Jump to content

Elon Musk: Officially a fraud and piece of shit. Official or unofficial war criminal?


MaybeACoordinator

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

If only people would verify the information they seek out. I guess…I can’t fathom why people don’t check out two or three sources for news stories. I go local first, then AP and then the Guardian or Sky News and then check CNN, MSNBC and FOX. Thats if I’m interested in following a particular story. Then I go on X and check what the verified reporters say. I get it. Most people don’t have time or care to fact check and honestly it’s sad we have to even do that. But it drives me nuts people just hop on Facebook and see something and believe it’s true and pass it along as true. wtf 

The problem isn't you. the problem are the people that say "Use the mainstream media? Fuck that shit ..."

1816da84-8664-40da-983f-84611bfe8bd7_tex

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, BeardIP said:

immac is right (and there has been discussion on the chatgpt thread), basically Google was being timid and scared because they didn't want to be cancelled and they over-rotated. Which is hilarious (and not harmful to white people...yet).

Could you provide any meaningful definition of the word "cancelled" that would could apply to Google? Is all criticism "cancellation" or is there something else that would stop a $1.7T company?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

So I browsed an article on this topic this morning and am still confused.

(1) DEI is absolutely political, regardless of context, because a political party has seized upon that term and made it political. Try discussing that term in a non-political context in a room full of conservative republican voters, they'll clinch their fists and tell you all about their thoughts on what those letters mean, in a very political manner. 

(2) I'm not sure what Google's DEI policy has to do with anything. The article said that AI bots scour the internet and there is a lot of hateful shit out there, like nazi shit and n-words, etc., so they are trying to avoid the bots from utilizing that material in generating its outputs. It sounds like the engineers overcorrected and it probably shouldn't have been released until they worked through those issues and determined where the balance lies.  Blame that on the engineers and their managers. I'm not seeing how a company's DEI policy directly affected the work the engineers did on programing an AI bot.

(3) Back to the convergence of DEI policies and politics, after SCOTUS overturned Affirmative Action policies for public institutions, a bunch of right wing think tanks started suing private companies to eliminate their DEI policies. Thus, the mere existence of DEI policies in private companies are now inherently political.

That's just the world we live in now, unfortunately. Not to mention that there is nothing Elon seems to do these days that isn't political, or seized upon by political actors. So if nothing else, his tweet alone made it political. The SCOTUS decision was also strictly along political lines. There really isn't much left these days that isn't somehow political, or made political by surrounding discussions.  

There was literally a bill on it last session of the state lege and the Dallas Morning News published an article about how it could affect recruiting

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2023/04/21/will-texas-efforts-to-dismantle-dei-risk-ncaa-compliance-for-college-sports/

fuckin chuds pushing culture war anti-DEI politics potentially coming in and affecting football croots, the simulation has truly gone haywire

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

There was literally a bill on it last session of the state lege and the Dallas Morning News published an article about how it could affect recruiting

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2023/04/21/will-texas-efforts-to-dismantle-dei-risk-ncaa-compliance-for-college-sports/

fuckin chuds pushing culture war anti-DEI politics potentially coming in and affecting football croots, the simulation has truly gone haywire

Yup, the Oklahoma state superintendent of schools has seized on the term. They've replaced "woke" which isn't officially defined with "DEI" because it is a real thing they can attack legislatively.

Quote: "DEI should rightly be called 'discrimination, exclusion and indoctrination.'" This is what half the country thinks when they see those letters, regardless of context.

https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-ryan-walters-dei-rule-programs-gender-designation/46203805 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, immamac said:

I do think it's a manifestation of being run by a bunch of fucking morons who care more about metrics and feel good DEI than they do about reality. 

I think it's more a manifestation of google firing their entire Ethical AI staff (which I interpret as an actual anti-DEI move rather than yelling at clouds), and then rushing an incomplete product out the door only to learn their quick fixes sucked, that despite having four wheels it gets stuck in the dirt, it rusts upon contact with liquid, and offers up inputs for questions that they never did get around to testing. (Okay, you got me, not all of those were google.) We're talking about the same company that returned images of Black people a year or two ago when people searched for images of gorillas, aren't we? Black people can't use many automatic hand dryers because skin tone s apparently difficult to account for. I find it appalling that there's a bigger outcry and hysterical pants pissing about a few made up cartoon images than there ever were about real world consequences.

Edited by Chopper
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Captainant said:

You'll get no argument from me that there's entirely too much idiot VC money chasing AI and inflating market valuation of various projects. It's the new buzzword that effectively replaced "blockchain" in the conversations I have where I'm educating a decision maker so they can form an opinion for their board. And just like blockchain, there's not all that many actual validated business use cases being pursued with lots of AI investments (that I've seen at least) - just a POC that's being upsold as the next big thing and used to leverage a play somewhere else in the business

Glean and their bombardment of their $200mm raise yesterday says "Hi".

But to your point, all the Gen AI b2b unicorns I've seen (e.g. aforementioned Glean, Writer.ai, etc.) are all the exact same use case (it seems to me, at least) lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Serak The Preparer said:

Could you provide any meaningful definition of the word "cancelled" that would could apply to Google? Is all criticism "cancellation" or is there something else that would stop a $1.7T company?

You are right, I don't think Google can be "cancelled" in the sense of a celebrity being blackballed or a boycott that puts a business in a precarious position. I guess I should have said, "a day or two of bad press and a pathetic attempt at boycotting but they are too big so it won't work but super lame people will love it, like when a few geezers who nobody listens to anymore tried to act against spotify for...reasons". To requote:

--

"At some point, though, you just have to state plainly that this is ridiculous. Google specifically, and tech companies broadly, have long been sensitive to accusations of bias; that has extended to image generation, and I can understand the sentiment in terms of depicting theoretical scenarios. At the same time, many of these images are about actual history...

...the most generous interpretation of Google’s over-aggressive RLHF of their models is that they are scared of being criticized. That, though, is just as bad: Google is blatantly sacrificing its mission to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” by creating entirely new realities because it’s scared of some bad press. Moreover, there are implications for business: Google has the models and the infrastructure, but winning in AI given their business model challenges will require boldness; this shameful willingness to change the world’s information in an attempt to avoid criticism reeks — in the best case scenario! — of abject timidity."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

...the most generous interpretation of Google’s over-aggressive RLHF of their models is that they are scared of being criticized. That, though, is just as bad: Google is blatantly sacrificing its mission to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” by creating entirely new realities because it’s scared of some bad press. Moreover, there are implications for business: Google has the models and the infrastructure, but winning in AI given their business model challenges will require boldness; this shameful willingness to change the world’s information in an attempt to avoid criticism reeks — in the best case scenario! — of abject timidity."

The most generous interpretation of anyone who believes that google responded with those pictures on purpose in response to the question received is that such persons are extremely gullible to the far right scare machine, or part of it.

Meanwhile back to elmo...I'm sure there's an AI thread for y'all to enjoy somewhere around here. Enjoy the Colorado River while/if you still can

image.thumb.png.b123a8681e62823e0135a116040795af.png

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/google-left-terrible-bind-pulling-061652069.html

 

Edited by Chopper
fokoff
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nicole44 said:

If only people would verify the information they seek out. I guess…I can’t fathom why people don’t check out two or three sources for news stories.

Confirmation bias.  He is constantly retweeting stuff that backs up what he believes, and it’s clear some of his views have not changed since he was a kid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.thumb.png.02396768a6c237c2fb267cd63ccbcc3c.png

"CCDH [Center for Countering Digital Hate] and its attorneys — who include Roberta Kaplan, fresh from her victories against former president Donald Trump on behalf of writer E. Jean Carroll — say the case is about a man who holds himself out as the world’s greatest defender of free speech trying to suppress speech he doesn’t like, by CCDH and others worried that they could be next."

“We’re living in an age of bullies, and it’s social media that gives them the power that they have today,” Kaplan told The Washington Post. The case, she said, is about “standing up to bullies.”

“Elon Musk and X Corp. are trying to intimidate and censor a nonprofit that had the courage to speak the truth about the hate that proliferates on X’s platform,” she said in an email. “We are proud to stand with CCDH.”

...

“People are clearly scared about doing research right now, which is particularly worrying in an election year,” CCDH chief executive Imran Ahmed said in an interview. “If we go down, no one will do any more research on X. It will be far too dangerous.”

 

full article
 

Quote

 

SAN FRANCISCO — The social media platform X will go to court Thursday trying to preserve its lawsuit against an advocacy group that’s been critical of the rise in hate speech and racist posts on the site since Elon Musk took over what was then called Twitter.
Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a six-year-old nonprofit, filed a motion to dismiss the case, which X brought last year in San Francisco federal court. CCDH is arguing that the lawsuit was brought simply to discourage the group from studying X and is therefore a violation of California’s strict prohibition against what are known as SLAPPs, or strategic lawsuits against public participation.

The ruling could determine how legal threats are a powerful weapon for groups and scholars that call out lies and propaganda on social media platforms ahead of the 2024 election.

CCDH and its attorneys — who include Roberta Kaplan, fresh from her victories against former president Donald Trump on behalf of writer E. Jean Carroll — say the case is about a man who holds himself out as the world’s greatest defender of free speech trying to suppress speech he doesn’t like, by CCDH and others worried that they could be next.

“We’re living in an age of bullies, and it’s social media that gives them the power that they have today,” Kaplan told The Washington Post. The case, she said, is about “standing up to bullies.”

“Elon Musk and X Corp. are trying to intimidate and censor a nonprofit that had the courage to speak the truth about the hate that proliferates on X’s platform,” she said in an email. “We are proud to stand with CCDH.”

X has also sued left-leaning Media Matters in Texas, where Musk has multiple businesses and where, unlike California, the state’s anti-SLAPP law doesn’t apply in federal courts. Musk also threatened to sue the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which complained loudly about antisemitism on the platform. Relations eased after ADL praised Musk for agreeing to ban the Palestinian phrase “from the river to the sea” as hate speech.

The prospect of being in litigation with one of the world’s richest people has unnerved small nonprofits as well as academics who might not be able to count on their universities for complete backing. Researchers and advocates are also under fire from activist lawsuits and probes by politicians including Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee, who demanded CCDH documents a month after X sued it.

“People are clearly scared about doing research right now, which is particularly worrying in an election year,” CCDH chief executive Imran Ahmed said in an interview. “If we go down, no one will do any more research on X. It will be far too dangerous.”

A survey of 167 X researchers conducted for Reuters last year found that 104 were concerned about being sued over their work. Less than half of their research projects were continuing as of September, Reuters reported, though the respondents also cited X’s decision to charge for access to data as a factor.

That survey was cited in a brief filed in support of CCDH by multiple groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

X said the case is about CCDH improperly scraping posts and reactions from its site. The company said the group violated its terms of service, improperly used a tool giving subscribers to advertising services from Brandwatch greater visibility into the site’s activity, and violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act’s provision against unauthorized access to machines and data.

The “claims are based on the Defendants’ course of conduct that resulted in CCDH gaining unauthorized access to nonpublic data that X Corp. licensed to Brandwatch, and on CCDH … breaching its agreement with X Corp. by scraping data from the X platform,” X wrote in December.

What particularly upset Musk, the lawsuit suggests, is what CCDH did with that information, which was to publish reports that spooked advertisers.

X said CCDH’s report and call for advertisers to quit cost it “tens of millions” of dollars in revenue. “It cherry-picked from the hundreds of millions of posts made each day on X, and used the data to falsely claim that it had statistical support showing X is overwhelmed by harmful content,” the company wrote.

Looking at the number of impressions being generated by 10 problematic accounts Musk reinstated, CCDH estimated ads on them would generate about $19 million in annual revenue for the company. The accounts that CCDH focused on included neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin, a doctor who asserted coronavirus vaccines did not work, and erstwhile Newsmax correspondent Emerald Robinson, who claimed the vaccine included a satanic bioluminescent marker.

In a mirror image of what CCDH sees as the issue, X claims the result is about more than money: “X Corp. has been harmed in its mission to establish X as an open marketplace for the exchange of ideas, free from censorship.” X and its attorney in the San Francisco case, Jonathan Hawk, did not respond to requests for comment.

It made similar arguments in its suit against Media Matters in November, after the nonprofit showed screenshots of ads from Apple, IBM and others next to pro-Hitler posts, prompting those two companies to stop buying ads.

In the Texas case, the company accused Media Matters of disparagement and interference with X’s contracts with advertisers. X said Media Matters followed white supremacists to trigger the ads. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) then said he would investigate the nonprofit for fraud.

X’s case is in the Fort Worth division of the Northern District of Texas, where it is being heard by George W. Bush appointee and conservative favorite U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, whose rulings include one, later reversed, that found the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.

With the prospects in Texas more in Musk’s favor, the founder of a federal anti-SLAPP coalition said it was even more important for CCDH to win dismissal in San Francisco and avoid trial.

“If one believes in free speech and that it’s desirable be able to hold platforms accountable and be critical, it’s especially criticism of large and powerful and wealthy public entities that is most important,” said Mark Goldowitz, founder of the Public Participation Project.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Siri show me a grown-ass man's cry for help, but make it extra-pathetic as in the way the man would know, but could never admit, that he would never be able to cope with the help he needs.

Siri:

3 hours ago, HenryJames said:

68188709-db84-44b9-88e6-1f65f37bf300.png

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy is a fucking dumbass that deserves all the mean things people say about him and all the time he’ll get to spend in court for the rest of his life because he can’t shut the fuck up. But hey, I guess being sued and going to court is better than going to therapy?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, HenryJames said:

68188709-db84-44b9-88e6-1f65f37bf300.png

 

This makes sense now that I listened to Kara Swisher's book tour first stop (with Don Lemon). Don Lemon said "You don't talk to him now, but if you did, what would you would ask him?"

Kara: "What happened to you? What is going on? Can I get you a therapist?"

 

BTW - the interview is hilarious I recommend, I won't embed it, but it is a great listen. She is quick and has some great zingers in it:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-burn-book-kick-off-with-don-lemon/id1643307527?i=1000647510471

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Rudiger said:

Don't fuck with Chuck (Breyer).

2 hours ago, HenryJames said:
Quote

Breyer told Hawk that “in order for you to collect one dime” of the tens of millions of dollars in damages the company says it suffered from CCDH’s alleged terms of service violations, X must prove that CCDH could have foreseen that X’s terms of service would change to allow “neo-Nazi, white supremacist, misogynist and spreaders of dangerous conspiracy theories” back onto the site.

“What you have to tell me is, why is it foreseeable?” Breyer said. “That they should have understood that, at the time they entered the terms of service, that Twitter would then change its policy and allow this type of material to be disseminated?” Breyer added: “I’m trying to figure out in my mind how that’s possibly true, because I don’t think it is.”

Quote

Hawk replied that users agree to changes in X’s terms of service by continuing to use the platform after the terms change.That, Breyer said, is “one of the most vapid extensions of law that I’ve ever heard…. ‘Oh, what’s foreseeable is that things can change, and therefore, if there’s a change, it’s foreseeable.’ I mean, that argument is truly, is truly remarkable.”

“That argument is not going to get [X] anywhere,” Breyer said to John Quinn, an attorney for CCDH.

Frustrated World Cup GIF

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2024 at 3:43 PM, Chopper said:

image.thumb.png.02396768a6c237c2fb267cd63ccbcc3c.png

"CCDH [Center for Countering Digital Hate] and its attorneys — who include Roberta Kaplan, fresh from her victories against former president Donald Trump on behalf of writer E. Jean Carroll — say the case is about a man who holds himself out as the world’s greatest defender of free speech trying to suppress speech he doesn’t like, by CCDH and others worried that they could be next."

“We’re living in an age of bullies, and it’s social media that gives them the power that they have today,” Kaplan told The Washington Post. The case, she said, is about “standing up to bullies.”

“Elon Musk and X Corp. are trying to intimidate and censor a nonprofit that had the courage to speak the truth about the hate that proliferates on X’s platform,” she said in an email. “We are proud to stand with CCDH.”

...

“People are clearly scared about doing research right now, which is particularly worrying in an election year,” CCDH chief executive Imran Ahmed said in an interview. “If we go down, no one will do any more research on X. It will be far too dangerous.”

 

full article
 

 

 

On 2/28/2024 at 4:31 PM, Chopper said:

SHOT

image.png.bc90b16eb581105c747686f96fcd7d7e.png

image.png.fd9c9f4ea29b4baf23f5f1869fc4048e.png

 

CHASER

image.thumb.png.26fad50bf336f4885699e27d13347e35.png

Wonder why @Incredulity negged these posts hmm interesting will look into it. Concerning!

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

So, anyone else seeing a new popup while using Twitter on a desktop when you block an account?  

 

I've ignored it, but assume that the people with free accounts won't have the ability to block others pretty soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I've ignored it, but assume that the people with free accounts won't have the ability to block others pretty soon.

 

It's an assumption I have as well.  Just started happening for me in the last hour.  Elon said last summer that he wanted to eliminate the block feature.

Don't see the nag screen on mobile, at least for now.  

 

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I've ignored it, but assume that the people with free accounts won't have the ability to block others pretty soon.


Sounds like a lot of folks will simply stop using twitter to effectively block all the bots. His strategy of driving humans away while getting bots to pay is really paying off for him

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

It's an assumption I have as well.  Just started happening for me in the last hour.  Elon said last summer that he wanted to eliminate the block feature.

Don't see the nag screen on mobile, at least for now. 

he *never* will be able to remove the block feature. from the fall: https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/18/23837494/elon-musk-twitter-x-remove-blocking

Quote

As multiple people noticed, Apple and Google both include language that suggests social networking apps need a block feature — Google Play developers must provide “an in-app system for blocking [user-generated content] and users,” and iOS developers must provide “the ability to block abusive users from the service.” (While Apple’s language here seems ambiguous about whether users should have a block feature, one publicly posted iOS rejection message flatly says that “users need a mechanism to block abusive users.”)

iOS:

bG9jYWw6Ly8vZGl2ZWltYWdlL3hfYmxvY2syLnBu

Google Play:

bG9jYWw6Ly8vZGl2ZWltYWdlL3hfYmxvY2szLnBu

not that any of it matters, i would assume it is totally and completely impossible to delete the function from the code entirely.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/fda-finds-problems-animal-lab-run-by-musks-brain-implant-company-2024-02-29/

Exclusive: Musk's Neuralink brain implant company cited by FDA over animal lab issues

Quote

U.S. Food and Drug Administration inspectors found problems with record keeping and quality controls for animal experiments at Elon Musk's Neuralink, less than a month after the startup said it was cleared to test its brain implants in humans, according to an agency report reviewed by Reuters.

+

Quote

"These issues show a lack of attention to detail," said Jerry L. Chapman, a senior quality expert with Redica Systems.

article:

 

 
Spoiler
WASHINGTON, Feb 29 (Reuters) - U.S. Food and Drug Administration inspectors found problems with record keeping and quality controls for animal experiments at Elon Musk's Neuralink, less than a month after the startup said it was cleared to test its brain implants in humans, according to an agency report reviewed by Reuters.
The inspectors identified quality control lapses at the company's California animal research facility. A similar inspection at Neuralink's Texas facility did not find problems, according to agency records.
 
Those visits took place last year from June 12-22, and represent the FDA's sole inspections of Neuralink facilities on record. The inspector reports were shared with Reuters by Redica Systems
, opens new tab, a data analytics company that obtains FDA compliance reports through open records requests.
"These issues show a lack of attention to detail," said Jerry L. Chapman, a senior quality expert with Redica Systems.
 
The laboratory problems identified by FDA inspectors included missing calibration records for instruments such as a pH meter used in one of the studies. For another study, seven instruments including a "vital signs monitor" had no record of having been calibrated. Neuralink conducted experiments on hundreds of animals, including monkeys.
Other issues included quality assurance officials not signing off on the final study report or documenting any deviations from approved protocols or standard operating procedures.
 
"This certainly is a signal that the company needs to be vigilant about certain practices," said Chapman, adding that the company would be required to follow similar practices for its human trials.
The brain implant is being tested to help patients paralyzed by spinal cord injury or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, communicate using thoughts to move a computer device.
 
Reuters reported in December 2022 that U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) investigators were probing potential animal-welfare violations at Neuralink following internal staff complaints that its animal testing was being rushed, causing needless suffering and deaths. An animal welfare advocacy group, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, submitted a formal complaint to both USDA and FDA over the alleged breaches.
 
In July, the USDA said it did not find any violations of its animal research rules beyond a 2019 incident that Neuralink had already reported.

'VIOLATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS'

The FDA has its own requirements for animal research, known as Good Laboratory Practice, to demonstrate that any scientific data being collected in the development of a drug or medical device is reliable, three regulatory experts told Reuters.
Neuralink cited its animal research data in its FDA request to test the implants in humans. Musk, the company's billionaire founder, announced in May that his device was cleared for human trials, and said last month the first patient had received an implant and was recovering well.
Neuralink did not respond to questions about the FDA visit.
The FDA has not issued its designation indicating the severity of problems found in the inspection, according to the agency's database. While the problems identified are serious, they do not appear to be significant enough to justify the FDA's worst inspection designation, which would prompt action, the experts said.
Carly Pflaum, an FDA spokesperson, said Neuralink "provided sufficient information to support the approval" of its human trial application. The agency routinely conducts such inspections, Pflaum said, after human trial approval and before commercial approval to "assure data integrity and reliability" and compliance with other FDA regulations.
"The FDA will continue to monitor the safety of those enrolled in the study for Neuralink's implant device through required, regular reports," Pflaum said.
Ryan Merkley, director of research advocacy at the animal welfare group PCRM, said the FDA should have inspected Neuralink before human trial approval given concerns raised by his organization months earlier.
Victor Krauthamer, a former long-time FDA official, said the agency had jurisdiction to conduct the inspection before permitting the company to go ahead with its clinical trial, and has done so in other cases.
"It would have made sense for the FDA to have conducted the inspection before human trial approval," said Krauthamer, who once reviewed human-trial requests for brain implants at the agency. "These are violations of fundamental requirements that you don’t want to worry about happening again in the human trial."

Reporting by Marisa Taylor; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Bill Berkrot

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NoName said:

 

the demands are really and truly incredible, even based on the dumb lawsuits Elon has fired off lately.

GHloNpKW4AAVH5p?format=jpg&name=large

 

 

I don't know about the demands, but in this particular instance, Musk may have a salient point.  It would seem having startups begin as non-profits for tax purposes and then "re-launch" as a profit seeking venture seems wrong.  Not sure what can be done, but yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2024 at 8:46 PM, Captain Ron said:

The milestones were based on the stock price of Tesla and their market cap has risen tremendously for reason well outside of the actual performance of the company. 

you cherry picked from that article you linked.  yes there were market cap milestones-  about a dozen of them, but there were also several dozen OTHER milestones that were specifically designed to be independent factors not related to market cap-  important things like revenue targets, profit targets, income targets, specifically designed by the board, whom you claim to be musk cronies, to ensure the healthy growth of the company.  at the time these were negotiated CEO manipulation of stock price was already a concern.  the board's negotiation of these factors in the contract was seen as a moonshot scenario that almost everyone on the street mocked them for, our trading group included.  we've spent lots of time looking at TSLA over the years and this was one of the most outlandish scenarios we'd ever come across.  this was a most unfair ruling spurred by political interests. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

you cherry picked from that article you linked.  yes there were market cap milestones-  about a dozen of them, but there were also several dozen OTHER milestones that were specifically designed to be independent factors not related to market cap-  important things like revenue targets, profit targets, income targets, specifically designed by the board, whom you claim to be musk cronies, to ensure the healthy growth of the company.  at the time these were negotiated CEO manipulation of stock price was already a concern.  the board's negotiation of these factors in the contract was seen as a moonshot scenario that almost everyone on the street mocked them for, our trading group included.  we've spent lots of time looking at TSLA over the years and this was one of the most outlandish scenarios we'd ever come across.  this was a most unfair ruling spurred by political interests. 

 

lol unfair

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

you cherry picked from that article you linked.  yes there were market cap milestones-  about a dozen of them, but there were also several dozen OTHER milestones that were specifically designed to be independent factors not related to market cap-  important things like revenue targets, profit targets, income targets, specifically designed by the board, whom you claim to be musk cronies, to ensure the healthy growth of the company.  at the time these were negotiated CEO manipulation of stock price was already a concern.  the board's negotiation of these factors in the contract was seen as a moonshot scenario that almost everyone on the street mocked them for, our trading group included.  we've spent lots of time looking at TSLA over the years and this was one of the most outlandish scenarios we'd ever come across.  this was a most unfair ruling spurred by political interests. 

 

You took a month to come up with this?

Quote

... the board, whom you claim to be musk cronies ...

Actually, no that was the judge that did that. From https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-rules-favor-plaintiffs-challenging-musks-tesla-pay-package-2024-01-30/

Quote

McCormick wrote that many of the directors on Tesla's board, including current members Kimbal Musk, Elon Musk's brother, and James Murdoch, son of media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, lacked independence because of their close personal ties with the CEO. Two of Tesla's other current directors, Robyn Denholm and Ira Ehrenpreis, showed a lack of independence in the pay decision, she said.

you also say that his pay package was 

Quote

... specifically designed by the board ...

Actually, that was one of the key arguments of the case brought against them. The lawsuit outlined how the pay package was designed by Musk and basically rubber-stamped by the board. The ruling agreed.

Also ...

Quote

the board's negotiation of these factors in the contract was seen as a moonshot scenario

Again, this was argued as not the case by the man who brought this suit

Quote

Tornetta's lawyers argued the Tesla board never told shareholders the goals were easier to achieve than the company was acknowledging and that internal projections showed Musk was quickly going to qualify for large portions of the pay package.

 

 

Quote

this was a most unfair ruling spurred by political interests. 

 

OH MOST UNFAIR!!!!

Sad Baby GIF by Bounce

 

And exactly what political interests? Please, enlighten me. Remind me who brought this case. I'll hang up and listen.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NoName said:

1ckzroxgwjlc1.jpeg

Season 2 Omg GIF by Paramount+

 

image.png

In Elon's mind, this makes sense to him (the 'never went to therapy' statement). First of all, HE didn't see a therapist for himself. They (WE) went to a marital therapist which wasn't for HIM, it was for THE MARRIAGE, because the first Mrs. Musk suggested (I'm guessing) it. So HE never went to therapy. Second, if he didn't participate in the marital therapy it was because it was not as cut and dried as "I'm right and she's wrong," and thus he has never been to therapy because the word therapy comes from the Modern Latin word therapia which is derived from the Greek word therapeia which meant "curing, healing, service done to the sick" and Elon does not ever consider himself sick in that way. In Elon's world, his mind is obviously not in need of therapy nor an implant because it is perfect.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...