Roxy is living up to her heritage. Her ancestors are proud.
- 2 Posts
- 671 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: August 5th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
2·5 days agoInsider trading is illegal. Tax fraud is illegal. There’s lots of things in the business world that have been deemed illegal including the theft of ideas that are trademarked, copyrighted or patented and businessmen steal those all the time and spend a lot of time looking for loopholes. The bottom line is that I can’t say with 100% certainty that this is exactly what’s going on but I can point to articles with analysis of the entire thing and see some distinct possibilities, and you can’t say for certain that that’s not what’s going on, unless you happen to work in the field and have information that I don’t.
The other parts of the acquisition are covered by his own companies and the sale of his own stock. With the right insurance (the right contracts) he’d get a golden parachute that would make him whole without having to pay those back either. Golden parachutes are not only legal but also quite normal for CEOs. If Twitter were to end up bankrupt, he may not have to pay back the money he borrowed from Tesla or his other companies, and that leaves him having to pay back just the private parties. Depending on their agreement, that may be in stock options for all we know. Further allowing him to dump Tesla stock without selling it (which won’t effect Teslas valuation in a negative way).
A house of cards is a house of cards. Things being illegal have never stopped this man before.
Twitter is responsible for that debt. Not Musk. That’s because of the way the agreement for the loan was structured. That’s why he would lose control of the company if they file for bankruptcy.
No. It didn’t. That’s why he was upset. Mozilla even admit this. Did you read the article or what?
“Mozilla later admitted in an email that they had made a mistake regarding the extension, but Hill has ultimately decided to cease development of the uBlock Origin Lite add-on for Firefox.”
If he files for bankruptcy. Did you read the articles?
Okay, this is a lot in a very small window, but we know a couple of things. The first is that Musk’s wealth is mostly tied to Tesla stock which is tied directly to the vastly over-inflated valuation of Tesla at 800Bn.
We also know that to get access to liquidity of funds he had to borrow money or sell Tesla stock. We know that when he sells Tesla stock, he ends up causing that stock price to fall significantly and that it’s only a matter of time before investors actually pull the plug on that because it costs them money/devalues their stake.
We also know that most of his outside lenders for the buy-up of twitter are from countries that want to deliberately stop the flow of new ideas and information. There’s no reason to assume that degrading Twitter the way he has been doesn’t give them what they want. Therefore I based my assumption simply on the idea that if they are receiving something quid pro for their help, they may not call in the debt, nor care about the overall health of the platform on a business or user level. In fact, that’s one of the only ways that the deal even makes sense given what we have seen.
Musk does care though because he took on the company’s debt when he bought the company. Meaning if it crashes and burns and is considered insolvent he won’t be responsible for the debt he took on when he bought it (not debt owed to outside lenders, but the debt he was required to take on through banks/finace brokers).
"The exodus of advertisers, partially due to Elon Musk’s controversial behavior, has left X with a growing revenue gap.
The main reason Twitter has a revenue gap is that Musk saddled it with $13bn of debt with his leveraged buyout. The business isn’t just failing because of Musk’s management since then, it’s failing because that was the purpose derived from the purchase."
The thing is as the company and CEO continue to make bad decisions that cost revenue, it will be better to not have to pay back lenders where he can. And you’ll note that while he’s been dodging payments to almost everyone else, he’s been paying back that 13Bn like clockwork. The thing is, if the business shutters he no longer has to pay back that 13Bn, nor will he likely have to pay back a fair amount of the other debts. (This is similar to the plot of The Producers here. Make a product so bad that it doesn’t make any money and the investors don’t get the dividends because no money was made).
When you consider how little of the money is borrowed from outside interests (7Bn approximately) verses from his own other companies you realize that this is literally a house of cards he’s built. One of the few ways to get out from under a house of cards kind of scenario is to file for bankruptcy.
One of the few downfalls of filing for bankruptcy is that he’d lose control of Twitter, and that it would be a very public dent in the armor of his supposed high profile businessman persona.
But if he wanted to devalue it to make it not worth what he paid for it, it’s a double win of making it useless in the event that it’s no longer in his control, and not having to pay back a lot of the debts.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/how-will-elon-musk-pay-twitter-2022-10-07/
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-happens-if-twitter-files-for-bankruptcy-elon-musk-2022-12
"Because his wealth is entirely in overinflated Tesla stock, and because he’s already massively overleveraged from buying Twitter, coming up with that money means selling Tesla stock, and because the Tesla stock price is based on dreams and unicorn farts any amount he sells tends to sink the price.
And there’s no telling when the Tesla stock price will just collapse entirely as investors finally start valuing it like a car manufacturer, and not like kind of predestined savior of the human race (for context, Tesla in its entirety is currently valued at $800bn. Ford is currently valued at $40bn. And Ford sell a LOT more cars than Tesla)."
This is a quote from a comment above. What he’s “smart” about is being a conman. Which doesn’t really take intelligence. It just takes some trial and error and enough money starting out to make mistakes.
We got attacked and then in fear gave away our freedoms for the promise of more protections. There were people blowing the whistle each time but we ignored them. Patriot Act. Lobbying to not consider social platforms news aggregates. Lobbying to not pay news outlets, Lobbying to weaken anti-trust laws. Lobbying to kill legislation protecting children online. Lobbying against legislation to protect user privacy. Lobbying for the use of tech like facial recognition.
This kind of thing has been happening for ages.
Actually, they flagged UBO Lite and the dev removed it himself in a fit of pique.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/2474353/popular-ad-blocker-removed-from-firefox-extension-store.html
8·7 days agoSend it and report back. I am interested in subscribing to their newsletter. You’ll let them know, right?
20·7 days agoThe “you wouldn’t steal a car” thing actually backfired majorly for the parties involved. It actually did two things. It highlighted that downloading movies was possible and easy to do when it was new and not many people knew about it. And it made people curious. This led to it having the exact opposite effect of what was intended.
https://knowledgesource.com.au/no-bs-how-those-video-ads-spectacularly-back-fired/
If I take out a loan to buy a home, I don’t own the home outright. The creditor owns the home until I pay off the debt. I’m likening the situations because I want to make it clear that he didn’t put in his own money to buy it.
The site itself is under threat of being taken down? Is that what’s going on? I don’t think it’s up to us personally to do anything. Seems like people have already mirrored it (seeing as according to your article it has a successor), and those mirrors are also listed as threats. Not gonna lie this is and always has been a game of whack a mole. There will be more successors and more lists etc because that’s just how these things work.
This is literally what certain manufacturers do. Here’s a side by side of the receiver remote for my setup and the one for the TV (which has never even been connected to the internet). One has these dedicated buttons. The other just has ones labeled for streaming or similar.>!
!<I’ll add that the location of the buttons makes a significant difference. If they’re easy to hit by accident you’re more likely to have grandma launch a service she didn’t mean to and not know how to back out of it. This causes more problems than it solves.
Yeah some TV’s these days come with streaming built in and have this kind of remote. Plus if you buy a set top streaming box like a Roku, they come with this kind of remote also. It’s stupid, but a real world thing.
Yeah. Airlines still use it for log books and reports.
81·7 days agoDisney waved their right to arbitration after backlash. Uber might just do the same, or get sued by the government for the EULA itself.
https://www.thestreet.com/media/disney-waives-right-to-arbitration-wrongful-death-lawsuit
If you want my sex tape that bad, all you gotta do is ask.