Google-parent Alphabet has become the latest technology company to make job cuts, laying off 12,000 workers.
However, it is doubling down on investment in artificial intelligence which could eventually cause much larger disruption in the world of white-collar jobs.
On Nov. 1, 2018, at 11:10 a.m., some 20,000 Google employees, along with employees of Waymo, Verily and other Alphabet companies, stopped working and walked off the job in cities around the world. A week earlier, The New York Times reported that the company had paid tens of millions of dollars to two executives who had been accused of sexual misconduct toward our co-workers, staying silent about the alleged abuse and letting them walk away with no consequences.
People speaking at the protests that morning recounted their own experiences of harassment and discrimination at the company. In San Francisco, one woman held up a sign reading, “I reported and he got promoted.” Others read, “Happy to quit for $90 million, no sexual harassment required” and “Unfair workplaces create unfair platforms.”
Updated Jan. 20, 2023 9:56 am ET / Original Jan. 20, 2023 6:08 am ET
Google-parent Alphabet has become the latest technology company to make job cuts, laying off 12,000 workers.
However, it is doubling down on investment in artificial intelligence which could eventually cause much larger disruption in the world of white-collar jobs.
On Nov. 1, 2018, at 11:10 a.m., some 20,000 Google employees, along with employees of Waymo, Verily and other Alphabet companies, stopped working and walked off the job in cities around the world. A week earlier, The New York Times reported that the company had paid tens of millions of dollars to two executives who had been accused of sexual misconduct toward our co-workers, staying silent about the alleged abuse and letting them walk away with no consequences.
People speaking at the protests that morning recounted their own experiences of harassment and discrimination at the company. In San Francisco, one woman held up a sign reading, “I reported and he got promoted.” Others read, “Happy to quit for $90 million, no sexual harassment required” and “Unfair workplaces create unfair platforms.”
Updated Jan. 20, 2023 9:56 am ET / Original Jan. 20, 2023 6:08 am ET
Google-parent Alphabet has become the latest technology company to make job cuts, laying off 12,000 workers.
However, it is doubling down on investment in artificial intelligence which could eventually cause much larger disruption in the world of white-collar jobs.
your ability to whatabout is remarkable
Actually the examples of anti-labor actions by Google are a response to a direct request for such examples by @PVW:
Companies that are taken private often slash jobs and make dramatic and jarring changes. So comparing Twitter with publicly traded Google, Microsoft, etc is comparing apples and oranges. And while Musk may be a dick, Twitter being meaner to its employees than Google and Microsoft is not evidence that he is a dick.
I think Musk's actions are still significantly different -- and worse -- than your typical taking of a public company private (where does "bring your own toilet paper" fit in the going private road map?), but yes, it would be great if Paul were to at least try to compare apples to apples rather than insisting that, actually, lots of things rhyme with "orange."
Companies that are taken private often slash jobs and make dramatic and jarring changes. So comparing Twitter with publicly traded Google, Microsoft, etc is comparing apples and oranges. And while Musk may be a dick, Twitter being meaner to its employees than Google and Microsoft is not evidence that he is a dick.
I think Musk's actions are still significantly different -- and worse -- than your typical taking of a public company private (where does "bring your own toilet paper" fit in the going private road map?), but yes, it would be great if Paul were to at least try to compare apples to apples rather than insisting that, actually, lots of things rhyme with "orange."
If you think those were "apples to apples", you shouldn't do the grocery shopping.
Companies that are taken private often slash jobs and make dramatic and jarring changes. So comparing Twitter with publicly traded Google, Microsoft, etc is comparing apples and oranges. And while Musk may be a dick, Twitter being meaner to its employees than Google and Microsoft is not evidence that he is a dick.
I think Musk's actions are still significantly different -- and worse -- than your typical taking of a public company private (where does "bring your own toilet paper" fit in the going private road map?), but yes, it would be great if Paul were to at least try to compare apples to apples rather than insisting that, actually, lots of things rhyme with "orange."
And in that context, I actually agree with Smedley that the difference between Private Equity and Leveraged Buyout isn't too germane. As I took it, the point was more in the contrast to the current layoffs at Google Paul cited just before that.
Those kinds of layoffs, in theory at least, are generally justified as being about making course corrections, adjusting to changing market conditions, etc. In a buyout/takeover situation, by contrast, the justification is generally to save a highly distressed company (if you're feeling indulgent toward the capitalist class), or predation that seeks to strip all assets of value and dump the carcass (aka "vulture capitalism," if you're not as indulgent. You can all likely guess which interpretation I lean toward).
And in that context, I'd agree that buyouts make a better comparison. As Smedley notes, they generally feature slashing jobs and dramatic and jarring changes.
But even in that context, Musk's actions are notable for their excess. As DS notes, "there’s a difference in substance between 70% and 6%." Hell, there's a difference in substance between 70% and 20%. And I'd also argue that the kinds of cultural changes Musk has wrought at Twitter go far beyond even the "dramatic and jarring changes" one sees in even the most ruthless buyouts. This starts to look less like cold blooded capitalism and more like a political coup, with the goal not necessarily to make money (which Musk is certainly not doing), but to overthrow a regime and punish enemies and dissidents. That certainly fits with Musk's rhetoric, and explains the emotional pull on his supporters, but at the end of the day Twitter isn't part of any state, it's a business, and when all's said and done all Musk will have to show for this is holding the record for the world's most expensive troll. Now we know what $44bn look like when they're gathered together and lit on fire.
And in that context, I actually agree with Smedley that the difference between Private Equity and Leveraged Buyout isn't too germane. As I took it, the point was more in the contrast to the current layoffs at Google Paul cited just before that.
Those kinds of layoffs, in theory at least, are generally justified as being about making course corrections, adjusting to changing market conditions, etc. In a buyout/takeover situation, by contrast, the justification is generally to save a highly distressed company (if you're feeling indulgent toward the capitalist class), or predation that seeks to strip all assets of value and dump the carcass (aka "vulture capitalism," if you're not as indulgent. You can all likely guess which interpretation I lean toward).
And in that context, I'd agree that buyouts make a better comparison. As Smedley notes, they generally feature slashing jobs and dramatic and jarring changes.
But even in that context, Musk's actions are notable for their excess. As DS notes, "there’s a difference in substance between 70% and 6%." Hell, there's a difference in substance between 70% and 20%. And I'd also argue that the kinds of cultural changes Musk has wrought at Twitter go far beyond even the "dramatic and jarring changes" one sees in even the most ruthless buyouts. This starts to look less like cold blooded capitalism and more like a political coup, with the goal not necessarily to make money (which Musk is certainly not doing), but to overthrow a regime and punish enemies and dissidents. That certainly fits with Musk's rhetoric, and explains the emotional pull on his supporters, but at the end of the day Twitter isn't part of any state, it's a business, and when all's said and done all Musk will have to show for this is holding the record for the world's most expensive troll. Now we know what $44bn look like when they're gathered together and lit on fire.
It’s not that different from Carl Icahn’s leveraged buyout of TWA, but Twitter has nothing substantial to sell in order to pay back the loans, so there has to be something else, something communicative or informational he can give back to his investors.
Binance has obvious desires - right now whenever I check the trends and switch to news, 50% of my News Trends are to mentions of Binance or Etherium, and in the future they want to tie Twitter to blockchain, something that was once proposed for this site. The Saudis and Qatar, however, I don’t get. Why would they want in on something that’s obviously failing? What would their interest be in buying into access to 20-something years of unencrypted direct messages from world leaders and their militaries?
It’s not that different from Carl Icahn’s leveraged buyout of TWA, but Twitter has nothing substantial to sell in order to pay back the loans, so there has to be something else, something communicative or informational he can give back to his investors.
Binance has obvious desires - right now whenever I check the trends and switch to news, 50% of my News Trends are to mentions of Binance or Etherium, and in the future they want to tie Twitter to blockchain, something that was once proposed for this site. The Saudis and Qatar, however, I don’t get. Why would they want in on something that’s obviously failing? What would their interest be in buying into access to 20-something years of unencrypted direct messages from world leaders and their militaries?
Ha, yes, what could possibly be of interest to them?
Companies that are taken private often slash jobs and make dramatic and jarring changes. So comparing Twitter with publicly traded Google, Microsoft, etc is comparing apples and oranges. And while Musk may be a dick, Twitter being meaner to its employees than Google and Microsoft is not evidence that he is a dick.
I think Musk's actions are still significantly different -- and worse -- than your typical taking of a public company private (where does "bring your own toilet paper" fit in the going private road map?), but yes, it would be great if Paul were to at least try to compare apples to apples rather than insisting that, actually, lots of things rhyme with "orange."
And in that context, I actually agree with Smedley that the difference between Private Equity and Leveraged Buyout isn't too germane. As I took it, the point was more in the contrast to the current layoffs at Google Paul cited just before that.
Those kinds of layoffs, in theory at least, are generally justified as being about making course corrections, adjusting to changing market conditions, etc. In a buyout/takeover situation, by contrast, the justification is generally to save a highly distressed company (if you're feeling indulgent toward the capitalist class), or predation that seeks to strip all assets of value and dump the carcass (aka "vulture capitalism," if you're not as indulgent. You can all likely guess which interpretation I lean toward).
And in that context, I'd agree that buyouts make a better comparison. As Smedley notes, they generally feature slashing jobs and dramatic and jarring changes.
But even in that context, Musk's actions are notable for their excess. As DS notes, "there’s a difference in substance between 70% and 6%." Hell, there's a difference in substance between 70% and 20%. And I'd also argue that the kinds of cultural changes Musk has wrought at Twitter go far beyond even the "dramatic and jarring changes" one sees in even the most ruthless buyouts. This starts to look less like cold blooded capitalism and more like a political coup, with the goal not necessarily to make money (which Musk is certainly not doing), but to overthrow a regime and punish enemies and dissidents. That certainly fits with Musk's rhetoric, and explains the emotional pull on his supporters, but at the end of the day Twitter isn't part of any state, it's a business, and when all's said and done all Musk will have to show for this is holding the record for the world's most expensive troll. Now we know what $44bn look like when they're gathered together and lit on fire.
it certainly doesn't appear as if the acquisition of Twitter was at all about business, because nobody trying to make money with a company that doesn't make a tangible product would do what Musk has been doing. As a company that will likely only become profitable through selling ads, the perception of it as brand-friendly is arguably its single most valuable asset. And it's hard to argue that constantly trolling a big portion of your user base, and bringing back users who were banned for violating previous TOS are going to polish its brand-friendliness.
So no, it doesn't appear that Musk taking Twitter private is at all like Berkshire Hathaway buying Heinz, or any other private equity buyout that was predicated on increasing the value of the acquisition. This looks more and more like a rich guy who had a grudge against Twitter and the "wokesters" and had $44bn burning a hole in his pocket. It's almost like he's a child who envied another kid's shiny toy, and grabbed it not to own it and cherish it, but to smash it to bits.
it certainly doesn't appear as if the acquisition of Twitter was at all about business, because nobody trying to make money with company that doesn't make a tangible product would do what Musk has been doing. As a company that will likely only become profitable through selling ads, the perception of it as brand-friendly is arguably its single most valuable asset. And it's hard to argue that constantly trolling a big portion of your user base, and bringing back users who were banned for violating previous TOS is going to polish its brand-friendliness.
So no, it doesn't appear that Musk taking Twitter private is at all like Berkshire Hathaway buying Heinz, or any other private equity buyout that was predicated on increasing the value of the acquisition. This looks more and more like a rich guy who had a grudge against Twitter and the "wokesters" and had $44bn burning a hole in his pocket. It's almost like he's a child who envied another kids shiny toy, and grabbed it not to own it and cherish it, but to smash it to bits.
Musk's acquisition and management of the Twitter is analogous to if someone bought Uber, then decreed that all the cars had to be more than 10 years old, and the drivers all had to be MAGA "patriots" who consume an entire six-pack of beer during their shifts.
[Edited to add random example]
So Elon Musk's big 'free speech' restoration on Twitter has basically just been to reinstate hardcore anti-vaxxers and literal neo-nazis back on the platform. So brave. So principled. https://t.co/6ie1SrWoMp
it certainly doesn't appear as if the acquisition of Twitter was at all about business, because nobody trying to make money with a company that doesn't make a tangible product would do what Musk has been doing. As a company that will likely only become profitable through selling ads, the perception of it as brand-friendly is arguably its single most valuable asset. And it's hard to argue that constantly trolling a big portion of your user base, and bringing back users who were banned for violating previous TOS are going to polish its brand-friendliness.
So no, it doesn't appear that Musk taking Twitter private is at all like Berkshire Hathaway buying Heinz, or any other private equity buyout that was predicated on increasing the value of the acquisition. This looks more and more like a rich guy who had a grudge against Twitter and the "wokesters" and had $44bn burning a hole in his pocket. It's almost like he's a child who envied another kid's shiny toy, and grabbed it not to own it and cherish it, but to smash it to bits.
I mostly agree, but disagree on how intentional this was. I don't think anyone, not even someone as rich as Musk, wants to throw $44bn away. And in fact, given how hard he tried to get out of his promise to buy Twitter, I think it's clear he didn't actually want to buy it. But now he's stuck with it, and I'm sure he'd love for Twitter to be profitable, or at least come close to breaking even, instead of being a vacuum cleaner sucking up all his Tesla equity.
I think in general people don't take chance and contingency seriously enough, always looking for secret motives and plans when, in reality, people just sometimes make mistakes. I don't think Musk is an idiot, but even very smart people do stupid things, and this is especially true when people are acting in an emotional state that plays to their cognitive biases ("politics makes people stupid"). Musk clearly has a Twitter problem that gets him into trouble. I think the reason Musk's Twitter takeover looks so confused is that it is confused -- a man who acted on the impulses you identified of having grudges and more money than sense -- who was shocked to find his trolling taken seriously and is stuck with a real business costing real money. Social media ain't rocket science -- it's harder.
it certainly doesn't appear as if the acquisition of Twitter was at all about business, because nobody trying to make money with a company that doesn't make a tangible product would do what Musk has been doing. As a company that will likely only become profitable through selling ads, the perception of it as brand-friendly is arguably its single most valuable asset. And it's hard to argue that constantly trolling a big portion of your user base, and bringing back users who were banned for violating previous TOS are going to polish its brand-friendliness.
So no, it doesn't appear that Musk taking Twitter private is at all like Berkshire Hathaway buying Heinz, or any other private equity buyout that was predicated on increasing the value of the acquisition. This looks more and more like a rich guy who had a grudge against Twitter and the "wokesters" and had $44bn burning a hole in his pocket. It's almost like he's a child who envied another kid's shiny toy, and grabbed it not to own it and cherish it, but to smash it to bits.
I mostly agree, but disagree on how intentional this was. I don't think anyone, not even someone as rich as Musk, wants to throw $44bn away. And in fact, given how hard he tried to get out of his promise to buy Twitter, I think it's clear he didn't actually want to buy it. But now he's stuck with it, and I'm sure he'd love for Twitter to be profitable, or at least come close to breaking even, instead of being a vacuum cleaner sucking up all his Tesla equity.
I think in general people don't take chance and contingency seriously enough, always looking for secret motives and plans when, in reality, people just sometimes make mistakes. I don't think Musk is an idiot, but even very smart people do stupid things, and this is especially true when people are acting in an emotional state that plays to their cognitive biases ("politics makes people stupid"). Musk clearly has a Twitter problem that gets him into trouble. I think the reason Musk's Twitter takeover looks so confused is that it is confused -- a man who acted on the impulses you identified of having grudges and more money than sense -- who was shocked to find his trolling taken seriously and is stuck with a real business costing real money. Social media ain't rocket science -- it's harder.
I gave the wrong impression that I believe Musk wanted to throw his money away. I think he did indeed want to "disrupt" the old Twitter, but didn't consider that his clients probably didn't want that. Smashing the old Twitter probably seemed to him like a good idea because he and people who think like him believed the old Twitter needed to be. And he probably figured that advertisers would want to reach all those people he was planning to bring back by reinstating banned users. Well apparently, not so much.
So no, it doesn't appear that Musk taking Twitter private is at all like Berkshire Hathaway buying Heinz, or any other private equity buyout that was predicated on increasing the value of the acquisition. This looks more and more like a rich guy who had a grudge against Twitter and the "wokesters" and had $44bn burning a hole in his pocket. It's almost like he's a child who envied another kid's shiny toy, and grabbed it not to own it and cherish it, but to smash it to bits.
There are 19 other investors who are in, to the tune of $7.1 billion total. Doesn't it strain credulity to think that all these folks are on board with Musk's folly and don't give a hoot about increasing the value of Twitter?
Or is Musk that good of a conman that he has all of them fooled? That also seems far-fetched.
There are 19 other investors who are in, to the tune of $7.1 billion total. Doesn't it strain credulity to think that all these folks are on board with Musk's folly and don't give a hoot about increasing the value of Twitter?
Or is Musk that good of a conman that he has all of them fooled? That also seems far-fetched.
Or that they didn't pay attention to the cliche "past results do not guarantee future returns" and assumed that, since Musk is rich and had been financially successful in other businesses, assumed he would do the same at Twitter.
I think his backers simply were wrong. And it doesn't require calling anyone stupid or naive to come to that conclusion. As I said in my previous post, people seem to have a hard time accepting the role chance and contingency play. There is no secret plan. Musk simply made a big mistake here, and his backers made a mistake in supporting him.
I am always a bit surprised at people's willingness to attribute hyper-competency to human actions. You see that, for instance, in conspiracy theories, but even in things that aren't quite conspiracies (eg "Trump is playing 4D chess").
I mean, we've all had the experience of working and realizing our bosses and higher ups simply don't know what they're talking about, right? We've all made mistakes ourselves and know sometimes we don't know what we're doing. Isn't the most likely explanation, on watching someone like Musk who seems like he's out of his depth, to conclude that in fact, it's exactly what it looks like?
So no, it doesn't appear that Musk taking Twitter private is at all like Berkshire Hathaway buying Heinz, or any other private equity buyout that was predicated on increasing the value of the acquisition. This looks more and more like a rich guy who had a grudge against Twitter and the "wokesters" and had $44bn burning a hole in his pocket. It's almost like he's a child who envied another kid's shiny toy, and grabbed it not to own it and cherish it, but to smash it to bits.
There are 19 other investors who are in, to the tune of $7.1 billion total. Doesn't it strain credulity to think that all these folks are on board with Musk's folly and don't give a hoot about increasing the value of Twitter?
Or is Musk that good of a conman that he has all of them fooled? That also seems far-fetched.
they are/were likely of the same mind as Musk in thinking that the old Twitter would be better served by the disruptions he planned. but it looks now like a miscalculation,
just being really wealthy doesn't make a person a genius about running a social media network. and it doesn't make a person immune from making wrong decisions on occasion.
and all of this is not to say that Musk can't turn this around if he has the humility to backtrack on some of his not well-thought out decisions. But I'm not sure that Musk and "humility" are compatible words. We'll see if the prospect of losing billions makes him a little more humble though.
Having said all that my comment that follows the one you quoted better clarifies what I meant, so I probably should just refer back to that one.
I am always a bit surprised at people's willingness to attribute hyper-competency to human actions. You see that, for instance, in conspiracy theories, but even in things that aren't quite conspiracies (eg "Trump is playing 4D chess").
I mean, we've all had the experience of working and realizing our bosses and higher ups simply don't know what they're talking about, right? We've all made mistakes ourselves and know sometimes we don't know what we're doing. Isn't the most likely explanation, on watching someone like Musk who seems like he's out of his depth, to conclude that in fact, it's exactly what it looks like?
I worked at WarnerMedia when it was acquired by AT&T. What complete idiots they were with regard to running a media company. These were executives who were running one of the biggest and most successful corporations in U.S. history, but their arrogance got them in way over their heads in media. They ended up spinning off WM and destroying tens of billions in shareholder value in the process. And destroying the careers of thousands of WM employees. But John Stankey is still AT&T CEO.
I *literally* said it to my wife yesterday on the Parkway, as we passed a Tesla that had its left blinker on without actually moving into the left lane.
I also said that we can't be sure if it's the driver trying to go left and the car insisting on staying in the right lane, or the other way around.