ech

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Your example had zero context. I'm supposed to just infer all the meaning for you? Come on now. If you don't wanna put in the effort, just don't bother in the first place. Don't blame other people for your actions.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'm the fool for saying a banana isn't worth $20? That's a weird line to draw. And I never claimed to be anyone here. I'm just pointing things out. Like this - musk literally had 4.20 in the cost "for the lulz". Nobody's convincing me that man had any idea of the "true" value of Twitter when he proposed his bid.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago
[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

It means the person that bought it is a fool, nothing more.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Why do you keep calling my comments "devil advocacy"? I'm not making theoretical arguments for the sake of debate. I'm saying that in real, actual numbers, Twitter was not worth $44 billion. That figure was purely invented by musk to show off. That he had to pay out is just karmic justice, not the objective valuation of Twitter.

And I'm not saying whoever put up that money isn't losing tremendously, either. They definitely have, and that's my point. Whether it was musk or someone he went begging to, it was an equally dumb decision since, again, Twitter wasn't worth that much.

Also, since you seen like you may know, afaik the "71% drop" is purely from one investment company, Fidelity, right? Are they a reliable authority in this? The only other time I've heard of them was during the Reddit drama last summer, so to me they mostly come off as latching onto Internet drama rather than providing sound investment advice. Do they have a good track record to earn this level of credit the news is giving them?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

Him paying the full amount doesn't really factor into my point, which is that Twitter wasn't that valuable.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (10 children)

What? I'm not really sure what you're trying to disprove here. We seem to be in agreement that the buyout sum didn't match the trading price*.

*The price before Musk started manipulating it with his showboating.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (19 children)

Something that I feel needs to be reiterated with all of these "news" pieces - the "71% drop" everyone is touting is from the stupidly high price Musk bought Twitter for that only ever represented his desire to flex, not the value held by the site itself. Even Musk knew it wasn't worth that much and tried desperately to get out of the deal himself.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Does anyone know if there's like, a style guide or something to article titles like that? I've always wondered but haven't had much luck finding anything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

It's not illegal to file a false copyright claim, unfortunately.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You think these people read as kids?

view more: ‹ prev next ›