Elon Musk trying to buy Twitter (edit: deal has been finalized)

RustyShackleford said:
No matter how toxic Musk's fanboys get, I don't think it can ever top Jobs. Jobs got the looniest fanbase on lock for the next century of the strength of this...
elizabeth-holmes11.0.1487522957.jpg


An elite level scammer too :smokin
Click to expand...

I remember reading the book Bad Blood with my jaw on floor

Ive seen a lot of audacious scams in my day....only white person to achieve Nigerian level audacity

I thought Maybe we do live in a post racial world :lol:
 
osh kosh bosh said:
I remember reading the book Bad Blood with my jaw on floor

Ive seen a lot of audacious scams in my day....only white person to achieve Nigerian level audacity

I thought Maybe we do live in a post racial world :lol:
Click to expand...
Famb, when read about her scamming I couldn't believe it either

You mean to tell me that some Steve Jobs fanboy went to Stanford, got told to her face that her plan for a company won't work because the science behind it made no sense

And instead of taking no for an answer, she finds the most well-connected thirsty dude in Silicon Valley

Gets mans sprung of some young AWG yambs

Then starts cosplaying Jobs, speaking like Rick Ross, and managed to bamboozle highly educated CEOs, billionaires, and world leaders.

And she kept this scam going for years. :rofl:

Hushpuppi probably had posters of her up in his mansions
 
Last edited:
osh kosh bosh said:
Rural internet sucked so bad, Starlink is literally like 60 to 100 times faster

until the government tunnels fibre to my home
my opinion of Elon will always be somewhat positive. :lol:
Click to expand...

You can also thank the FCC and their 900 million dollar funding for that internet :lol:

www.cnbc.com

SpaceX's Starlink wins nearly $900 million in FCC subsidies to bring internet to rural areas

The FCC awarded Elon Musk's SpaceX with nearly $900 million worth of federal subsidies to support rural customers with its Starlink satellite internet network
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
 
osh kosh bosh said:
lolwut?
you pull this out constantly like it's the big joker? I'm baffled. :lol:


like 900 million in subsidies were available for people to reach underserved areas
and this invalidates Starlink how?

you act like there's Elon exclusive government subsidy. :lol:
Click to expand...
osh kosh bosh said:
a: "Man Steve Jobs is so smart I love the iPhone"

b: "wElL aKsHualy!!! government subsidized the development of mobile internet soooooo
Steve Jobs is a fraud. I am very smart."

we get it, you don't like Musk. :lol:
Click to expand...
Unless you have beef with dude from a previous thread, you really doing too much right now.

It is a completely fair point that Starlink is a viable service because of government money and other interventions. I mean most American-based ISPs are, to be honest.

Anyway, thanking CEOs for a service/good just sounds weird to me generally.
 
Last edited:
RustyShackleford said:
Unless you have beef with dude from a previous thread, you really doing too much right now

It is a completely fair point that Starlink is a viable service because of government largesse and other interventions. I mean most American-based ISPs are, to be honest.

Anyway, thanking CEOs for a service/good just sounds weird to me generally.
Click to expand...

imo it's a totally obvious point that doesn't invalidate the achievement.
obviously ISPs benefit from government subsidy. water is wet, the sky is blue.
im obviously aware of this.

it doesn't change the fact that Starlink is a significant achievement and a significant improvement in the marketplace.


in my country they've been trying to incentivise isps to invest in rural broadband for 30 years.
and there's been zero improvement.

Starlink is a significant improvement, and pretty significantly improvement in the lives of lots of people
thanks to Elon's company. other companies were unwilling to make the investment or take the risk, Elon did it
I don't think it's weird to be thankful for that.

man it sucked so bad.
if the big 3 isps showed up to my door with 100 down internet id thank them also. :lol:
 
osh kosh bosh said:
imo it's a totally irrelevant point,
obviously ISPs benefit from government subsidy. water is wet, the sky is blue.
im obviously aware of this.

it doesn't change the fact that Starlink is a significant achievement and a significant improvement in the marketplace.


in my country they've been trying to incentivise isps to invest in rural broadband for 30 years.
and there's been zero improvement.

Starlink is a significant improvement, and pretty significantly improvement in the lives of lots of people
thanks to Elon's company. other companies were unwilling to make the investment or take the risk, Elon did it
I don't think it's weird to be thankful for that.

man it sucked so bad.
if the big 3 isps showed up to my door with 100 down internet id thank them also. :lol:
Click to expand...
As an economist, to me, they are not irrelevant

If I treat Elon as a rational economic actor, as a smart dude, then the calculation he had to make to go forward with Starlink included the fact that the market is affected by the industrial policy of the federal government

You want to make an economic argument to praise Elon, while complaining about people bringing up a point about the economics of the situation. That just seems intellectually dishonest to me

If it was easier and cheaper for companies to lay fiber (or legally allowed to), or cellular platforms advanced faster (which will be an issue for Starlink in the future), or companies didn't abandon DSL, there might be less demand for Starlink; and Elon would have less reason to make take the risk. Markets matter.

Starlink is a major improvement over other options, true, that is 100% true. But the fact is that there are other technologies that could hurt the business and rest assured Elon will be against them when the time comes for them to get the government boost.

Elon is a profit-motivated, economic actor. He didn't do anything out of the goddess of his heart, he didn't jump into the market unknowing of how government intervention would benefit him. Cool you benefit from one of his businesses. Good for you.

But generally, it is fair for someone to point out his business meeting a need in the market is not the whole story.
 
Last edited:
RustyShackleford said:
As an economist, to me, they are not irrelevant

If I treat Elon as a rational economic actor, as a smart dude, then the calculation he had to make to go forward with Starlink included the fact that the market is affected by the industrial policy of the federal government

You want to make an economic argument to praise Elon, while complaining about people bringing up a point about the economics of the situation. That just seems intellectually dishonest to me

If it was easier and cheaper for companies to lay fiber, or cellular platforms advanced faster, or companies didn't abandon DSL, there might me must less demand for Starlink. And Elon would have less reason to make to the risk. Markets matter.

Starlink is a major improvement over other options, true, that is 100% true. But the fact is that there are other technologies that could hurt the business and rest assured Elon will be against them when the time comes.

Elon is a profit-motivated, economic actor. He didn't do anything out of the goddess of his heart, he didn't jump into the market unknowing of how government intervention would benefit him. Cool you benefit from one of his businesses. Good for you.

But generally, it is fair for someone to point out his business meeting a need in the market is not the whole story.
Click to expand...

i don't really know if we are disagreeing all that much. irrelevant was the wrong word to use
Im not like saying he's like a benevolent force.

i would literally love it if the government subsidized tunnelling fibre to my house and put starlink out of business. :lol:
tbh I think it's stupid that we don't.

all im saying is other rational economic actors had access to basically the same set of information
and they decided either

a. do nothing.
b. charge me 150 bucks a month for dial up internet speeds.

to me as an end user, government subsidy doesn't diminish the quality of life upgrade.
so pointing just seems like pointing out the obvious.


**** government is out her subsidizing 5G internet as the future of rural broadband, and that has so far been total dud.
it's just created a new conspiracy for weirdos to freak out about. :lol:
 
osh kosh bosh said:
i don't really know if we are disagreeing all that much. irrelevant was the wrong word to use
Im not like saying he's like a benevolent force.

i would literally love it if the government subsidized tunnelling fibre to my house and put starlink out of business. :lol:
tbh I think it's stupid that we don't.

all im saying is other rational economic actors had access to basically the same set of information
and they decided either

a. do nothing.
b. charge me 150 bucks a month for dial up internet speeds.

to me as an end user, government subsidy doesn't diminish the quality of life upgrade.
so pointing just seems like pointing out the obvious.


**** government is out her subsidizing 5G internet as the future of rural broadband, and that has so far been total dud.
it's just created a new conspiracy for weirdos to freak out about. :lol:
Click to expand...

-From their point of view, it is completely rational.

Incumbent companies, especially publicly traded one doesn't like to invest in tech they feel can cannibalize products they already have. If they can profit maximize by serving fewer customers in a market they will. This oftentimes bits them in the ***, but it is natural for people/businesses to be risk-averse and not think that long term.

The most famous example of this was how phone companies could have invented the internet and come upon one of the biggest technological advancements in history. But they fear that such an invention will lead to market entry from other firms into their phone business, using the internet, and cut into their profits.

The government had to subsidize a lot of the R&D.

New companies don't have that issue. They see unserved customers were eager to enter after they see the government invest in something.

And I feel that is where Musk's really shines. He is really good at identifying technological problems and trying to address that. Comes at things as an engineer, trying to build a good to meet the need of customers other firms are unwilling to do.

-But Elon is not immune to falling into the same thinking that other firms fall into

Look at Hyperloop, look at how an asinine idea is built on identifying a real problem. High-speed ground transportation is very needed in America. The easy solution is building bullet trains.

Besides all the issues with getting them built (the cost be the main thing) it is clearly the best idea.

Instead, Elon wants people to get into pods so they can be shot through a tube and the speed of a bullet. :lol:

-The Boring company's idea is another example. Elon correctly identifies the problem with the lack of tunnels under cities. Tunnels that could elevate road congestion.

So instead of making actual usual tunnels, you can have trains or even express busses drive through (the Boring Company is specifically against buses being put in the tunnels they want to put in Vegas). This fool wanted people to drive their cars onto moving platforms and then have cars move on motorized platforms :smh:

Mans built a tunnel near the Vegas convention center and it is one of the most unimpressive things ever. They had to abandon the moving platforms, now it is just someone driving you in a Tesla. It is Uber with exclusive roads.

And of course, Elon will not be a big pusher to mass and public transportation projects that are actually functional because his is selling people cars, mass transit hurts his bottom line so he doesn't want to go down that path, and cannibalize his very profitable business.

And that's what motivates all his hypocrisy on government subsidies. He is all for it once it benefits him, but against it when he sees them as a threat to his market power. He is a plain ole rent-seeking economic actor just like the CEOs of all the companies he ****s on for not being forward-thinking enough. Elon doesn't want the next Elon to exist.

All of Elon's brilliance is when he can act as the entrant to the market. Pointing out the deficiencies and looking to solve them. Outside of that lane, his hypocrisy and self-serving nature gets exposed really quickly. Just like the people would not go all-in on Starlink

I would agree that to the consumer, to the end-user, all that matters is quality of life improvement. But once the conversation expands to crediting Elon for it, I feel there should be space to discuss his decision in a broader context.

But generally, I think we agree on a lot about Elon. While falling on either side of the like-dislike line

Honest if he would treat his workers with some damn respect I would not dislike the dude so much. That is really inexcusable to me
 
Last edited:
**** is so dumb man, the underground Tesla tunnel moving 4 people at a time.

Why wouldn’t he just use a train so he could act like he invented that too?
 
They did much more than say it would rot brains. They forcibly removed music from the shelves and threated to arrest music store owners and artists.












HNL HI said:
funny you post that cause I'm pretty sure all the people who used to say video games and rap music will rot your brain was the ones last year saying JFK was still alive
Click to expand...

Same ones who "boycotted" Starbucks over red cups and using holiday vs Christmas
 
Last edited:
RustyShackleford said:
And I feel that is where Musk's really shines. He is really good at identifying technological problems and trying to address that. Comes at things as an engineer, trying to build a good to meet the need of customers other firms are unwilling to do.
Click to expand...
The "genius" of Musk is in not being afraid to throw money at a problem until a solution materializes.

Everything you said before this is true too. It's not that the problems we identify don't have solutions; it's that the solutions don't make economic sense for most entities that are in a position to solve them.

His entire enterprise is a consequence of privatizating R&D. There are a lot of people who could put together a decent team of technical folks who would address the issues Tesla, SpaceX, and all his companies are working on. Dude is no Nikola Tesla.

RustyShackleford said:
-But Elon is not immune to falling into the same thinking that other firms fall into

Look at Hyperloop, look at how an asinine idea is built on identifying a real problem. High-speed ground transportation is very needed in America. The easy solution is building bullet trains.

Besides all the issues with getting them built (the cost be the main thing) it is clearly the best idea.

Instead, Elon wants people to get into pods so they can be shot through a tube and the speed of a bullet. :lol:
Click to expand...

He could have easily made national air travel obsolete with conventional TGVs, but the guy had to get too creative. And yes, his greed is the reason he will never entertain solutions that may endanger the EV market, even if they are demonstrably more effective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom