In other hostile takeover Tweets...
-
https://twitter.com/business/status/1514549057276059658
So he’s gone from buying almost 10% of Twitter, to not joining the board… to “I’m just going to buy Twitter”. Alrighty then.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
"I’m just going to buy Twitter"
Funding secured.
I believe it was the plan from the very beginning. The intermediate steps were to push buttons. The kind of world class trolling possible if you have a spare fifty
just lying around.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
https://twitter.com/business/status/1514549057276059658
So he’s gone from buying almost 10% of Twitter, to not joining the board… to “I’m just going to buy Twitter”. Alrighty then.
It's kind of simple.
He wants to change Twitter's censorship policy. In order to do that, he needs to own enough of the company that he and his allies can dictate to the rest of Twitter what the censorship rules are going to be.
As it turns out, he doesn't have enough allies within Twitter's current ownership to do that, so he's trying to buy them out.
This is basically a hostile takeover, and Twitter has a rule to protect them against hostile takeovers that says that board members aren't allowed to own more than 15% of the company.
15% isn't going to be enough ownership to change the censorship rules. (Musk currently owns about 10%.) So he needs to not be on the board in order to acquire enough shares that he can't be outvoted. Once he has enough shares that he can change the 15% rule, he presumably will. (Or, if he winds up owning 100% of Twitter and not publicly trading it, there doesn't have to be a board at all.)
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear or it could just be as simple as him owning 10% then causing the share price to jump +20% and then selling his shares potentially?
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear or it could just be as simple as him owning 10% then causing the share price to jump +20% and then selling his shares potentially?
Which is almost exactly what happened three years ago, if I may once more kindly refer to the whole "funding secured" debacle, and resulted into SEC crawling up his ass with a microscope so far that it detected a new planet in the Kepler-90 system
, specifically so he doesn't shitpump and dump again.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear or it could just be as simple as him owning 10% then causing the share price to jump +20% and then selling his shares potentially?
You know, it's funny. I was going to describe Musk's plan as like a 50%+1 attack, except that the underlying thing you're stealing is not itself a scam.
He's said that he's buying Twitter because he wants to change their policies. I guess he could be lying, but that's probably not likely.
Also, his offer is that he's going to buy 100% of Twitter by overvaluing other people's shares so they sell them to him. I'm not sure how that lines up with a pump and dump.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear I guess I just assumed it was all about making money, rather than something that might be better discussed in places I can’t see.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear I guess I just assumed it was all about making money, rather than something that might be better discussed in places I can’t see.
Yeah. I kind of figured.
Be well.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear I guess I just assumed it was all about making money, rather than something that might be better discussed in places I can’t see.
It might still be that, too, just not as a pump and dump.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in In other news today...:
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear or it could just be as simple as him owning 10% then causing the share price to jump +20% and then selling his shares potentially?
Which is almost exactly what happened three years ago, if I may once more kindly refer to the whole "funding secured" debacle, and resulted into SEC crawling up his ass with a microscope so far that it detected a new planet in the Kepler-90 system, specifically so he doesn't shitpump and dump again.
Did he actually dump, though? I've never heard that he ever actually sold any shares at inflated prices or made any kind of a profit on the funding secured thing.
The reason you're not allowed to tell people "I've secured funding to take my publicly traded company private" is because if you only tell one or two people that, it's insider trading.
Elon Musk tweeted "funding secured at $420 per share" to the entire world, and as far as I can tell, nobody earned or lost any money from knowing about it. (People gambled on it, but that's kind of how stocks work.)
Funding secured is ticky-tack bullshit.
The reason I'm trying to make that distinction is because this is just what Being Elon Musk consists of. Any company he buys into will have its stock price go up because they're now associated with Musk. Any company he sells out of will have their stock price go down because Musk doesn't want to be associated with them anymore. This will happen 100% of the time.
How do you fix that? Should Elon Musk just not be allowed to trade stocks?
If we were having this conversation in the garage, you'd be looking at a list of lefty activists that try to do the same thing. This is just how activist investing works.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in In other news today...:
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear or it could just be as simple as him owning 10% then causing the share price to jump +20% and then selling his shares potentially?
Which is almost exactly what happened three years ago, if I may once more kindly refer to the whole "funding secured" debacle, and resulted into SEC crawling up his ass with a microscope so far that it detected a new planet in the Kepler-90 system, specifically so he doesn't shitpump and dump again.
Did he actually dump, though? I've never heard that he ever actually sold any shares at inflated prices or made any kind of a profit on the funding secured thing.
The reason you're not allowed to tell people "I've secured funding to take my publicly traded company private" is because if you only tell one or two people that, it's insider trading.
Elon Musk tweeted "funding secured at $420 per share" to the entire world, and as far as I can tell, nobody earned or lost any money from knowing about it. (People gambled on it, but that's kind of how stocks work.)
Funding secured is ticky-tack bullshit.
It doesn't matter if he sold shares, it was blatant market manipulation with disinformation. And there were a lot of people shorting Tesla at the time which this hurt, and hurting them was advantageous to Musk. Granted, those people where trying to manipulate the market through shorting, but not from a position of being CEO.
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
If we were having this conversation in the garage, you'd be looking at a list of lefty activists that try to do the same thing
You make everything about that.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
Did he actually dump, though
No, I got confused about the whole thing. I'm convinced (and so is the judge, it seems) that St. Elon knew the claim was bullshit before sending the tweet. The towel-wearing investors had bailed already, whatever their original intention was. I'm also convinced it was 100% shitposting, probably under the effect of jolly beans, because there's no way he could have believed he might get away with selling shares for cash to help Tesla get out of the red it was in at the time, when he'd just announced a buyback. But it was a terribly stupid thing to do.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in In other news today...:
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear or it could just be as simple as him owning 10% then causing the share price to jump +20% and then selling his shares potentially?
Which is almost exactly what happened three years ago, if I may once more kindly refer to the whole "funding secured" debacle, and resulted into SEC crawling up his ass with a microscope so far that it detected a new planet in the Kepler-90 system, specifically so he doesn't shitpump and dump again.
Did he actually dump, though? I've never heard that he ever actually sold any shares at inflated prices or made any kind of a profit on the funding secured thing.
The reason you're not allowed to tell people "I've secured funding to take my publicly traded company private" is because if you only tell one or two people that, it's insider trading.
Elon Musk tweeted "funding secured at $420 per share" to the entire world, and as far as I can tell, nobody earned or lost any money from knowing about it. (People gambled on it, but that's kind of how stocks work.)
Funding secured is ticky-tack bullshit.
It doesn't matter if he sold shares, it was blatant market manipulation with disinformation.
I think you've got the wrong definition of "disinformation."
And there were a lot of people shorting Tesla at the time which this hurt, and hurting them was advantageous to Musk. Granted, those people where trying to manipulate the market through shorting, but not from a position of being CEO.
OK, fine. Here's what I was asking. The victims of what he did were the shorts. That's who was hurt by what he did.
Here's the thing, though. You're assuming he's lying. To hear him tell it, there was a deal and it fell through. The SEC takes the position that it doesn't matter whether there was funding or not, he's supposed to announce it in an SEC filing rather than in the public media.
I don't think that Musk's punishment fits that crime.
Also, that doesn't have anything to do with the Twitter acquisition, in that Musk isn't in a position where he can manipulate the stock price at the moment. Mechanically, how would Musk pump and dump Twitter? How would that even work?
Musk bought 10% of Twitter and the price went up. Say he sells his share and the price goes back down.
How are you going to differentiate "We couldn't make the deal work, so I sold my shares" from a pump and dump scheme?
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
If we were having this conversation in the garage, you'd be looking at a list of lefty activists that try to do the same thing
You make everything about that.
Just the opposite. Activist investing isn't illegal nor is it unethical, regardless of the political leanings of the guy doing it.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in In other news today...:
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear or it could just be as simple as him owning 10% then causing the share price to jump +20% and then selling his shares potentially?
Which is almost exactly what happened three years ago, if I may once more kindly refer to the whole "funding secured" debacle, and resulted into SEC crawling up his ass with a microscope so far that it detected a new planet in the Kepler-90 system, specifically so he doesn't shitpump and dump again.
Did he actually dump, though? I've never heard that he ever actually sold any shares at inflated prices or made any kind of a profit on the funding secured thing.
The reason you're not allowed to tell people "I've secured funding to take my publicly traded company private" is because if you only tell one or two people that, it's insider trading.
Elon Musk tweeted "funding secured at $420 per share" to the entire world, and as far as I can tell, nobody earned or lost any money from knowing about it. (People gambled on it, but that's kind of how stocks work.)
Funding secured is ticky-tack bullshit.
It doesn't matter if he sold shares, it was blatant market manipulation with disinformation.
I think you've got the wrong definition of "disinformation."
Maybe if you believe he wasn't lying to begin with. And 420 was just a happy little coincident.
And there were a lot of people shorting Tesla at the time which this hurt, and hurting them was advantageous to Musk. Granted, those people where trying to manipulate the market through shorting, but not from a position of being CEO.
OK, fine. Here's what I was asking. The victims of what he did were the shorts. That's who was hurt by what he did.
Here's the thing, though. You're assuming he's lying.
Yes.
To hear him tell it, there was a deal and it fell through. The SEC takes the position that it doesn't matter whether there was funding or not, he's supposed to announce it in an SEC filing rather than in the public media.
Also correct. According to them, it didn't matter if he was lying because he broke the rules of the SEC either way.
He broke the rules before and he's doing it again. He keeps doing that constantly, because he thinks he's got enought clout not to have to follow the rules for peasants.There's already a lawsuit because the rules say he should have disclosed his 5% shares in a regulatory filing (and not on Twitter) by March 24, but only did so on April 4. Which probably means he got to buy some of the shares cheaper, because he didn't fall victim of his own success, i.e. as you said yourself him buying makes the shares rise automatically and he wants to be in before that.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
https://twitter.com/business/status/1514549057276059658
So he’s gone from buying almost 10% of Twitter, to not joining the board… to “I’m just going to buy Twitter”. Alrighty then.
The pump has started. Soon comes the dump.
-
@Carnage Well, he's certainly made noises about doing it because of moderation. Which would set Twitter on course for being Parler 2.0.
Either way this isn't good for Twitter, unless Elon gets bored next week and just moves on with his life.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@Carnage Well, he's certainly made noises about doing it because of moderation. Which would set Twitter on course for being Parler 2.0.
Either way this isn't good for Twitter, unless Elon gets bored next week and just moves on with his life.
If it's bad for Twitter, I like it. Now if some half crazy beeellonär could just go after meta as well, I'd be really happy.
-
@Carnage Well, Meta is working on that all by themselves. They decided that Apple's 30% cut was inappropriate for Meta goods.
So they're charging 47.5%.
Meta strikes against 30% 'App Store tax' by charging 47.5%
Fees for sellers of virtual goods in Horizon Worlds will be almost half of sale price
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
Either way this isn't good for Twitter
Why would you care what's good for Twitter anyway. Left, right, center or off-kilter entirely, that place is a
, except it's all public and has upvotes. I wouldn't shed a single tear, joy or sorrow, if the whole thing right now caught fire, flipped over and sank into the swamp 
-
@Applied-Mediocrity There are people I follow on Twitter who have interesting and insightful things to say, and I would feel a loss if Twitter went the way of the third Swamp Castle.
Admittedly, not much of one but it would be a net loss for me personally.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@Carnage Well, he's certainly made noises about doing it because of moderation. Which would set Twitter on course for being Parler 2.0.
What do you think happened to Parler 1.0?
Keep in mind which category this is.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear If Twitter changes hands and decides to go the low- or no-moderation route as Elon has indicated, I expect the same hosting company to do the same thing they did last time: kick them off for the inevitable breach of terms of service.
Edit: I wish I'd never posted this because you are very keen to drag this into That Category Which Shall Not Be Named.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear If Twitter changes hands and decides to go the low- or no-moderation route as Elon has indicated, I expect the same hosting company to do the same thing they did last time: kick them off for the inevitable breach of terms of service.
Edit: I wish I'd never posted this because you are very keen to drag this into That Category Which Shall Not Be Named.
My point was more that you're making Garagey posts outside the garage, and should probably stop.
I disagree very much with your categorization of what happened to Parler 1.0, but I'm going to drop it because neither your description nor mine are appropriate in this category.
If you're interested in hearing more from me, I assume you know where the at sign is on your keyboard.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in In other news today...:
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear or it could just be as simple as him owning 10% then causing the share price to jump +20% and then selling his shares potentially?
Which is almost exactly what happened three years ago, if I may once more kindly refer to the whole "funding secured" debacle, and resulted into SEC crawling up his ass with a microscope so far that it detected a new planet in the Kepler-90 system, specifically so he doesn't shitpump and dump again.
Did he actually dump, though? I've never heard that he ever actually sold any shares at inflated prices or made any kind of a profit on the funding secured thing.
The reason you're not allowed to tell people "I've secured funding to take my publicly traded company private" is because if you only tell one or two people that, it's insider trading.
Elon Musk tweeted "funding secured at $420 per share" to the entire world, and as far as I can tell, nobody earned or lost any money from knowing about it. (People gambled on it, but that's kind of how stocks work.)
Funding secured is ticky-tack bullshit.
It doesn't matter if he sold shares, it was blatant market manipulation with disinformation.
I think you've got the wrong definition of "disinformation."
Maybe if you believe he wasn't lying to begin with. And 420 was just a happy little coincident.
I don't believe that he was lying. But assuming he was, the word you meant was "lying" and not "misinformation," because misinformation means something different.
To hear him tell it, there was a deal and it fell through. The SEC takes the position that it doesn't matter whether there was funding or not, he's supposed to announce it in an SEC filing rather than in the public media.
Also correct. According to them, it didn't matter if he was lying because he broke the rules of the SEC either way.
He broke the rules before and he's doing it again. He keeps doing that constantly, because he thinks he's got enought clout not to have to follow the rules for peasants.Right, but is that a serious rule or a dumb rule?
Fine, Musk is Chaotic rather than Lawful. Him announcing stock trades on Twitter where more people will read them rather than in SEC filings, which are not as widely read, isn't enough to convince me that he's Evil rather than Good.
Like I said, I don't think the SEC's punishment fits the crime.
There's already a lawsuit because the rules say he should have disclosed his 5% shares in a regulatory filing (and not on Twitter) by March 24, but only did so on April 4. Which probably means he got to buy some of the shares cheaper, because he didn't fall victim of his own success, i.e. as you said yourself him buying makes the shares rise automatically and he wants to be in before that.
His plan is to buy the other 90% of the shares at something like a 54% premium over the stock price when he bought his first share. This price difference is going to come out in the wash.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@Carnage Well, he's certainly made noises about doing it because of moderation. Which would set Twitter on course for being Parler 2.0.
Abused by Amazon?
Either way this isn't good for Twitter, unless Elon gets bored next week and just moves on with his life.
He seems to be proposing to save Twitter from itself, I'd say.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear OK, fine, I get it, never discuss news. Anything else I should avoid ever talking about in case you decide it's too Garagey?
Actually, there's a simpler solution. Let's just pretend the entire forum is the Garage. Enjoy.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
never discuss news.
There's a reason all the best Elon Musk threads are in The Garage: apart from being filthy rich he is a master troll.
Though maybe a better guideline: never discuss censorship, freedom of speech, misinformation, or any social media websites heavily invested in dealing with it outside of the garage. Setting the boundaries of "acceptable speech" is politics so any discussion related to it is bound to trigger someone. Had you left it at "I seriously hope Elon is going to lose interest before seriously changing Twitter" then I guess this discussion would have ended almost immediately.
Hope to see you again soon.
EDIT: Almost tempted to include the Fawlty Towers "Don't Mention The War" sketch from "The Germans" episode in my post, but I think I can get away without it.
-
@Arantor remember, the garage is for outright extremist indoctrination
-
@Gribnit I won't lie: all the talk of "always return your shopping cart to the place you found it" can get tiring.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in In other news today...:
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear or it could just be as simple as him owning 10% then causing the share price to jump +20% and then selling his shares potentially?
Which is almost exactly what happened three years ago, if I may once more kindly refer to the whole "funding secured" debacle, and resulted into SEC crawling up his ass with a microscope so far that it detected a new planet in the Kepler-90 system, specifically so he doesn't shitpump and dump again.
Did he actually dump, though? I've never heard that he ever actually sold any shares at inflated prices or made any kind of a profit on the funding secured thing.
The reason you're not allowed to tell people "I've secured funding to take my publicly traded company private" is because if you only tell one or two people that, it's insider trading.
Elon Musk tweeted "funding secured at $420 per share" to the entire world, and as far as I can tell, nobody earned or lost any money from knowing about it. (People gambled on it, but that's kind of how stocks work.)
Funding secured is ticky-tack bullshit.
It doesn't matter if he sold shares, it was blatant market manipulation with disinformation.
I think you've got the wrong definition of "disinformation."
Maybe if you believe he wasn't lying to begin with. And 420 was just a happy little coincident.
I don't believe that he was lying. But assuming he was, the word you meant was "lying" and not "misinformation," because misinformation means something different.
If you're going to play the word pedantry game, would you be so nice to tell what's the difference? "Incorrect or misleading information presented as fact" seems to be exactly what he did.
To hear him tell it, there was a deal and it fell through. The SEC takes the position that it doesn't matter whether there was funding or not, he's supposed to announce it in an SEC filing rather than in the public media.
Also correct. According to them, it didn't matter if he was lying because he broke the rules of the SEC either way.
He broke the rules before and he's doing it again. He keeps doing that constantly, because he thinks he's got enought clout not to have to follow the rules for peasants.Right, but is that a serious rule or a dumb rule?
Fine, Musk is Chaotic rather than Lawful. Him announcing stock trades on Twitter where more people will read them rather than in SEC filings, which are not as widely read, isn't enough to convince me that he's Evil rather than Good.
Like I said, I don't think the SEC's punishment fits the crime.
There's already a lawsuit because the rules say he should have disclosed his 5% shares in a regulatory filing (and not on Twitter) by March 24, but only did so on April 4. Which probably means he got to buy some of the shares cheaper, because he didn't fall victim of his own success, i.e. as you said yourself him buying makes the shares rise automatically and he wants to be in before that.
His plan is to buy the other 90% of the shares at something like a 54% premium over the stock price when he bought his first share. This price difference is going to come out in the wash.
Look, I don't care if he intends to make a direct financial profit from the things he does or only intends to profit from it indirectly. He doesn't have to intend to be "evil", he probably thinks of himself as some kind of savior anyway. And while I think Tesla is massively overrated, I'm sure he accelerated the BEV industry for overall benefit. But him thinking he acts "for the greater good" doesn't make him exempt from the law. And he has a history of ignoring it, breaking it, or publicly threatening to break it, repeatedly.
He canrm -rf --no-preserve-root twitter.comfor all I care, but he should at least try to not act like he's extralegal all the time.
-
@JBert said in In other news today...:
@Gribnit I won't lie: all the talk of "always return your shopping cart to the place you found it" can get tiring.
It's less tiring if you just put your damned shopping cart back
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in In other news today...:
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear or it could just be as simple as him owning 10% then causing the share price to jump +20% and then selling his shares potentially?
Which is almost exactly what happened three years ago, if I may once more kindly refer to the whole "funding secured" debacle, and resulted into SEC crawling up his ass with a microscope so far that it detected a new planet in the Kepler-90 system, specifically so he doesn't shitpump and dump again.
Did he actually dump, though? I've never heard that he ever actually sold any shares at inflated prices or made any kind of a profit on the funding secured thing.
The reason you're not allowed to tell people "I've secured funding to take my publicly traded company private" is because if you only tell one or two people that, it's insider trading.
Elon Musk tweeted "funding secured at $420 per share" to the entire world, and as far as I can tell, nobody earned or lost any money from knowing about it. (People gambled on it, but that's kind of how stocks work.)
Funding secured is ticky-tack bullshit.
It doesn't matter if he sold shares, it was blatant market manipulation with disinformation.
I think you've got the wrong definition of "disinformation."
Maybe if you believe he wasn't lying to begin with. And 420 was just a happy little coincident.
I don't believe that he was lying. But assuming he was, the word you meant was "lying" and not "misinformation," because misinformation means something different.
If you're going to play the word pedantry game, would you be so nice to tell what's the difference? "Incorrect or misleading information presented as fact" seems to be exactly what he did.
"Misinformation" is a snarl word. It means "I don't like you because you're Of The Right." Same with calling someone "deplorable." Thode two go the same way, but there's of course plenty that go the other way.
This isn't the Garage. If you're upset with Musk because you think he lied about the Funding Secured thing, that's one thing. But if you're upset about Musk because of "disinformation," that looks like you're criticizing him for his politics.
To hear him tell it, there was a deal and it fell through. The SEC takes the position that it doesn't matter whether there was funding or not, he's supposed to announce it in an SEC filing rather than in the public media.
Also correct. According to them, it didn't matter if he was lying because he broke the rules of the SEC either way.
He broke the rules before and he's doing it again. He keeps doing that constantly, because he thinks he's got enought clout not to have to follow the rules for peasants.Right, but is that a serious rule or a dumb rule?
Fine, Musk is Chaotic rather than Lawful. Him announcing stock trades on Twitter where more people will read them rather than in SEC filings, which are not as widely read, isn't enough to convince me that he's Evil rather than Good.
Like I said, I don't think the SEC's punishment fits the crime.
There's already a lawsuit because the rules say he should have disclosed his 5% shares in a regulatory filing (and not on Twitter) by March 24, but only did so on April 4. Which probably means he got to buy some of the shares cheaper, because he didn't fall victim of his own success, i.e. as you said yourself him buying makes the shares rise automatically and he wants to be in before that.
His plan is to buy the other 90% of the shares at something like a 54% premium over the stock price when he bought his first share. This price difference is going to come out in the wash.
Look, I don't care if he intends to make a direct financial profit from the things he does or only intends to profit from it indirectly. He doesn't have to intend to be "evil", he probably thinks of himself as some kind of savior anyway. And while I think Tesla is massively overrated, I'm sure he accelerated the BEV industry for overall benefit. But him thinking he acts "for the greater good" doesn't make him exempt from the law. And he has a history of ignoring it, breaking it, or publicly threatening to break it, repeatedly.
He canrm -rf --no-preserve-root twitter.comfor all I care, but he should at least try to not act like he's extralegal all the time.My point was that if he fraudulently inflated the stock price of Twitter, then sold at the peak, which is what a pump and dump scheme is, that would be evil.
Musk making announcements on Twitter rather than in SEC reports might be chaotic, but I don't think you can point to it and say "He's obviously going to do something evil because he's a chaotic person."
If you were accusing him of robbing a bank, that'd be one thing. But not filling out SEC paperwork correctly isn't the same thing as that.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
"Misinformation" is a snarl word. It means "I don't like you because you're Of The Right."
There's some misinformation right there (or disinformation, if @GuyWhoKilledBear actually is aware of the word's meaning).
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in In other news today...:
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear or it could just be as simple as him owning 10% then causing the share price to jump +20% and then selling his shares potentially?
Which is almost exactly what happened three years ago, if I may once more kindly refer to the whole "funding secured" debacle, and resulted into SEC crawling up his ass with a microscope so far that it detected a new planet in the Kepler-90 system, specifically so he doesn't shitpump and dump again.
Did he actually dump, though? I've never heard that he ever actually sold any shares at inflated prices or made any kind of a profit on the funding secured thing.
The reason you're not allowed to tell people "I've secured funding to take my publicly traded company private" is because if you only tell one or two people that, it's insider trading.
Elon Musk tweeted "funding secured at $420 per share" to the entire world, and as far as I can tell, nobody earned or lost any money from knowing about it. (People gambled on it, but that's kind of how stocks work.)
Funding secured is ticky-tack bullshit.
It doesn't matter if he sold shares, it was blatant market manipulation with disinformation.
I think you've got the wrong definition of "disinformation."
Maybe if you believe he wasn't lying to begin with. And 420 was just a happy little coincident.
I don't believe that he was lying. But assuming he was, the word you meant was "lying" and not "misinformation," because misinformation means something different.
If you're going to play the word pedantry game, would you be so nice to tell what's the difference? "Incorrect or misleading information presented as fact" seems to be exactly what he did.
"Misinformation" is a snarl word. It means "I don't like you because you're Of The Right." Same with calling someone "deplorable." Thode two go the same way, but there's of course plenty that go the other way.
To quote the full wikipedia sentence:
Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information presented as fact,[1] either intentionally or unintentionally. Disinformation is a subset of misinformation, that which is deliberately deceptive.
It was incorrect and misleading information, presented as fact. So it is misinformation. From the company's CEO.
Assuming he was lying, as I said I am assuming but obviously can't prove, it was also disinformation, like I originally wrote.You complaining that the word "misinformation" is just a trigger-word used against "The Right
" with no grounding in what the word actually means, when it means exactly what I used it for and I've nowhere mentioned "The Right" (nor do I know what Musk suddenly has to do with "The Right" at all), well, I'm not sure what to say about that.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in In other news today...:
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear or it could just be as simple as him owning 10% then causing the share price to jump +20% and then selling his shares potentially?
Which is almost exactly what happened three years ago, if I may once more kindly refer to the whole "funding secured" debacle, and resulted into SEC crawling up his ass with a microscope so far that it detected a new planet in the Kepler-90 system, specifically so he doesn't shitpump and dump again.
Did he actually dump, though? I've never heard that he ever actually sold any shares at inflated prices or made any kind of a profit on the funding secured thing.
The reason you're not allowed to tell people "I've secured funding to take my publicly traded company private" is because if you only tell one or two people that, it's insider trading.
Elon Musk tweeted "funding secured at $420 per share" to the entire world, and as far as I can tell, nobody earned or lost any money from knowing about it. (People gambled on it, but that's kind of how stocks work.)
Funding secured is ticky-tack bullshit.
It doesn't matter if he sold shares, it was blatant market manipulation with disinformation.
I think you've got the wrong definition of "disinformation."
Maybe if you believe he wasn't lying to begin with. And 420 was just a happy little coincident.
I don't believe that he was lying. But assuming he was, the word you meant was "lying" and not "misinformation," because misinformation means something different.
If you're going to play the word pedantry game, would you be so nice to tell what's the difference? "Incorrect or misleading information presented as fact" seems to be exactly what he did.
"Misinformation" is a snarl word. It means "I don't like you because you're Of The Right." Same with calling someone "deplorable." Thode two go the same way, but there's of course plenty that go the other way.
To quote the full wikipedia sentence:
I'm sorry, but you can't trust what Wikipedia says about American politics. Maybe they're better about this in your country, but they're absolutely terrible about this in mine. If you'd like specific examples, hit me up in the Garage.
Separate from the fact that that definition appeared in Wikipedia, the definition doesn't match how the word is actually used, which are far closer to "snarl word" than "a synonym for inaccurate."
You complaining that the word "misinformation" is just a trigger-word used against "The Right
" with no grounding in what the word actually means, when it means exactly what I used it for and I've nowhere mentioned "The Right"... well, I'm not sure what to say about that.So I've got this half-assed gaming laptop. (This is true.) And because I wasn't paying close enough attention when I bought it, it has an integrated ATI graphics card. But it's got a discrete Nvidia graphics card. And they fucking fight with each other and crash when I'm trying to play my fucking race car video games.
If I were to go in a General category and call it The Laptop From Hell and a HOAX and a FRAUD and say that the guy who sold it to me is The Enemy Of The People and he told me Fake News, you'd probably be pretty cheesed, right?
The biggest benefit to having the Garage be separate from General is that we mostly don't get shitty political digs when we're talking about unrelated topics outside the Garage.
(nor do I know what Musk suddenly has to do with "The Right" at all),
, but Musk says he wants to buy Twitter because he sees Twitter's current enforcement of its TOS as unfairly biased against conservatives. A lot of the opposition to Musk buying Twitter is from people who want the current enforcement regime to continue.Which is why Arantor should have posted about this in the Garage and not General to begin with.
-
Thats enough of this in the news thread.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in In other news today...:
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear or it could just be as simple as him owning 10% then causing the share price to jump +20% and then selling his shares potentially?
Which is almost exactly what happened three years ago, if I may once more kindly refer to the whole "funding secured" debacle, and resulted into SEC crawling up his ass with a microscope so far that it detected a new planet in the Kepler-90 system, specifically so he doesn't shitpump and dump again.
Did he actually dump, though? I've never heard that he ever actually sold any shares at inflated prices or made any kind of a profit on the funding secured thing.
The reason you're not allowed to tell people "I've secured funding to take my publicly traded company private" is because if you only tell one or two people that, it's insider trading.
Elon Musk tweeted "funding secured at $420 per share" to the entire world, and as far as I can tell, nobody earned or lost any money from knowing about it. (People gambled on it, but that's kind of how stocks work.)
Funding secured is ticky-tack bullshit.
It doesn't matter if he sold shares, it was blatant market manipulation with disinformation.
I think you've got the wrong definition of "disinformation."
Maybe if you believe he wasn't lying to begin with. And 420 was just a happy little coincident.
I don't believe that he was lying. But assuming he was, the word you meant was "lying" and not "misinformation," because misinformation means something different.
If you're going to play the word pedantry game, would you be so nice to tell what's the difference? "Incorrect or misleading information presented as fact" seems to be exactly what he did.
"Misinformation" is a snarl word. It means "I don't like you because you're Of The Right." Same with calling someone "deplorable." Thode two go the same way, but there's of course plenty that go the other way.
To quote the full wikipedia sentence:
I'm sorry, but you can't trust what Wikipedia says about American politics.
Guess I should've used wiktionary instead of wikipedia, but my Oxford concise English dictionary that I just pulled out says basically the same thing. This isn't political.
The biggest benefit to having the Garage be separate from General is that we mostly don't get shitty political digs when we're talking about unrelated topics outside the Garage.
It wasn't a shitty political dig because it wasn't political to begin with. What you're saying is I basically can't post anything outside the garage because you might object to it.
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
Thats enough of this in the news thread.
Fine, I'll not reply further, but sorry not sorry. What I said wasn't political just because he wants to make it political. What Musk posted was clearly wrong, presented as fact, and was also deemed to have broken SEC rules.
-
Don't care about the politics, the news thread is tpyically reserved for links and small discussions about the article, if it is going to go on for more than a few posts it should move to a different thread.
-
@JBert said in In other news today...:
EDIT: Almost tempted to include the Fawlty Towers "Don't Mention The War" sketch from "The Germans" episode in my post, but I think I can get away without it.
So close!
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@JBert said in In other news today...:
EDIT: Almost tempted to include the Fawlty Towers "Don't Mention The War" sketch from "The Germans" episode in my post, but I think I can get away without it.
So close!
Get the bucket, then
-
@JBert said in In other news today...:
@Gribnit I won't lie: all the talk of "always return your shopping cart to the place you found it" can get tiring.
Well, if I don't I won't get my half-euro back. Which would mean I may not have a half-euro to put in it next time I'm going shopping. Which is more of a hassle than putting the shopping cart back in the first place.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
He wants to change Twitter's censorship policy.
You have to have something or you end up with assholes replying to everything with actual pictures of dog shit and stuff like that, just because they can, and anything of value gets swamped in the noise. You know there are such people out there; there are some in every damn high school in the world, and not all of them grow up quickly after leaving school. (Others work in advertising, but at least they've realised that actual dogshit is not appealing so they try to sell products and services instead.) So… once you have in place any mechanism to mitigate the problems caused by that sort of non-contribution, you end up having to work out where you draw the line, what stuff is permitted on the platform and what isn't. And that's difficult because some people believe that they have a right to prevent significantly different political viewpoints from being heard, which is what we don't generally want.
The one thing that sites like Twitter will likely continue to really crack down on hard is any sort of promotion of criminality, on the grounds that failing to do that leaves the site operators open to prosecution in a great many parts of the world. The laws on that sort of thing both have real teeth and a long history of being enforced; it's not worth risking having your board end up in gaol and your investors losing a lot of money.
-
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
He wants to change Twitter's censorship policy.
You have to have something or you end up with assholes replying to everything with actual pictures of dog shit and stuff like that, just because they can, and anything of value gets swamped in the noise.
I don't have any inside information about what Elon wants to do but this seems like a strawman to me.
So… once you have in place any mechanism to mitigate the problems caused by that sort of non-contribution, you end up having to work out where you draw the line, what stuff is permitted on the platform and what isn't. And that's difficult because some people believe that they have a right to prevent significantly different political viewpoints from being heard, which is what we don't generally want.
Yes, and that is a not terrible description of the status quo.
-
My reply to this post is pre-Jeffed to the Garage. Your post should have been there too.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear By your logic, this entire thread should be in the Garage.
That's really my problem here, it feels like literally everything that might be discussed is one step away from you popping up and going 'that should be in the Garage'. So let's just put everything in the Garage and be done with it, eh?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
Your post should have been there too.
That's your opinion. Which we all support you expressing, but that doesn't mean that we have to agree.
I'd will half apologize to the people who think this discussion shouldn't be in this thread. However, de- and re-railing threads is a bit of a grand [W]TDWTF tradition. I prefer having the discussion go where it goes - scrolling past a few uninteresting posts every now and then isn't that much of a chore.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear By your logic, this entire thread should be in the Garage.
That's really my problem here, it feels like literally everything that might be discussed is one step away from you popping up and going 'that should be in the Garage'. So let's just put everything in the Garage and be done with it, eh?
The subthread about Musk buying Twitter absolutely belongs in the Garage. Musk's contention is that one political side is using Twitter to cheat the other political side, and so he's going to buy Twitter to stop it.
Maybe you disagree with Musk, but the debate over whether he's right or wrong is inherently political. And if it's political, it belongs in the Garage.
As far as applying Garage rules over the entire site, eh. I'd be mostly OK with that. Would you?
I know you don't participate in the Garage, although if it's not "I don't want to deal with politics," I don't understand what your actual objection to the Garage is. I don't think the tone is any different out here, it's just that we all (mostly) censor ourselves on a few contentious topics.
But "we all (mostly) censor ourselves on contentious topics" only works if "we all (mostly) censor ourselves" on those topics. Having rules where you can say that Twitter's current censorship rules are good and I'm not allowed to say that they're bad is not a tenable solution.
If the rest of the site was on board with changing the relationship between the Garage and General, that'd be one thing. But for right now, I'm trying to respect the rules that are actually in place.
-
@cvi said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
Your post should have been there too.
That's your opinion. Which we all support you expressing, but that doesn't mean that we have to agree.
I'd will half apologize to the people who think this discussion shouldn't be in this thread. However, de- and re-railing threads is a bit of a grand [W]TDWTF tradition. I prefer having the discussion go where it goes - scrolling past a few uninteresting posts every now and then isn't that much of a chore.
Look, I'll admit to not being aware of the rule that derailing the news thread isn't allowed.
But "Don't put shitty political digs in your non-Garage posts" is a well known rule that's a little different than boring posts.
Did you read my Garage post? Do you think it would be appropriate in this topic?
I don't, which is why it's posted there and not here.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
the debate over whether he's right or wrong is inherently political. And if it's political, it belongs in the Garage.
How funny that even the mere concept of this debate was entirely absent before you showed up
