I'm actually surprised he's not crossed that bridge. I do find it interesting to have a billionaire that doesn't even bother to pay lip service to being a civil human being but is just a massive racist tool.
But you know what if he met these people irl he'd get along fine with them I bet and there wouldn't be these unhinged outbursts. He's a complete paper tiger suffering a case of being terminally online because he thinks it's his job (it isn't).
Maybe he's taking something either prescribed or recreationally that has him perpetually on a knife edge like this.
That’s because he’s not and never was a businessman. He’s a tech guy who got super lucky and became filthy rich. Musk builds and designs shit, he doesn’t know squat about running a company. He should stick to playing with his rockets and making new roadsters. This whole CEO foray has turned out real bad.
He’s not even a tech guy. He inherited his money, and then lucked into a couple jobs with actual tech guys that he could take the credit for. His entire career has been built around buying other tech companies that were just taking off, pushing the original founders out, and then taking credit for everything everyone else did.
He’s a tech guy who got super lucky and became filthy rich.
Not even that…
He was (at best) an average coder decades ago who used family money to buy lots of startups and a few made a lot of money.
He was a gambler, not a businessman. It’s just when you start out wealthy you can keep buying lottery tickets till you win. It doesn’t even mean he was good at picking lottery numbers, he could just afford to buy more tickets than other people.
Not mine but… Entrepreneurship is like one of those carnival games where you throw darts or something. Middle class kids can afford one throw. Most miss. A few hit the target and get a small prize. A very few hit the center bullseye and get a bigger prize. Rags to riches! The American Dream lives on.
Rich kids can afford many throws. If they want to, they can try over and over and over again until they hit something and feel good about themselves. Some keep going until they hit the center bullseye, then they give speeches or write blog posts about “meritocracy” and the salutary effects of hard work.
Poor kids aren’t visiting the carnival. They’re the ones working it.
Also, we are all looking at this backwards. The very definition of survivorship bias.
We always only see the luckiest people. All the richest people have been super lucky, because if they weren’t, they wouldn’t be the richest. And also the most ruthless for the same reasons.
If you look at all the lottery winners, then by definition you will see people who gambled and won. Because someone has to win. That doesn’t mean the lottery winners have some better skillets or are smarter at picking numbers than those who didn’t win.
What’s crazy is that he had fooled a lot of people into thinking he was a tech guy with a very carefully crafted image, but he threw it all away to help the alt right
Lucky timing is: being a white guy growing up in the 70s/80s America.
Besides that, if you look at the company he started. It started selling books, but he always wanted to sell other stuff. His shareholder letters describe his vision from the very first one and it is consistent. It didn’t change over time. They company got lucky, they talk about prime being a fluke all the time. But on the other hand, the culture in the company was something that supported a fluke like that to bubble up through the idea pond.
Any who, yea. I don’t care for the person that the media portrays him as today. But for his initial years I absolutely give him a lot of credit.
I haven’t heard off Amazon being built on stolen ideas or usurping someone else’s company or being born with a silver spoon.
Yes he was a white male in America in the 70s and has all the privilege associated with that, but there were like another 50 million in that category.
It’s more about launching a company right when internet purchases took off. People tried before, but the timing wasn’t right. He had the right skill set, at the right time, and it took off.
The thing is the added complexity that the plaintiff is adding is just going to extend out the entire process. The filing indicates something like a 60% loss of ad revenue. Even if the case runs smooth as butter, there's no way Musk can get access to the money he's seeking in time to cover the massive loss plus the huge debt obligations he's sacked the company with already.
There's zero ways restitution from this case would ever give the company enough head above water quick enough to prevent drowning in debt.
He may not know much, but he knows the difference between a taped performance where the producers are trying to make him look good, and a live performance where he’ll be seen exactly as he is.
Yep. For all the people saying “but trump is great on camera”. You’ve been suckered too. When he can’t control the narrative or immediately discredit the evidence against him he is largely powerless and looks like the common crook he is.
Considering he can’t keep his mouth shut I think there’s a very real chance we see him slapped with contempt and tossed in the clink.
Oh how glorious it would be to see him in an orange jumpsuit.
Received reports for the source-- as usual, these are evaluated on a case-by-case basis as FoxNews is not currently “blacklisted”, it’s just “not-preferred”. After comparing this article to the one in the comments, they contain basically the same information and the conclusion is this particular post will be allowed to stay up. Many of the other links from Fox News have been taken down, not entirely because of the outlet, but because the content of the article went off the rails and did not match what other outlets had reported. If you have any discrepancies feel free to comment or tag me.
We respect that users may not want to click on links leading to Fox News, so as always we do encourage people to continue to post links to other outlets in the comments if you disagree with the source of any post (as ZephyrXero did here).
Elon Musk said Monday that X, formerly known as Twitter, has “no choice” but to file a defamation lawsuit against the Anti-Defamation League amid an ongoing slump in advertising revenue.
“Based on what we’ve heard from advertisers, ADL seems to be responsible for most of our revenue loss,” Musk wrote on Monday. “Giving them maximum benefit of the doubt, I don’t see any scenario where they’re responsible for less than 10% of the value destruction, so ~$4 billion.”
How to avoid being antisemitic, step one: Don’t blame your incompetence and piss poor judgement on “the Jews.”
I’m no accountant, but I have to imagine when he’s talking about “value” it’s not exact loss of sales, but something more like “projected sales for the next 10 years” or something.
There’s no way Twitter, a company that was overvalued at $43 billion, was also making $40billion a year in advertising sales.
He seems to be saying that the market value of Twitter is $40B less than what it was before stuff happened. "Value destruction" tends to be applied to "stock" (like market cap) rather than "flow" (like revenues).
He's basically saying Twitter is worth $4B, given that he paid $44B and seems to be saying $40B of values was destroyed.
Losing $40B in less than a year is, uh, remarkable.
The kind of gymnastics that apparently develop when you’re stupid rich and think you know better than everybody because you “made” some really smart-sounding companies.
What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to do to wind up there?
Remember, he grew up a rich white boy in full apartheid South Africa, and never matured beyond that. He has no ability for self-reflection or introspection. Which means he's never wrong, so someone else must be to blame. So far, that's included religious, racial, and sexual minorities. He's only going to grow more deranged as time goes on.
Twitter stockholders collectively received $44B from Musk on October 27. So, yes, Twitter was worth $44B at that moment. And, yes, it's also true that Musk grossly overpaid for a company probably worth around $10B because he made the most costly "420" joke in history. Both statements are simultaneously true.
This is probably bad data, but the conclusion at the bottom really caught my eye.
48,000 people die from guns each year. The extremely optimistic number of 49 instances of an active shooter being stopped by a civilian annually is not a good argument for keeping or increasing the amount of guns around.
Everyone comfortable with and able to be responsible for their own protection should take that responsibility. We should not be forced to rely on police who consistently prove they dont give a shit about us.
That’s an argument but I disagree that the person themselves should be in charge of the decision of whether or not they have the qualifications to control a deadly weapon. Have a certification test and a license you need to renew every once in a while, or heck just restrict private gun ownership to military veterans and people who have been trained in the public sector, and you minimize the number of people with guns and thus gun deaths (and thus overall deaths because they don’t transfer to other methods 1:1) while not relying on police.
Or take guns away from the police too, there are countries that do that.
Or maybe we should decide that it’s not the government’s job to be a nanny-state and protect people from themselves; because someone might misuse a tool and hurt themself with it isn’t a good reason to deny everybody the use of that tool.
Cuba is the sole example of a functional Communist Government. Their entire economy is based on tourism. Their citizens have more rights than anyone from Florida for example. The nation fully supports the LGBTQ community, it has free Healthcare and has a strong relationship with the European Union with job programs.
It still needs serious work in regards to human rights as it jails those who oppose the government.
From a United States perspective they would make a better ally than an enemy so we should continue to work on increasing diplomacy with Cuba.
No they were the people or ancestors of those who would not benefit from Marxism and/or those who escaped fir various reasons as people always seem to want to escape.
If I wanted to see what the “ground truth” looked like in Cuba, I’d look at Cuba rather than making dopey assumptions based on the people that chose to leave Cuba’s system in favour of the US.
This isn’t an error. It’s people claiming to have done a thing they did not do and demanding to be added to the count. To be clear, cops don’t stop violence either, most mass-shooters kill themselves in the end, but lone-gunmen are not out here protecting anybody. Guns only and always make confrontation deadlier than it has to be. There is no situation where having a gun makes you safer, whether you possess a license or not, and the statistics on mortality and gun ownership back that up, going back a long, long time.
Agitating for people to go fight the government with fucking handguns and long rifles is effectively carrying water for the people you hate. There are methods of resistance that are far less likely to get young people gunned down en masse, and by leveraging those methods first, the violence that eventually ensues can be reduced and contained as much as possible.
You have quite a few absolutes in this comment, and not all of them are correct.
Having access to a gun does statistically make you more likely to die of a gunshot, including significantly higher rates of suicide.
HOWEVER, stating that there are zero situations where having a gun would be better than not having a gun is just incorrect. It is highly unlikely for a gun to improve a situation, and it is an anomaly for a gun to make a difference, but there are well documented instances where a gun prevented the start of, or the continuation of, violence.
Flatly stating that there are no situations where a gun can make you safer is untrue. Pushing this hyperbole only helps keep the conversation on the wrong topics.
I mean, I simply disagree. Violence is always a failure, either of policy, or of personal behavior. Enabling people to escalate that failure to a deadly one with the twitch of a finger is simply not an acceptable paradigm. An armed society, contrary to the witticism, will never be a polite society, because it makes it stupendously easy for bad actors to cause disproportionate harm, relative to the ability of the community to reasonably prepare for. Removing guns entirely is the only reasonable solution if you actually want a free and peaceful society.
A disarmed society is not a free society, its completely reliant on the state for personal defence, when that responsibility should rest with the individual.
You are already reliant on the state for defense, whether you admit it or not. The very existence of states requires a functional monopoly on violence, and private gun ownership is just a fig leaf to obscure that fact. A fig leaf that leads to massive, unnecessary loss of life. If your definition of freedom is so limited that not owning a gun makes you automatically un-free, you do not actually believe in freedom, you believe in the right to violently interject yourself into the lives of others. That is pretty much the opposite of freedom.
I’m reliant on the state for defence on a larger scale, but in our personal lives, the state can do little to defend us from other individuals in a timely manner. That is why I believe everyone that is able to should be responsible for their own personal defence.
I’ve no desire to injerect in others lives, but I do have a desire to protect myself and my family where the state cannot or will not.
Okay, but following that logic, getting rid of all of the guns is still the best thing we could do, because it makes it much harder for people to quickly inflict a huge amount of harm. Ensuring that your local community is free of guns would do far more to protect you and your family than bringing a gun into your home, which you have already acknowledged is a highly dangerous thing to do. It’s like arguing that because your neighbor keeps a bear chained up in his yard, you ought to go out and get a bear, to protect yourself from his bear, when the clear answer is just to get the bears out of the neighborhood.
Ensuring that your local community is free of guns
Nice in theory, impossible in practice.
We spend $30+billion/year ensuring our communities are free of drugs. How’s that working out? From where I sit we may as well just put the cash in a giant pile and set it on fire, at least that way it would keep somebody warm.
Guns are easier to make than drugs. Any half-decent machine shop can make a gun, and unlike a drug lab, the machine shop has a lot of legitimate ‘day shift’ uses. Hobbyists make their own (legal) guns all the time in their basements. And the advent of cheap CNC machining tools makes it even easier.
Don’t get me wrong- I’m all ears for any proposal that disarms criminals. I don’t believe that disarming the law-abiding will help disarm criminals, at least I don’t see anywhere in our nation’s history where that has worked.
Australians now own more guns collectively than they did prior to Port Arthur just FYI, and their buyback only got about 1.2 million of the estimated 3.2 million guns in circulation at the time.
This is a nice idea, unfortunately it’s not generally realistic. It’s very ivory-tower idealistic.
Between rational people like you and I- yes I agree, violence is a failure. But not everybody is rational.
The fact is there ARE people in society who would harm their fellow humans, either for fun or for profit or because they just don’t know any better. I wish that wasn’t the case, but it is.
Ignoring this fact does not prevent such people from harming others, or protect those victims. And saying we should remove the means of self-defense because violence is failure is like saying we should remove airbags and seatbelts from cars because crashes are failures. Sure crashes and violence are failures, but sometimes failures happen and you are either prepared for the consequences or you’re not.
The other issue is that ‘remove guns entirely’ is simply not possible. You can disarm the law-abiding, but that will NOT disarm the criminals and those with no respect for the law. If you feel the law will prevent them from obtaining guns, then please explain why an anti-gun law will be any more effective than anti-drug laws (which we’ve been trying at for 30+ years, with little or no success).
Apples to oranges. Australia doesn’t have the same society as us- nowhere near the levels of drug problems and drug cartels, and they are more likely to treat addicts like patients who require treatment than criminals who should be punished by locking them up with even more violent criminals. Australia has WAY better mental and phyiscal health care and better protections for workers. It’s much closer to a socialized society than the USA is.
As a result they have significantly different problems, specifically, they DON’T have anywhere near the same level of drug problems and violent crime. Their culture doesn’t glorify violence as much as ours does, and we don’t have that mixed in with a much more ‘FU you’re on your own’ type socioeconomic policy.
THOSE changes are why much of AU is a safer society. I strongly advocate for making many of those changes in USA. Specifically- health care should be a human right (including mental health care), we should treat drug addicts like patients not criminals, and we should otherwise reform our society for the benefit of the people rather than the benefit of the corporations in the economy.
At this point you are arguing that gun reform can’t work simply because Americans are special. You are incorrect, and your position isn’t supported by anything other than propaganda.
Don’t be obtuse. I’m arguing that because America is different than Australia, what worked there isn’t guaranteed to work here, and that the causes of our gun issues run a lot deeper than guns. Therefore, rather than taking a simpleton answer of ‘it worked for them it’ll work for us!’ it makes sense to actually think about what are the underlying causes of our problems and if that solution will work or not.
I am absolutely not the one being obtuse here. Nothing you have claimed here is supported by actual evidence, unlike the pro-gun control position, and I’m not prepared to base our gun policy on vibes alone. You can spend all day saying ‘that’s different!’ but the facts are not on your side.
I’m not prepared to base our gun policy on vibes alone
Okay now we’re getting somewhere. I agree entirely, public policy should not be based on ‘vibes’ or emotions of any sort, no matter whose vibes they are. In a ‘Free Country’, if you’re going to set a policy or restrict someone’s freedoms (especially Constitutionally-enumerated freedoms), you need a damn good reason and some proof that your policy will have the desired effect. My ‘vibes’ are insufficient and so are yours.
So I as I see it, the answer, from real numbers, is pretty simple.
Per FBI Uniform Crime Report, there are about 10k-12k homicides by firearm per year.
I’ll take a moment to point out that rifles, which include the ‘assault’ rifles everyone wants to ban as well as other rifles, are used in about 200-350 homicides/year, which is less than half the 600-700 people who are punched and kicked to death. Not a huge threat there.
But back on subject. 10-12k firearm homicides per year.
In comparison, there are minimum of 55k defensive gun uses per year. A DGU is when a law-abiding person uses a legal firearm to stop or prevent a crime. The vast majority end with no shots fired- the criminal sees the gun and runs away.
The exact number of such incidents is much harder to nail down, because unlike homicides, they aren’t centrally tracked. Many DGUs don’t get reported- the criminal runs away quickly so there’s not much to report; and there’s no central reporting or tracking as there is with homicide. Thus DGUs must be tracked by various statistical survey methods, leading to the a wide disparity in numbers. Anti-gun researcher Hemenway puts it at 55k-80k/year, pro-gun researcher Lott puts it in the millions. I say it’s probably somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.
So I look at these two pieces of data. 10-12k firearm homicide per year, a large % of which is done by prohibited persons and/or illegal guns (which are already illegal). On the other side, 55k+ DGUs, the vast majority of it done by legal persons and legal guns.
And I conclude if we enact anti-gun policy, it will affect the people who follow the law more than those who don’t; namely; it will reduce DGUs at a greater rate than firearm homicide. And that is not a good trade in my book.
My thoughts are that you are literally pulling a conclusion that the numbers don’t support out of your ass because you ‘feel’ the numbers are probably higher. The entire premise is flawed from the beginning anyway, because any situation where a person pulls a gun on a person without a gun is not a defensive use of a gun, and certainly doesn’t make anyone involved safer. Any interaction between two gun wielding individuals is similarly not a case of a good guy preventing violence. If neither had guns, neither would get shot. It is literally that simple.
I said that given two biased partisan researchers who produce a high and a low number, I feel the reality is probably somewhere between them. That seems pretty logical to me. If you disagree, can you explain what you think the correct number of DGUs is and how you come to that conclusion?
any situation where a person pulls a gun on a person without a gun is not a defensive use of a gun, and certainly doesn’t make anyone involved safer.
This is easily disproven. Here’s one obvious scenario.
Single mid-20s attractive female is legally armed with carry permit. She is walking home from work when she’s confronted by a would-be rapist who blocks her way and insists he comes with her. She draws her weapon and orders him out of her way. He immediately surrenders and does the whole ‘I’m sorry I didn’t mean nothing you don’t gotta overreact like that’. No shots are fired. She then leaves the area and continues home unharmed.
That woman is safer and unharmed and unraped BECAUSE she carried her gun.
any situation where a person pulls a gun on a person without a gun is not a defensive use of a gun
"You must defend from your assailants with an attack of equal or lesser hit points or it doesn't count." Am I allowed to pepper spray someone punching me? Or do I need to know what they bench first? Where do knives rank on the chart? And how does this system scale with multiple assailants?
Any interaction between two gun wielding individuals is similarly not a case of a good guy preventing violence
Regardless of whether violence is a failure of policy or personal behaviour, you need a solution for violence happening to you. What’s your recommendation for Zelenskiy, for example? The violence is happening right now, whether he likes it or not. It is too late to decry that it happened; all he can do now is attempt to deal with it. And to date, no known human has pitched a nonviolent, feasible method.
Zelenskiy is the democratically elected head of state, he has as good a mandate as anyone to use force on behalf of his people. The fact that Russia was allowed to invade in the first place, despite security guarantees from both Russia and the US is the failure here. In any case, that argument is a complete non-seqitur to what I actually said. I never said violence was completely preventable, but you absolutely can make it much harder.
This isn’t an error. It’s people claiming to have done a thing they did not do and demanding to be added to the count.
You're allowed to read the article, you know. They literally cite with corroborated news articles every single claimed omission, they didn't compile this from Google form submissions. They're not "I had a knife pulled on me in an alley" stories, they're instances of live fire into crowds that the FBI is drastically undercounting due to reliance on either local law enforcement reporting incidents or national news media reporting on them. I don't think these are the numbers you'd get with omniscience, real story here to me is that the FBI undercounts so drastically (and potentially with such bias) that you can cite enough new instances to swing their results by an order of magnitude.
I did read the article, and you are not understanding what the article is claiming. All of those events have been counted, as a separate category of firearm incident, and gun-advocacy groups want them counted a different way. The total number of gun-related events is not in dispute, only whether they make good propaganda points for the death cult side of the argument. They are trying to claim that a ‘good guy with a gun’ frequently prevents violence, and that is simply not what the data presented shows. They are trying to claim that a methodological error has been made, when the reality is that they are just wrong and trying to lie about it.
This is EXACTLY the same dynamic that’s driving rural hospitals into closure. Costs are going up, labor force is shrinking, and there aren’t enough people living in rural areas to make service of any kind economical. Their ability to live and thrive in the hinterland was always subsidized by the federal government. We paid for their highways, their electrical grid, their postal service, their bridges, and we’re currently subsidizing their “last mile” internet service. The free market doesn’t give a single fuck about them and isn’t going to provide anything for them that doesn’t have a slam dunk ROI. Conservatives are about to learn the hard way why “gub’mint bad” is a fucking horrible philosophy if you’re living in a town with a population that’s smaller than the seating capacity of a single football stadium. The government was the only thing keeping those communities alive through the late 20th century, and thanks to “drown the government in a bathtub” troglodytes they’re about to be abandoned and left to fend for themselves.
We tried to warn them, and they spit in our faces, so fuck em.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.