You and I have very different definitions of the word "amazing"
> "overwhelm or confound with sudden surprise or wonder," 1580s, back-formation from Middle English amased "stunned, dazed, bewildered," (late 14c.), earlier "stupefied, irrational, foolish" (c. 1200), from Old English amasod, from a- (1), probably used here as an intensive prefix, + *mæs (see maze). Related: Amazed; amazing.
"amazing" never meant "this is of surprisingly high quality and good"
There is a strange circular logic to saying words mean something new because they are commonly used in a new way and at the same time telling somebody how they're using a word is wrong because it doesn't match this new meaning.
1. Causing great surprise or wonder; astonishing. 1.1 [informal] Startlingly impressive
Did pointedly ignoring common usage add anything here?
Yes, there are plenty of words going though the natural process of dilution. Providing some backpressure is, I think, useful to the language to preserve the richness of meaning. I'm responding directly to a discussion about the meaning of a word not interjecting into another conversation with a "well, actually..."
When you're writing a dictionary, words mean what people use them to mean. I'm not writing a dictionary.
However it may still be use in some limited contexts, or historical contexts, its modern day usage is almost always with a positive connotation.
I think it is good to be reminded of the higher quality meaning of words that are falling into bland generic meanings. Words do change and there's nothing wrong with that, but some changes are better than others and the degeneration of specific strong meanings to generic common place ones isn't something that should be celebrated.
Look at the Great Vowel Shift, or how creoles, pidgins and patois develop and evolve. Language isn't static, and in the case of "amazing" its current vernacular usage has changed to almost always have a positive connotation.
For instance Twitter stock was $60 last october, if they didn't ask for at least that it would be shortchanging shareholders and also imply a declining company.
Unless you think he just woke up today and said: You know what, I'm going to buy Twitter! Which, I mean.. given Elon maybe that's what happened. But if it was premeditated then he has clearly been acting on insider information.
Elon is. He bought shares, then put in an offer which drives his existing shares up. Perhaps you can argue until he sells them he isn't acting.. perhaps.. but if he sells them today, are you still telling me he isn't acting on insider information?
A principal shareholder is a person that directly or indirectly owns or controls more than 10% of any class of voting shares or securities of a company. The principal shareholder has the authority to vote using those voting shares.
Elon has less than 10% share (9.2%), so he's not an insider. Probably he stayed under 10% because of this law.
No it's not.
Step 2: You buy shares in the company
Step 3: You publicly disclose you will buy the company, driving it's share price up
Step 4: You sell those existing shares now that the price has gone up.
That is trading on insider information.
If you have an intention to actually buy and make a good faith effort and fail, that's just business.
I don't hate Twitter like I hate Facebook (mainly for ideological reasons and their propensity for exploitation) but god damn is their interface and entire product model annoying.
He is a sociopath. The fact that a sociopath wants to be a king of social media is disturbing.
Once Elon has full control of Twitter, they can always leave and go start their own platform.
Let's separate two concerns:
1) Belief system – whether you philosophically support Elon's take over or not
2) Objective facts, corporate finance and legal aspects of what's going on
All I can see in this thread is 1) masquerading as 2).
Indeed. One would have hoped that Hacker News would be immune from Reddit/Twitter-style "Anything I don't like is illegal/unconstitutional", but apparently not.
"Someone buying up shares of a company before he announces a hostile takeover is inside information and thus illegal!" Good grief.
"I am going to dump 1/10th of the company that I very publicly acquired if they don't do what I want them to do" feels like manipulation since he's controlling the value of such a large amount of it.
But is it illegal to be willing to lose money if a threat isn't met?
Furthermore, would it be illegal for him to dump his shares, allow the trajectory to tank the price further, then rebuy when it bottoms, rinse and repeat?
No, you are allowed to sell your shares if you don't want them anymore.