[flagged]
>Now that he's potentially not manic at the moment (possibly, I'm not his doctor) he realizes that he's not going to put an additional cent into it because the business can't be saved.
Frankly I'm still confused how his lawyers wrote the deal to buy Twitter the way he wanted to. He basically made it impossible for himself to back out, or even to have time to do due diligence. Why? The only thing I can guess is he was absolutely sure they would refuse the deal and would give some other concession, like a bigger board seat? Even so why didn't his own lawyers stop him?
The client is an arsehole and refuses to listen to counsel.
But it's not like Elon is writing the legal wording on the offer itself, and it was terrible in a specifically legal way. You would almost have to tell your lawyer: "Write me an offer to buy Twitter. But I don't want the standard boring offer other people use. Be sure to go out of your way and waive standard protections. Just burn the bridge behind me so I'm totally stuck here if things go sideways."
And then weeks later he's on podcasts complaining that there's too many bots on Twitter and it's not fair the bridge is burnt. Dude, you went out of your way to do that.
At the time he must had some rational.
.. Who forced him to make the offer? Or do you believe the offer was made in bad faith?
Come now, he was only forced to follow through on the deal he solicited at the original terms he agreed to.
Now that they have loans to pay and far less revenue? A much worse situation.
He bought Twitter. And then he didn’t like what happened to it while the deal was being closed and tried to back out of the sale.
It’s like buying a product, signing a contract waiving off any return period, then insisting you want to return it even though it’s working exactly as it was supposed to.
>It’s like buying a product, signing a contract waiving off any return period, then insisting you want to return it even though it’s working exactly as it was supposed to.
Actually still undersells it a bit.
It's like buying a product, refusing to sign the standard contract a typical customer signs, having your lawyer create a custom contract that waives the return period, then complaining about not being able to return it.
Bewildering honestly. Like he must have thought that Twitter would use that clause in some way against him or something?
How do you know?
(Edit: The third and least likely option is that you are a mental health professional who has evaluated Elon Musk, in which case I believe you are violating federal law.)
Mania doesn't make you abuse your workforces at multiple companies over a period of decades, lie about holding your son that died from SIDS when you actually weren't home, or dump half a dozen spouses when you get bored with them. That's not having empathy. This man does not have empathy.
Huh. Looks like just one, but still, I didn't know this.
Random Person: "Elon are you bipolar?"
Elon: "Yeah"
Elon: "Maybe not medically tho. Dunno. Bad feelings correlate to bad events, so maybe real problem is getting carried away in what I sign up for."
Maybe, maybe not, but that’s not the only mental illness you’ve “diagnosed” him with. So explain to me whether you’re making diagnoses without any relevant qualification or whether you’re violating the ethical rules of your profession on Hacker News for clout.
I take it you mean "...with you." I, for one, find more and more respect for him. Somebody has to protect the free speech. What he did was very courageous and very difficult (I mean purchasing of Twitter, not the layoffs, obviously). Just look at the amount of vitriol that has been thrown at him for daring to stand for the free speech.
I genuinely don’t believe this was originally about free speech. I think he noted that as a compelling argument for owning the cheapest social media network.
If this was truly about free speech, I’d imagine there’s more effective ways of doing so. He could have funded journalism programs. He could have been established decentralized communication platforms that can’t be tampered with. None of those require betting the farm, and all of those directly promote free dialogue.