Twitter likely to take idiots offer to buy them for $43 billion

[Elixir]

Trump won the election. QED!

If 5m makes something likely (or even possible) then THIS is obviously a certainty.
Here we see the kind of "logic' that puts orange morons in charge of nukes.
"I'm not saying it's true but it's what people are saying. People are saying it. Great people. And they're saying it. They're saying it!"

delete your Twitter account day

I'm in!

 

[marc]

 

[Tigers!]

I just hope that Musk will keep Twitter as the place where calm, reasoned discussions between calm, reasonable and responsible persons can take place. Just like in the old days.

Disclaimer: I have never held a Twitter account and do not wish to wade in the Cloaca Maxima that it appears to be.

 

[lpetrich]

Opinion | For Elon Musk, Lessons From Friendster - The New York Times

For Elon Musk, the new owner of Twitter, the demise of Friendster is a cautionary tale. Friendster, a social network founded in 2002, gained millions of users soon after it started but lost them almost as quickly, later metamorphosing into an online gaming site based in Malaysia before closing down entirely in 2018. Already by 2009, The Onion satirical news site ran a story headlined “Internet Archaeologists Find Ruins of ‘Friendster’ Civilization.”

Then discussing how Friendster collapsed.

Author Peter Coy then interviewed an expert in computational social science, David Garcia, about how that happened.

The risk for Twitter, as for any social network, is “unraveling,” Garcia said. Something happens to raise the costs or reduce the benefits of being in the network. It could be a failed redesign of the interface or some kind of flame war (or a takeover by a divisive gazillionaire). So a few people who were only marginally attached drop out. Some of their friends now have less reason to participate, so they drop out, too, and so on.

This snowball doesn’t roll all the way down to zero users. There are tight-knit groups of people who stay in the network because their friends are still in it. But there aren’t enough of these clusters to entice advertisers, so the network hemorrhages money and eventually shuts down, Garcia said.

DG wrote [1302.6109] Social Resilience in Online Communities: The Autopsy of Friendster

Then doing some "clique analysis". What's important is not only friends, but also friends of friends and so on. In a k-core, everybody has at least k friends, and each friend also has at least k friends.

The big idea of k-core analysis is that a network with lots of cross-connections (a “mesh” network) is more resilient than a network with one influencer at the center and lots of people on the periphery (a “hub and spoke” network). Part of Friendster’s problem was a lack of cross-connections. (This was the case in the United States, anyway; it did considerably better in the Philippines for some reason.) “Rather than using Friendster to make dates, most of its users were simply cruising around and looking at the weird interests, pictures and blog-droppings of strangers (including so-called fakester profiles of Jesus and Burt Reynolds),” a retrospective in Inc. magazine said.

How to Kill a Great Idea! | Inc.com - "How to Kill a Great Idea!Jonathan Abrams created the first online social network and enlisted Silicon Valley's best and brightest to run it. Yet Friendster flamed out spectacularly. What went wrong?"

Friendster suffered from the rise of Facebook, which was opened to the general public in 2006, and from some interruptions in availability. Garcia speculated that an unsuccessful interface redesign in 2009 was the final blow. “One can never be sure with such observational and historical analyses, so I can imagine that it started for a mixture of reasons anyway,” he wrote in an email.

Twitter has defied repeated forecasts of its demise in part because many of its users have formed large and tight clusters organized around interests, whether economics, finance, football or ethnicity. Those webs of affiliation are hard to replace. While some people have proclaimed they’re leaving Twitter because Musk took over, others vow to stay. “Abandoning such places out of some misplaced sense of moral rectitude simply clears the field for more lies and mischief,” Tom Nichols, a staff writer for The Atlantic, wrote on Monday.

 

[lpetrich]

Elon Musk's epic bumbling is a daily reminder that America is not a meritocracy | Salon.com - "As the Supreme Court considers affirmative action, Musk's antics show exactly how white privilege works"

He really is the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect," a friend responded in a group text over the weekend. We had been sharing stories about the bouts of dumbassery on display, as Elon Musk starts his ill-advised reign of Twitter. And hoo boy, there was plenty to share. Did you see the one about Musk telling software engineers to print out 30 days of code, only to tell them to shred it when he likely realized this exposed how he doesn't know what he's doing? Or how he plans to take a bazooka to the content moderation team, even though doing so will likely send advertisers packing? Or how he thought carrying a sink around was a hilarious joke? Or how he tweeted an asinine conspiracy theory about the Paul Pelosi attack, only to delete it hours later?

None of this should be surprising. From day one, this entire saga has been a story of a man with far more money than brains. After all, this all started when Musk stupidly offered to buy Twitter at a price way over its valuation, for no other reason than a fit of trollish pique. It was only after he realized what a foolish idea it was to set $44 billion on fire that he started coming up with disingenuous excuses to escape the deal, only to discover that it was too late, legally, to back out.

Author Amanda Marcotte then continues "This notion of Musk's intelligence clings to the discourse around him for one simple reason: He is very, very rich." and "You probably would have never heard of Elon Musk if he wasn't a white man from a wealthy family that literally owned an emerald mine in South Africa."

She then mentions how Donald Trump is supposed to be a genius because he is rich. Then noting Clarence Thomas has one great point about affirmative action.

Harvard has a preference for four specific groups of applicants known as ALDC: athletes, legacies, those on the dean's list (frequently because of family donations), and the children of faculty.

...
In theory, ALDC preferences are colorblind. In practice, they operate as a massive affirmative action program for white applicants. Over a recent six-year period, 2,200 out of 4,993 admitted white students were ALDC—a figure significantly higher than the overall number of admitted students who are Black (1,392) and Hispanic (1,283). White ALDC students are not overrepresented because they happen to be more qualified; to the contrary, about three-fourths of them would have been rejected without the ALDC boost.

 

[Oleg]

Elon Musk's epic bumbling is a daily reminder that America is not a meritocracy | Salon.com - "As the Supreme Court considers affirmative action, Musk's antics show exactly how white privilege works"

He really is the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect," a friend responded in a group text over the weekend. We had been sharing stories about the bouts of dumbassery on display, as Elon Musk starts his ill-advised reign of Twitter. And hoo boy, there was plenty to share. Did you see the one about Musk telling software engineers to print out 30 days of code, only to tell them to shred it when he likely realized this exposed how he doesn't know what he's doing? Or how he plans to take a bazooka to the content moderation team, even though doing so will likely send advertisers packing? Or how he thought carrying a sink around was a hilarious joke? Or how he tweeted an asinine conspiracy theory about the Paul Pelosi attack, only to delete it hours later?

None of this should be surprising. From day one, this entire saga has been a story of a man with far more money than brains. After all, this all started when Musk stupidly offered to buy Twitter at a price way over its valuation, for no other reason than a fit of trollish pique. It was only after he realized what a foolish idea it was to set $44 billion on fire that he started coming up with disingenuous excuses to escape the deal, only to discover that it was too late, legally, to back out.

Author Amanda Marcotte then continues "This notion of Musk's intelligence clings to the discourse around him for one simple reason: He is very, very rich." and "You probably would have never heard of Elon Musk if he wasn't a white man from a wealthy family that literally owned an emerald mine in South Africa."

She then mentions how Donald Trump is supposed to be a genius because he is rich. Then noting Clarence Thomas has one great point about affirmative action.

Harvard has a preference for four specific groups of applicants known as ALDC: athletes, legacies, those on the dean's list (frequently because of family donations), and the children of faculty.

...
In theory, ALDC preferences are colorblind. In practice, they operate as a massive affirmative action program for white applicants. Over a recent six-year period, 2,200 out of 4,993 admitted white students were ALDC—a figure significantly higher than the overall number of admitted students who are Black (1,392) and Hispanic (1,283). White ALDC students are not overrepresented because they happen to be more qualified; to the contrary, about three-fourths of them would have been rejected without the ALDC boost.

Oh, right. Elon Musk is a White guy. That means he's bad. Duh.

 

[Patooka]

Oh, right. Elon Musk is a White guy. That means he's bad. Duh.

Good that you realise that. It saves time.

 

[bilby]

It's not just about inheritance of wealth; The inheritance of access to networks is also hugely important. Arguably more important.

It's not what you know, it's who you know.

 

[Metaphor]

Elon Musk's epic bumbling is a daily reminder that America is not a meritocracy | Salon.com - "As the Supreme Court considers affirmative action, Musk's antics show exactly how white privilege works"

He really is the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect," a friend responded in a group text over the weekend. We had been sharing stories about the bouts of dumbassery on display, as Elon Musk starts his ill-advised reign of Twitter. And hoo boy, there was plenty to share. Did you see the one about Musk telling software engineers to print out 30 days of code, only to tell them to shred it when he likely realized this exposed how he doesn't know what he's doing? Or how he plans to take a bazooka to the content moderation team, even though doing so will likely send advertisers packing? Or how he thought carrying a sink around was a hilarious joke? Or how he tweeted an asinine conspiracy theory about the Paul Pelosi attack, only to delete it hours later?

None of this should be surprising. From day one, this entire saga has been a story of a man with far more money than brains. After all, this all started when Musk stupidly offered to buy Twitter at a price way over its valuation, for no other reason than a fit of trollish pique. It was only after he realized what a foolish idea it was to set $44 billion on fire that he started coming up with disingenuous excuses to escape the deal, only to discover that it was too late, legally, to back out.

Author Amanda Marcotte then continues "This notion of Musk's intelligence clings to the discourse around him for one simple reason: He is very, very rich." and "You probably would have never heard of Elon Musk if he wasn't a white man from a wealthy family that literally owned an emerald mine in South Africa."

I know Salon is hopelessly biased and assumes its conclusions in its premises, but in what way does this illustrate white privilege? What if Musk had instead been a very, very rich black man from a wealthy family that literally owned an emerald mine in South Africa and then became the richest person on earth? Would we not have heard of him?

She then mentions how Donald Trump is supposed to be a genius because he is rich.

I think Donald Trump thinks he is a genius. What makes you think the wider population thinks he is?

Then noting Clarence Thomas has one great point about affirmative action.

Harvard has a preference for four specific groups of applicants known as ALDC: athletes, legacies, those on the dean's list (frequently because of family donations), and the children of faculty.

...
In theory, ALDC preferences are colorblind. In practice, they operate as a massive affirmative action program for white applicants. Over a recent six-year period, 2,200 out of 4,993 admitted white students were ALDC—a figure significantly higher than the overall number of admitted students who are Black (1,392) and Hispanic (1,283). White ALDC students are not overrepresented because they happen to be more qualified; to the contrary, about three-fourths of them would have been rejected without the ALDC boost.

This article does not appear to know what 'affirmative action' means.

Athlete admissions who would not have gotten in without their sports qualifications are not "affirmative action." Athletes are not targeted because they have been discriminated against in the past versus non-athletes, nor are they targeted because Harvard needs some jocks on campus in the name of corporeal 'diversity'. They are targeted because they are useful to the school's financial bottom line and prestige.

Legacies, dean's list, and children of faculty deserve no boost.

Get rid of affirmative action and ALDC admits.

 

[bigfield]

I'm sure he's hitting up Twitter for the cloud service

Those must be some extra fluffy clouds, for the price he's paying.

 

[Patooka]

I think Donald Trump thinks he is a genius. What makes you think the wider population thinks he is?

The wider population for starters. How many examples do you want of this? How many millions qualify to Metaphor's definition of a wider population? Let me know and I can provide example accordingly.

 

[Oleg]

Oh, right. Elon Musk is a White guy. That means he's bad. Duh.

Good that you realise that. It saves time.

It’s the good racism, right?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Get rid of affirmative action and ALDC admits.

At least with that approach we may be able to respect the consistency of logic. Doubt that the Ivy League will get rid of the ALDC admits because financial reasons.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Get rid of affirmative action and ALDC admits.

At least with that approach we may be able to respect the consistency of logic. Doubt that the Ivy League will get rid of the ALDC admits because financial reasons.

These derails are driving me nuts. I can't keep track what thread I'm in at the moment.

 

[Metaphor]

I think Donald Trump thinks he is a genius. What makes you think the wider population thinks he is?

The wider population for starters. How many examples do you want of this? How many millions qualify to Metaphor's definition of a wider population? Let me know and I can provide example accordingly.

I'm not after 'examples', I'm after some kind of population-level indication that Americans think Trump is a 'genius'.

Let's say 90% (gross exaggeration) of Republicans think Trump is a 'genius' solely or largely because he is rich, and 0% of Democrats do. So about 40% of the American population thinks he is a genius because of his wealth. In what universe does a minority opinion properly summarise the opinion of a nation?

 

[ZiprHead]

I think Donald Trump thinks he is a genius. What makes you think the wider population thinks he is?

The wider population for starters. How many examples do you want of this? How many millions qualify to Metaphor's definition of a wider population? Let me know and I can provide example accordingly.

I'm not after 'examples', I'm after some kind of population-level indication that Americans think Trump is a 'genius'.

Let's say 90% (gross exaggeration) of Republicans think Trump is a 'genius' solely or largely because he is rich, and 0% of Democrats do. So about 40% of the American population thinks he is a genius because of his wealth. In what universe does a minority opinion properly summarise the opinion of a nation?

Republicans are only 30% of the population.

 

[Metaphor]

I think Donald Trump thinks he is a genius. What makes you think the wider population thinks he is?

The wider population for starters. How many examples do you want of this? How many millions qualify to Metaphor's definition of a wider population? Let me know and I can provide example accordingly.

I'm not after 'examples', I'm after some kind of population-level indication that Americans think Trump is a 'genius'.

Let's say 90% (gross exaggeration) of Republicans think Trump is a 'genius' solely or largely because he is rich, and 0% of Democrats do. So about 40% of the American population thinks he is a genius because of his wealth. In what universe does a minority opinion properly summarise the opinion of a nation?

Republicans are only 30% of the population.

Oh well, then, revise my guesstimates accordingly. If 90 per cent of 30 per cent of the population thinks Trump is a genius because he is rich, I believe that means 27 per cent of the population thinks Trump is a genius because he is rich. This of course assumes that Democrats have functioning brains and don't think somebody is a genius just because he's rich.

So, is 27 per cent 'the wider population'?

 

[Patooka]

I think Donald Trump thinks he is a genius. What makes you think the wider population thinks he is?

The wider population for starters. How many examples do you want of this? How many millions qualify to Metaphor's definition of a wider population? Let me know and I can provide example accordingly.

I'm not after 'examples', I'm after some kind of population-level indication that Americans think Trump is a 'genius'.

Let's say 90% (gross exaggeration) of Republicans think Trump is a 'genius' solely or largely because he is rich, and 0% of Democrats do. So about 40% of the American population thinks he is a genius because of his wealth. In what universe does a minority opinion properly summarise the opinion of a nation?

A universe where gerrymandering exists. Republicans are never statistically likely to be in a straight up majority and yet typically run the senate, congress and share the presidency roughly 50% of the time. "A wider population thinks Trump is a genius" and "The US electoral system gives people who believe Trump is a genius a significant and meaningful influence in elections" are two statements where the difference has no distinction. In the real world those two statements mean the exact same thing.

 

[Metaphor]

I think Donald Trump thinks he is a genius. What makes you think the wider population thinks he is?

The wider population for starters. How many examples do you want of this? How many millions qualify to Metaphor's definition of a wider population? Let me know and I can provide example accordingly.

I'm not after 'examples', I'm after some kind of population-level indication that Americans think Trump is a 'genius'.

Let's say 90% (gross exaggeration) of Republicans think Trump is a 'genius' solely or largely because he is rich, and 0% of Democrats do. So about 40% of the American population thinks he is a genius because of his wealth. In what universe does a minority opinion properly summarise the opinion of a nation?

A universe where gerrymandering exists. Republicans are never statistically likely to be in a straight up majority and yet typically run the senate, congress and share the presidency roughly 50% of the time. "A wider population thinks Trump is a genius" and "The US electoral system gives people who believe Trump is a genius a significant and meaningful influence in elections" are two statements where the difference has no distinction. In the real world those two statements mean the exact same thing.

Um, okay.

 

[Derec]

Elon Musk's epic bumbling is a daily reminder that America is not a meritocracy | Salon.com - "As the Supreme Court considers affirmative action, Musk's antics show exactly how white privilege works"

This article shows exactly why Salon is a rag and Amanda Marcotte a hack.

He really is the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect," a friend responded in a group text over the weekend.

Sure. Some random "friend" on a group chat is going to accuse Musk, who developed SpaceX and Tesla Motors, of DK. I think DK lies elsewhere.

Author Amanda Marcotte then continues "This notion of Musk's intelligence clings to the discourse around him for one simple reason: He is very, very rich." and "You probably would have never heard of Elon Musk if he wasn't a white man from a wealthy family that literally owned an emerald mine in South Africa."

An African-American man you mean? LMAO.
It is quite rich that some hack with an English Lit degree is telling somebody with Physics and Economics degrees and who developed a couple of companies, that he is not that smart because he is, to quote AIDS Skrillex, a "fucking white male".

The hard left hates Musk because he causes cognitive dissonance in them, which makes them uncomfortable. He did develop Tesla Motors and made electric cars sexy and mainstream, which they like, but at the same time, he does not subscribe to lefty politics, which makes him bad. And he is a white man, which is also considered a major character flaw by the movement leftists.

Harvard has a preference for four specific groups of applicants known as ALDC: athletes, legacies, those on the dean's list (frequently because of family donations), and the children of faculty.

So maybe Harvard should end those too. But let's not pretend that a) plenty of black people are not legacies, athletes or children of faculty or that b) the effect is anywhere near as big as the racial preference.

Or else there would not be such a huge chasm in SAT scores between black and white admits to Hahvahd.