An estimated $4 to $20 billion in value, what is he thinking?

176 points
*

Honestly, after this, and hearing some of his recent interviews: I am genuinely convinced that not only is Elon Musk not a genius, but he possess subpar intelligence. You can’t convince me otherwise, I am 100% convinced that the dude is just a clinical moron.

There has been a meme comparing Elon Musk to Wheatley from Portal 2 being put in charge of the whole Aperture Science center and it immediately going to shit, because this robot was literally purposely designed to be a moron… It keeps on getting truer.

To me, he is like Trump, people thinking the dude is a genius, and he’s constantly playing 4D chess, but over time, everything ends up proving that the simplest theory is the correct one, the dude is just a fucking idiot. A man so profoundly stupid at their core that people had to convince themselves, he actually was a secret genius for their nonsense to make sense, like believing that Jar Jar Binks was secretly a mastermind Sith Lord.

If there ever was a perfect demonstration of wealth not equating intelligence, or even merit, the absolute inexistence of meritocracy, this might be it.

permalink
report
reply
63 points

It’s even worse than that.

Musk is practically stuck in a 13yo’s mindset. The golden spoon has been sticking out of his arse since birth, but of course momma and poppa will make little Elmo believe he’s a genius because he has… gasp… ideas.

So they push a shitton of money into his education and ideas, and of course he gets stuck in the typical preteen daydreaming phase of being a genius billionaire who can never be wrong. The money allows him to surround himself with people who actually KNOW how to deal with stuff - including making sure he can’t screw things up. And that’s how the whole Musk Management department of SpaceX was practically born.

But now Twitter is a different story, all his safety nets are gone, and it’s all on him. Of course he fumbles it big time.

Simply said, yes, he’s an absolute moron. With more money than common sense or logic or talent or knowledge or… Okay this list could go on for a while, I think it’s best to stop here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The biggest irony is that with Emerald Boy 100% preoccupied with Twitter, his other companies are flourishing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points
*

I really liked the Some More News episode on this! It explains pretty well how regardless of a rich person’s intelligence they probably get corrupted by mental distortions due to being rich. That is, Elon haa probably been powertripping for too long and lost all basis on how to take good decisions because he lives in his own rich fantasy world thinking he accomplished everything because of his own superior genius…

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points
*

I worked for a guy, many years ago, small scale version of Musk. Guys like that hate to be contradicted. He had gone into partnership with my old company - which was a digital election company (back in the 90s and early 00s). We prided ourselves on our security and anonymity measures. Under this new company, this guy because CEO, and the first thing he did was tell everyone we could make “millions” by selling user data. I pointed out that violated out privacy and anonymity standards, and not even the next day I was reprimanded for speaking out.

You don’t need to be a billionaire to be stupid. Affluent is enough of a threshold. These are all grifters, granted many being successful. The grifters in this company were big fish/little pond. But they ruined a lovely little company that could have been stable and steady, recession-proof income for decades. Instead, they grifted the angel investors, ran the company into the ground and ended up spawning dozens of competitors in the field whereas before there were only 2 or 3.

These guys go from start-up grift to start-up grift, maintaining their affluence on the investor’s dime. I would say they, and the vulture capitalists they dance with deserve each other, but unfortunately, regular folks are always the collateral damage.

Musk was likely always an idiot, but was propped up by money, and earlier on either knew his place (as the “faceman”) or was adroitly distracted from direct involvement with the actual running of the company he bought.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Love Cody’s Showdy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Didn’t get essentially buy established companies and then pretend he invented them.

Tesla and spacex for sure. PayPal was created by merging with another company that did a lot of the work.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

He does indeed have a history of paying his way into looking like a visionary and/or an engineer. He bought into Tesla in early 2004, it was founded in mid 2003.

His comfort zone was convincing people to give him money for one really ambitious thing, and then using that money to achieve some other thing (that no one would have given him money for) that is sort of on the way, but which has commercial value to him.

For example, he has repeatedly said his companies will deliver full self-driving cars by dates that have passed - and convinced investors to get him in a position to compete with companies like Toyota, promised a ‘hyperloop’ and got funding to compete with other horizontal drilling companies, promised to send people to mars and got to compete with other satellite technology companies.

So making big promises paid off for him. For the investors, in terms of long term value, they might have been better off investing in existing companies he ended up competing with.

But I suspect he is now outside his comfort zone, and might not even realise how far out of his depth he is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

https://time.com/6203815/elon-musk-flaws-billionaire-visions/ the Hyperloop only exists to thunderfuck public transportation projects. Stop giving him benefit of the doubt.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Adam Something has a lot of videos explaining how stupid his ideas are, including the whole plan to “go to Mars”. They are all grifts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I think he used to be at least business smart earlier in his life. I keep parroting it, but he might have covid fog, or destroyed his brain with drugs or something…

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

The most convincing argument that elon does a lot of cocaine is just listening to him speak in a less formal interview.

BUT! I don’t think he used to be actually smart, just lucky. Too many people assume “succesful” people had to have done something exceptional to earn it, but 99% of extremely wealthy people acquired that extreme wealth through a simple combination of luck and startup capital (which of course they have because they are lucky).

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

Over half of his enterprises have folded. Including companies that he bought up.

He’s an idea guy and that’s it. And even that is more credit than what’s due - he’s got superficial ideas at best.

The one thing that sets him apart from the average Joe with a failed business is that he’s got the capital to try over and over again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

He purchased his companies from other people who had already developed the ideas. The only patent with Musks name on it for Tesla is the charging port that is proprietary so other electric vehicles couldn’t use tesla charging stations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

There are so many ways to dunk on him lately that I don’t think there’s a need to misrepresent this stuff. I think we can give him some flowers for being neck deep in the Tesla Roadster and SpaceX Falcon 1 design and release processes almost 20 years ago. But, then he did a Pokemon evolution from that baseline crazy to whatever we’re seeing now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

The charging port is now an open standard, and pretty much every EV in North America will be using it in a few years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I’ve never thought Musk was a genius playing 4D chess, I just think he’s a clown dancing around and bonking himself in the fact to distract us from the damage that’s being done.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
125 points

Everything is tweets now, on all platforms; hear me out.

It might sound lazy, and I certainly have no loyalty to the Twitter brand, but if Musk isn’t going to defend it we have the opportunity to dilute and generalize the term (like zipper or band-aid). We can kill it dead AND reclaim it.

It’s a good word! Short, sweet, has familiarity, and is honestly pretty descriptive for the simple bird-like chatter of the discourse. Everything else proposed sounds dumb as hell, not to mention you’re doing the marketing for them. Don’t sell their brands - suffocate them!

permalink
report
reply
118 points

I enjoyed reading this tweet

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

Not gonna lie, that still felt a little dirty. But I already posted it to the internet and there’s no going backsies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points
*

As someone who prefers threaded interaction, it’s gonna be hard to stop calling them posts. Maybe that’s what my grandkids will think is old fashioned about me.

“They’s been posts since BBS and they’ll stay posts!”

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

I think personal micro-blogging (mastodon) and posting forum-style topics (reddit) can have different words?

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

The original post was at least half joking in tone, but in seriousness, I think there’s an argument to be made that “posts” applies to topical threads. Threads that originate with a piece of content like a link or self post and that all following discussion is at least tangentially related. I’d call them posts here on Lemmy for that.

Tweets, however, often originate out of thin air, be it someone’s head or ass. When someone says, “Kanye West ‘tweeted’ <INSERT OPINION HERE>” you’ve already determined about how seriously you’re going to take it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

So tweets will be the generic term for short top level posts that aren’t responding to anything?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

this appeals to me on such a visceral level.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Nice tweet bro

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

As a corollary, should tweeting on The-Platform-Formerly-Known-As-Twitter be tested to exclusively as X-ing? Just to rub it in?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

I remember when twitter first came out and people were talking about “tweets” and it sounded just as stupid as xing sounds today. But the word has made it into mainstream lexicon and been normalized. Just like “googling” something just means to search. Tweet will mean to message something. I think part of the reason he is abandoning twitter is because it is becoming increasingly hard to legally fight other people using the terms for his platform for other platforms. For instance Mastadon is using “toot” which started from “twoot” which started from tweet.

I also still think he is an idiot for abandoning a brand name that is literally in every house and on every storefront. Even if they cant defend the vocabulary to abandon it all is the dumbest business decision I’ve ever heard of.

p.s. for xing I like “kissing” since XOXO is hugs and kisses with the X being the kiss. Considering how homophobic Elon is having his platform being a bunch of people kissing would just be to perfect!

permalink
report
parent
reply

@Master @audaxdreik that’s a good point. There are all sorts of trade names now in common use, but those products still kept their names.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

You make an interesting point, but I’m most comfortable calling them posts. Because that’s what they are. The term “post” applies to any and all blogging services, regardless of their branding.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

As long as nobody is using the term “toot” unironically, I’m OK with that

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I’d rather just use the term post or comment. Like on Reddit or Lemmy, how do you determine what is a tweet? It’s posts and comments.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Just because the company won’t actively use the trademark going forward doesn’t mean they don’t still own it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
103 points

“Our logo is our most recognizable asset. That’s why we’re so protective of it.” -Twitter’s (Currently Outdated) Brand Toolkit Page

permalink
report
reply
89 points

The best part is that because now it’s just Unicode 𝕏, the logo is public domain and it can be used by anyone in that exact shape in any context.

No matter how good are their patent lawyers, I don’t think they will succeed to trademark prior art designed by someone else

permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points

Also read that Microsoft is holding the trademark on ‘X’ because of DirectX, X-Box, etc…

I wonder how long until Elon pulls the “it’s just a joke bro”

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Meta hold the trademark on X for social networking, I read. Maybe it will be in the prize pot for the cage fight?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Is it April already?

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points
*

It’s even worse than that. X is used so widely in trademarks that it’s guaranteed to attract lawsuits. Facebook had to settle several claims over the change to Meta, and the use of X is a much bigger problem than that. And Musk is so dumb that he’ll probably try to fight them and end up paying a fortune in legal fees anyway.

Edit: Relevant article: https://www.reuters.com/technology/problem-with-x-meta-microsoft-hundreds-more-own-trademarks-new-twitter-name-2023-07-25/

permalink
report
parent
reply
74 points

I don’t think twitter has $30B in valuation left. Musk bought it for $44B (which was beyond its value at the time, but okay). Since his takeover, it’s lost between 50-60% of its value. That was as of several months ago, so I have to imagine it’s even less now.

With the loss of brand equity, they might be sliding towards the single digit billions very quickly.

He’s just setting money on fire at this point.

permalink
report
reply
27 points

Dude it’s 4D chess brah /s

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

I have read here on Lemmy someone claim this is all political and just 4D chess to own the libs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

What I don’t understand is how he can still be in charge, at all? Do shareholders not have any legal mechanism to get him removed?

permalink
report
parent
reply
60 points

He is the only share owner. He bought the whole company.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Oh shit, I thought he just bought a majority stake in it. Sucks that he’s able to disrupt so many employees’ lives in the process of his tantrums & acid trip ideas.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

The second largest investors in Elon’s Twitter are the Saudis. They might not take kindly to such antics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

He’s the largest shareholder and it’s a private company, which is why we depend on companies holding his debt for guesstimates about the valuation. There’s no market forces that are punishing him for bad decisions, other than him not being able to service his/twitter’s debt based on twitter’s dwindling income.

Jack Dorsey and his Saudi partners agreed to hold onto their shares (ie, not force Musk to buy them) and together they held about $3.5B out of the $44B valuation when it went private. Dorsey just started offering some super gentle criticism while saying it’s a very hard job.

I don’t know if they’re under NDAs, or if they’re afraid of crashing their investments further by criticizing him in public, or if they just don’t care because what’s a few billion between friends. Maybe they’re sending him angry texts.

I’m just hoping that someone comes out with a tell-all that ends up being a movie called The Anti-Social Network.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Musk bought it, he’s the sole shareholder now. It’s not a public company anymore.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Prior to Musk, IIRC, the valuation was around $11B.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

TWTR had about 765M shares outstanding. I didn’t follow them throughout the entire run up to the Muskening, but it looked like they were averaging somewhere in the neighborhood of $35/share, meaning their valuation would be about $25-30B. I’m deliberately ignoring the fact that they went into the 60s and 70s for an extended period in 2021 because I’m not sure what was driving that apart from cheap money and higher online activity during covid.

I still think he overpaid by a factor of about 1.5.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

So you’re saying it’s worth at least 20 billion? Still seems too high to me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

It’s probably between $15-20B right now.

I think it comes with a salvage title though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

He bought Twitter back when cash was cheap. That alone could be a couple billion in valuation at least.

permalink
report
parent
reply
53 points

On purpose.

Only clearer by the day that this was all an exercise to intentionally kill Twitter to the benefit of billionaires, fascists and other extremists.

Twitter existed as a relatively free and open public space to communicate, organize and assemble to take actions for and against things at scale before musk (e.g. The Arab Spring, a terrifying moment for the Saudis especially - the second largest shareholder behind musk).

When people collectively laughed at elon and his cringe, inbred, emerald boy antics or his humiliating divorce and other routine failures, Twitter was the bullhorn.

Now elon and his desperate far right Toadies will work to try to rewrite reality so they can eventually have this conversation:

"Twitter? What’s a Twitter? Wait, are you talking about blork? A bird? No, blork’s logo is a dinosaur with chainsaw arms… and everyone wants to be his best friend… and it’s against the law to divorce him… and he’s cool… and…"

What an everlasting tool history will remember you as, elon. If they remember you at all, it will be to laugh at you - you’ll never outrun that.

permalink
report
reply
44 points
*

Stop giving Musk so much credit, he’s shown historically that he’s just massive narcissistic fuck up who got lucky in the dot com bubble. There’s no reason to think there’s some far right conspiracy here, he only bought the website because he got in a pissing match and couldn’t get out when he tried.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

If anything, what this has really shown is he’s exceptionally bad at software-first companies and people. His successes have been in high risk manufacturing markets blended with software methodology, ie reusable rockets, electric vehicles, and storage.

I honestly think he’s just a guy clearly on the spectrum with grand visions that works in certain markets and completely fails in others. Regardless of his poor character, ascribing everything to luck seems a little emotional to me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

I’m inclined to agree with others here in the thread. I honestly don’t think this was an intentional action designed to tank Twitter. It may well be doing just that, but frankly, Elon has proven time and again that he’s a world-class idiot.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Musk did not pay $44 billion to buy Twitter. He paid $26 billion, underwritten by stock in Tesla, which subsequently lost significant value. $5 billion was from other investors including the Saudi Prince.

The remaining $13 billion was a loan Twitter took out to buy itself on Musk’s behalf. Even before Musk started tanking the revenue, Twitter could not afford that debt - the interest alone was comparible to its revenue. That debt is probably about what Twitter is worth right now after the name change, making it pretty much unviable as a business.

You don’t have to look at Musk’s antics to conclude that the intention was to kill the company. You only have to look at the financials.

Leveraged buyouts almost always lead to the business closing. It’s how Toys R Us, and many other staple brands, were brought down.

permalink
report
parent
reply

What does it mean for Twitter to take out a loan to buy itself?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Tesla stock is worth more now than when Twitter went private.

And if Musk intended to kill Twitter, he would have simply shut down the servers last year.

What you are seeing is the result of mistakes, not a conspiracy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Twitter isn’t and never was useful as an organizing tool. Arab spring was a failure. Twitter is actually more useful to the ruling class than not because it gives a way for the masses to expend it’s restless energy without changing anything.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Of course there are degrees of usefulness and different types of organizing, but generally, your wrong here in your first point. Some merit in your second claim, but overall, it’s something they likely feared to a degree as a point of connection and amplification of information.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

What an everlasting tool history will remember you as, elon.

Biggest tool in the history of tools.

Only clearer by the day that this was all an exercise to intentionally kill Twitter to the benefit of billionaires, fascists and other extremists.

When I initially heard about Elon paying what he did for Twitter my first thought was he’s buying it to kill it, then I thought nobody in their right mind would spend that kind of money to carry out a personal vendetta. Now I think that’s absolutely what’s going on.

I believe he’s killing Twitter purely for personal reasons (he hates it because people gave him shit there). I don’t think there’s some kind of grand social agenda. It would require an assumption he cares about someone other than himself. Unlikely as the guy’s ego extends past Planet 9.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

He needs daddy’s approval and the other billionaires are surrogate daddy. That would be the social agenda influence you’re referencing. Look at how desperate and odd he was on stage with dave chapelle, that was a core view into his base self, he needs to be praised. He’s also a eugenics/natalism cult member and sees the wealthy as his equal, superior “race” of people - so he would 100% sacrifice a lot for even their passing approval.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

On purpose.

Only clearer by the day that this was all an exercise to intentionally kill Twitter to the benefit of billionaires, fascists and other extremists.

I truly thought it was just tone deafness and overconfidence on the part of Musk for a good potion of this. But the last few events, along with various comments he has made along the way, have me concluding that this must be true.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@beehaw.org

Create post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 2.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.5K

    Posts

  • 82K

    Comments