35 ms·
Go to the statement (10-Q I think) and you'll see caveats and conditional statements that are rather clear the estimate was not in anyway definitive or even met
by scotuswroteus 4y ago
Go to the statement (10-Q I think) and you'll see caveats and conditional statements that are rather clear the estimate was not in anyway definitive or even methodologically sound. They said that. My man Elon is so focused on numbers that he doesn't read the fine print. Certainty intervals matter, even if they're described with words rather than numbers.
- encryptluks2 4y agoYeah, that is the part I'm referring to. Agreed, that if he read the fine print that he would be litigating this much differently, or at least in his public statements. From the change in strategy, it appears his lawyers are now just trying to claim that Twitter isn't providing some information... although, I'm not sure that they are required to verify any claims regarding bots based on their public filings.
- JamesSwift 4y agoHis lawyers are claiming a technicality in the contract, specifically there _is_ a clause that requires Twitter to service any "reasonable" request for information to Elon. Theres 2 important things to keep in mind when judging the violation however: 1) Requests for information are assumed to be to facilitate _closing the deal_. Its not just for any willy-nilly request he wants. 2) It specifically is not to service "due diligence". This is the "open for interpretation" part. The contract _separately_ calls out that Musk has had the opportunity to seek information for due diligence, and Twitter has already fulfilled those requests to his satisfaction. So with that in mind, I would interpret the obligation to service information to be limited to things e.g. related to acquiring financing, or to fill out paperwork etc.