Note that the article he responded to with his tweet, it was $6B for a specific 42M person subset. Not ALL of world hunger. Musk inaccurately/incorrectly has ballooned the scope up to all world hunger.
Here's the link:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/26/economy/musk-world-hunger...
I thought the headline was incredibly stupid at the time. They added a "correction" at the bottom of the page now:
>-- Correction: An earlier version of this story's headline incorrectly stated that the director of the UN's food scarcity organization believes 2% of Elon Musk's wealth could solve world hunger. He believes it could help solve world hunger.
Right.
That's a blunder on the headline of the article, sure, but is the suggestion here that Elon whipped out that offer to liquidate $6B without reading the article itself or watching the interview on the topic? Direct quote from the interview where the UN rep was talking about it, which was also included in the original article:
"$6 billion to help 42 million people that are literally going to die if we don't reach them. It's not complicated"
Well, he certainly whipped it out to rhetorically appeal to people who hadn't read the article or watched the interview, whether or not he personally read/watched them.
Precisely. This is Musk front-loading technicalities into his blustery non-offer.
> Nope. That's a CNN blunder
An assertion that CNN made a blunder about $6B toward the 42M facing starvation - is false.
By offering a broad correction that wasn't limited to the one-word CNN error, the whole of your post became non-factual.
>The UN says $6B from the world's billionaires could solve a hunger crisis. Elon Musk says he will sell Tesla stock and donate proceeds if the UN can prove that.
From this link:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/un-says-6b-worlds-billionaires-03...
Are we arguing that news headlines are not the resposibility of news organizations?
Bear in mind, that headline is recent. Should we still go with Occam's razor here, or is this a clear attempt to get clicks, you know, given the fact that this headline came way after the correction but still commits the same "mistake" which is more click inducing than stating the facts ?
>By offering a broad correction that wasn't limited to the one-word CNN error, the whole of your post became non-factual.
What does that even mean?