3 ms·

> OMG. I'm astonished... Why is wanting a better price such an issue? "The 5% stuff" is like when information surfaces about a faulty or inaccurate odometer re

> OMG. I'm astonished... Why is wanting a better price such an issue? "The 5% stuff" is like when information surfaces about a faulty or inaccurate odometer reading on the used car you're about to buy. If tampered with, let's negotiate a new price.

shawabawa3 4y ago
The 5% figure was certainly known by Elon before making the deal
- exodust 4y ago
  Known because someone said "5%" or known because someone proved it was 5%?
  - imustbeevil 4y ago
    Either. Caveat emptor. You don't get to question the ingredients of food in your stomach.
    - exodust 4y ago
      It's not in my stomach, it's food I'm thinking about buying.
      - imustbeevil 4y ago
        In the context of the Twitter transaction, the purchase agreement was already made.
WHA8m 4y ago
yes, but no. This is unethical negotiating. If you make a bid, you better look beforehand, what you're bidding on. If your bidding has an effect on someone, you better be careful with it.
- patrec 4y ago
  > This is unethical negotiating. It's only unethical negotiating if the Twitter board hasn't put out inflated DAU numbers. Maybe the sudden firing of Kayvon Beykpour and Bruce Falck has raised some new suspicions about this question in Musk's mind? > If you make a bid, you better look beforehand, what you're bidding on. Well, looks like he did, but now questions whether what he was shown was actually truthful, no? > If your bidding has an effect on someone, you better be careful with it. So there are two times two possibilities: Musk genuinely has doubts about the DAU metric he hasn't had before in the force or he hasn't. Similarly there are two possibilities about the accuracy of the DAU metrics: they are within an excusable distance of the truth or they aren't. Assuming they aren't, regardless of Musk's true motives, why would Twitter deserve to be shielded from the fallout?
  - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
    It's a red herring, and now you're arguing about fish. Musk made a serious, legally binding offer to buy with no contingencies for users (human, cyborg, bot, or otherwise). Now he wants out so he's using this bad faith argument to weasel out of the $1B escape clause. Twitter has zero responsibility for needing to report which accounts are completely human or not human. Even if he genuinely cared about bots, Musk still screwed up by not doing due diligence before the offer.

shawabawa3 4y ago

The 5% figure was certainly known by Elon before making the deal

exodust 4y ago
Known because someone said "5%" or known because someone proved it was 5%?
- imustbeevil 4y ago
  Either. Caveat emptor. You don't get to question the ingredients of food in your stomach.
  - exodust 4y ago
    It's not in my stomach, it's food I'm thinking about buying.
    - imustbeevil 4y ago
      In the context of the Twitter transaction, the purchase agreement was already made.

WHA8m 4y ago

yes, but no. This is unethical negotiating. If you make a bid, you better look beforehand, what you're bidding on. If your bidding has an effect on someone, you better be careful with it.

patrec 4y ago
> This is unethical negotiating. It's only unethical negotiating if the Twitter board hasn't put out inflated DAU numbers. Maybe the sudden firing of Kayvon Beykpour and Bruce Falck has raised some new suspicions about this question in Musk's mind? > If you make a bid, you better look beforehand, what you're bidding on. Well, looks like he did, but now questions whether what he was shown was actually truthful, no? > If your bidding has an effect on someone, you better be careful with it. So there are two times two possibilities: Musk genuinely has doubts about the DAU metric he hasn't had before in the force or he hasn't. Similarly there are two possibilities about the accuracy of the DAU metrics: they are within an excusable distance of the truth or they aren't. Assuming they aren't, regardless of Musk's true motives, why would Twitter deserve to be shielded from the fallout?
- minsc_and_boo 4y ago
  It's a red herring, and now you're arguing about fish. Musk made a serious, legally binding offer to buy with no contingencies for users (human, cyborg, bot, or otherwise). Now he wants out so he's using this bad faith argument to weasel out of the $1B escape clause. Twitter has zero responsibility for needing to report which accounts are completely human or not human. Even if he genuinely cared about bots, Musk still screwed up by not doing due diligence before the offer.