SympathysSilhouette

Emily is such a babe.

Oh FFS, these are many of the people who worked on Wild Hunt. Unless they have changed considerably since then, I doubt trashing the entire tone of the original games is their goal. The thing I hate the most about culture wars nonsense is that literally everything has to be made about it. I cannot look forward to playing the original game in an updated engine apparently.

Apparently some of the fired Twitter staff are now getting approached to return. If this is true, you have to wonder how exactly they handled the sackings. You would expect them to at least bother to check they were not allowing people with key knowledge leave. But if they are truly returning already, you have to assume that is what happened. Amazing.

I mentioned that people made that interpretation earlier. Seems silly to me. This new team is made up out of Witcher veterans and CDPR never was a very "woke" company. I thought it to mean a recreation in a next-gen engine, not that they would change the tone of the original games.

That's why I think the previous board of directors did a good job. If they hadn't done what they had done, the previous shareholder should have fired their asses. Basically they got offered more money than the company is almost certainly worth, an offer that wasn't very likely ever to be matched let alone exceeded. And then they did not allow Musk to finagle out of the deal. From the prospective of a shareholder, that's what I would want them to do!

He got rid of some pretty key functionality departments. Like he got rid of the entire Accessibility Experience team. There was also a huge purge of the security department, supposedly based on the fact that their worth was assessed based on amount of code written over x period of time. Anyway, the idea that Jack was employing like 3700 entirely superfluous staff members is absurd. He wasn't running a charity.

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.