SympathysSilhouette

The algos are fairly complex. And they are what can be monetized.

The Liams Hemsworth for Henry Cavill thing isn't any less horrible now that a few days have passed since the news dropped. It has to be one of the worst recasting choices in history. They were always going to have an uphill battled replacing Cavill. He is a household name and he did a good job I think. But Liam Hemsworth... this is like they put absolutely zero effort into thinking of alternatives.

It was inevitable, the take-over has saddled them with interest payments of 1 billion a year, with a revenue that isn't even close to being able to sustain that. So they were always going to do cost-cutting at a crazy scale. What is harder to understand is that he is implementing new functionalities at the same time as laying off half his staff. That's not how it works in any well-run company.

Noted Africa expert Jordan Petersen? Damn, he is apparently well-versed in many fields. 😛

Mass lay-offs going on at Twitter. Apparently handled so shoddily that Elon already is facing a class action lawsuit over it.

Strangely her BFF Christen Harper has gone the other way and has her more natural weight from a few years ago back.

Well yeah, it's very old. See William Randolph Hearst, for instance. BTW, you can see the Bezos influence in the difference how the NY Times and the Washington Post have reported on the Twitter take-over. WaPo's editorial line about that event has been far more negative.

Is she going to be in The Last of Us HBO show? She posted an ad for it on her IG today.

There is also the difference in price. I believe Bezos paid just 250 million for the WaPo? That's a tiny fraction of what Musk had to pay for Twitter.

Well yeah, but why wouldn't she be? 1. She was once one of the most beautiful women in the world 2. She is only 56, so it's not like we are talking about an age in which you would expect all of her youthful beauty to have faded

Yeah there seem to be two camps among the analysts. Those who think 40 dollars would have been a fair valuation. And those who think that is still too much.

This isn't really hard to understand. Advertisers spend money and part of the equation is that they do not want to be associated with controversial things. This isn't just limited to race. Like when Mason Greenwood was accused by his girlfriend of serious domestic violence and abuse, it was the Man U sponsors who applied a lot of pressure on the football club to have him removed from the squad. Which makes sense. Because why would you want a guy that people now associate with domestic violence standing next to your brand name? That's not what you play millions of euros a year for.

The eternal problem is how to properly monetize it. Subscriber base is a possibility but the reason why Jack never tried this is because he (I think rightly) feared this might drive away a lot of users. Like how many casual users will be willing to pay for Twitter? A tiny minority at best.

She's a model too. Unfortunately I can no longer find the pics of her as Jessie, I think she only shared them on an IG story.

The point is that it doesn't matter why these posts are being made. Whether it is trolling, testing the limits or if they are actually broadcasting racist ideas. No respectable advertiser is going to spend money on a platform where like 10% of all content contains racial slurs.

We are discussing the twitter take-over (at least I thought we were). The discussion about what content can be allowed whilst also keeping advertisers on board is pretty central in that discussion. Elon agrees with me, he already put out a statement trying to reassure advertisers that he wasn't going to turn twitter into a totally unregulated space.

I bring up race because it's one of the major changes that has already been noticed since Musk's takeover.

Explain to me why brands would want to be on a platform where each tweet they make can be bombarded with racial slurs? I'm talking about how this is supposed to work in the real world, the one we are currently inhabiting.

They already made much more than that. Remember that all of these folks had a substantial amount of shares. In essence, after Elon overpaid with his initial offer and then tried to get out of it, the current (well now previous) management made him uphold the deal. The timing of the purchase is no coincidence, some deadlines were about to run out (at which point they could have sued Elon). Elon getting rid of all of them is his "revenge", but it's a paltry one considering they fleeced him majorly on the deal. The most optimistic analysis suggests the purchase was overvalued by 14 dollars a share, but other analysts claim this is still overvaluing the company's actual worth and he actually overpaid by more than 14 dollars a share. In essence the only winners in this thing are the twitter shareholders (including the now fired board of directors).

Yeah Brandy.

Aah yes, people can finally use the N-word with impunity on the bird app again, that will make it such a better place.

Seems unlikely most people will pay for this. Like why would large publications pay the 100Ks a year it would cost them to buy blue ticks for all of their staff? Doesn't seem worth it.

Denise Schaefer also went as Jessie from Toy Story!

Yeah, Dani was a sad reminder of however beautiful you are as a model, the industry will still make you think you need to lose weight.