JWSC

Twitter went down, and the world regained its sanity for a short time.

timmillea said:

M68000 said:

timmillea said:

Without Insanely Great design, Apple loses its iconic status and slides into the field of mediocrity. No one with an eye for design would have released the Mac Studio nor eliminated the wedge of the MacBook Air. The wedge is expensive, requiring multiple stacked li-ion cells, but practical because you intuitively know which way round it is when closed and of course the slight slope aids typing efficiency. The M2 MBA typifies Apple's current direction of travel - a few incremental spec upgrades to satisfy focus groups but throwing away priceless design innovations. Ive was Apple's last link to its golden era. 

Not sure what your issue with the Studio is.  You wanted no ports on the front?  But,  I completely agree on the Air.  That wedge shape is pretty special. 

The Mac Studio should have been a Mac Mini. The M1 Ultra config should have been carried forward to the new Mac Pro and the M1 Max didn't need the OTT cooling, i.e. fitted in the Mac Mini body. To me this was a glaring error on several levels. Finally, the Studio is very expensive and not even beautiful. 

I have the Mac Studio and love it.  But I can't disagree that if Jobs were around, it would have had a far more iconic exterior design.  Something special about Apple has been lost.

melgross said:

tshapi said:

I think this is a money grab by twitter.  See, musk has claimed he doesn’t believe that twitter is being honest about the # of bots. And it appears that twitter is simply pointing to there public SEC filing as proof that there really is only 5% bots. 

I also find it interesting that jack dorsey is quiet through all this. He’s allegedly musks ally in this, he created twitter and it’s my understanding that he was still an active part of the
Company. 

As I said uptop. This is a money grab. When Elon made the offer, the main reason it was accepted is because the investors got a financial offer that was hard for them to pass up.  

I also think it’s possible that this is a war between Elon musk and the current CEO who doesn’t want to lose his job. 

I can’t agree with that. Remember when Musk was going to take Tesla private? He Tweeted “funding complete!”. But he actually had no funding.

from what I’ve been reading, and people I know who are as they say “close to the parties”, he never raised the $44 billion he claimed. His portion is only about 20-25% of that, and the other investors and potential investors had gotten a bit squirmy over the prospect at that high price the deal was going for. He seems to be working to, successfully so far, to lower the price of the company so far that he could change the specifics of the finances and possibly allow the purchase at a much lower price - one that would allow the deal with the funding he’s actually got.

I can see that happening, with him saying that; “Well, at this price, it’s worth it.”

remember that he’s just not trustworthy.

Huh?  Why is Musk not trustworthy?  Is the Twitter board any more trustworthy than Musk?  Come on.

tmay said:

CheeseFreeze said:

netrox said:

If Elon Musk asked for bot account and Twitter failed to provide that, then I don't see how it's illegal or how he can be sued.
 
It's same with buying a house, a buyer want to have the house inspected and all questions answered before full purchase begins. If the seller fail to provide everything the buyer ask for, the seller has no right to sue. 

It depend under which circumstances.

If he came up with this demand as part of the agreement (“there must be no more than x% bot accounts or this short-form purchase agreement is void without penalties”) then he should be fine.

If he introduced this demand after the initial agreement, then he’s in trouble. 

It would be the same thing as signing to purchase a car within the next 30 days and then suddenly demand that the seller needs to prove that the car should at least run 500 miles on a tank of gas. 

Regardless of the car’s ability or reasonable expectation to do so, it is something you’d had to put in writing on as part of the purchase contract. 

What if the car actually would run 500 miles, and suddenly you’d posed yet another demand that the seats should be able to recline 80 degrees?
What if you’d introduce these demands knowing that the car isn’t able to do those things, just so you can talk your way out of it?

With a merger/acquisition normally you discuss a due diligence phase that happens before the actual purchase (and is done after a letter of intent or short form agreement). This due diligence phase could take a long time in some cases and contain clauses with roles and responsibilities for both companies. It’s like test driving the car and asking a mechanic to look under the hood to see if it’s a healthy car. This happens both ways: the seller would check out the buyer in a similar fashion.

Also, consider the below:

https://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/explained-how-elon-musk-twitter-bid-may-have-been-a-smokescreen-to-liquidate-tesla-stocks-10896291.html/amp

tshapi said:

I think this is a money grab by twitter.  See, musk has claimed he doesn’t believe that twitter is being honest about the # of bots. And it appears that twitter is simply pointing to there public SEC filing as proof that there really is only 5% bots. 

I also find it interesting that jack dorsey is quiet through all this. He’s allegedly musks ally in this, he created twitter and it’s my understanding that he was still an active part of the
Company. 

As I said uptop. This is a money grab. When Elon made the offer, the main reason it was accepted is because the investors got a financial offer that was hard for them to pass up.  

I also think it’s possible that this is a war between Elon musk and the current CEO who doesn’t want to lose his job. 

I think it’s actually a money grab by Tesla (see above link). 

A good sale opportunity to Twitter is not a ‘money grab’ (assuming the word has a negative connotation) by Twitter especially because they did not seek to be bought. Musk offered to buy.

Jack Dorsey is quiet because it is professional. A CEO doesn’t move a purchase dispute onto a public forum. It’s unprofessional and dangerous.
 

Twitter however did officially respond (on Twitter), and as it should be in these specific situations, it comes from the board of directors. 

Some details;

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/07/twitters-lawsuit-against-elon-musk-15-revelations.html

and;

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22084462-twitter-v-elon-musk-complaint?responsive=1&title=1

Elon fucked up. Whether he will end up owning Twitter after the lawsuit is adjudicated, is all that is left.

Well, Elon did make the mistake of making an offer.  I'll cost him some.  But his Twitter losses pale in comparison to the current market turmoil.

NYMAG 15 point article is weak - full on hearsay and one-sided argument without supporting data.  Musk asked for a large amount of data because he has the ability to process it.  Number of verified non-commercial accounts is vanishingly small.  Number of users who has sent tweets in the last 30 days is less than 8%.  You can draw your own conclusions as to the bot content.  My 2 cents is it much higher than Twitter claims.

Regardless, Twitter board still has to deal with Blackrock and other large investors who are unhappy with the non-sale.  The board will be forced to change.   They should hope golden parachutes await.  Because they're done whether they like it or not.

Stabitha_Christie said:

JWSC said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

netrox said:

If Elon Musk asked for bot account and Twitter failed to provide that, then I don't see how it's illegal or how he can be sued.
 
It's same with buying a house, a buyer want to have the house inspected and all questions answered before full purchase begins. If the seller fail to provide everything the buyer ask for, the seller has no right to sue. 

Not exactly, Musk and Twitter signed a contract and that becomes the governing document for the deal. As part of the deal Musk waived his right to due diligence. Per your apology that would be like making an offer for a house and waiving your right to have it inspected. Per the contract he did have the option to drop out of the deal for no reason but only if he paid Twitter a billion dollars. He is trying to get out of the deal without paying the billion and using bots as the reason but waiving his right to due diligence is what will potentially sink him here. 

Interesting.  Where did you find this information?

The offer to buy Twitter is a public fling with the SEC. I did make one mistake about the billion dollar break up fee, that was incorrect and I updated my post. The link above that FileMaker Feller posted is well sourced,  I'd suggest you read that or just fire up google, duck duck go or whatever your search engine of choice is and start searching. His offer is well covered by just about any news outlet. 

Thanks.  I’ll check out the actual SEC filing, assuming I can find it, rather than rely on reporting.  Too much room for misinterpretation.