5 ms·

Musk wants to settle Mars. Twitter is noise.

by smm11 4y ago

Maursault 4y ago
> Musk wants to settle Mars. Twitter is noise. I think this is backwards. I think perhaps more accurately Musk wants to make ungodly amounts of money on selling the dream of settling Mars. Mars settlement is a monorail. And I don't think Twitter is just noise. It appears to me that Musk knew exactly what he was doing and got the results he desired, knocking the value of Twitter down 11% for his own personal political and/or narcissistic agendas.
- phendrenad2 4y ago
  I think Musk wants to make ungodly amounts of money so he can settle Mars.
- lmm 4y ago
  He already had ungodly amounts of money before he got involved in SpaceX, which at the time looked far more likely to burn money than make it. I'm no fan of the guy but I do think he's serious about the space stuff.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    LEO is proven; there's a need, thus a market, and the science is sound. Mars, not so much. No need, just dreams for an irresponsible solution to Earth-bound problems that still will need solved. The lack of air on Mars can be solved; we could terraform it, over a long time, create the air needed to support life. The lack of a planetary dynamo and magnetic shield from radiation probably can't be solved. What is the difference between tin cans in LEO using centripetal force for artificial gravity and tin cans on Mars? One is a lot less expensive, and if something goes wrong, there is at the very least a possibility of escape or rescue. Mars is somewhat of a death trap. So no doubt Musk cares about space stuff, which has been profitable for him. I'm just not sure he's really serious about Mars or if it is his version of a reality distortion field. It really looks like a monorail to me.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  I think Musk wanted to buy Twitter then he realized it was overpaying when the market crashed. There's no need for overcomplicated conspiratorial explanations that are unlikely.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > then he realized it was overpaying when the market crashed. His initial security filing announcing stake seems to be related to Twitter's value increasing 27%. If knowledge of Musk owning a stake in Twitter increases the value of all shares, we can forgive Musk for believing that the value would continue to increase if he made an offer to buy Twitter above that amount, which he did. If he had just kept his mouth shut, but his statements had the opposite effect than intended, and Twitter's share started dropping following his stated intentions to change specific things at Twitter, and never rose again to his estimation based on his extrapolating from the positive effect of his initial security filing. He screwed the pooch, his mouth was causing shares to fall, and then he wanted out. > There's no need for overcomplicated conspiratorial explanations that are unlikely. I see that now, appreciated. Hanlon's razor provides a simpler explanation.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      That's almost certainly not what happened. What happened was the broader market crashed after the deal was signed. TWTR's intrinsic valuation is largely driven by other listed tech stocks. So when those crashed, TWTR's intrinsic valuation also crashed, which meant the deal price became unattractive. Merger arbitraguers, in light of the crash, started shorting in anticipation of the deal being reneged on. Musk was initially happy to pay some premium above market price, which is normal in acquisitions, but it no longer made financial sense for him to continue with the deal following the sell-off in the broader market. There almost certainly was no prior plan to sneak out of the acquisition agreement irrespective of developments in the broader market. If the broader market had rallied instead of crashed, Musk would be licking his lips at the opportunity to scoop up a relatively cheap TWTR. > Hanlon's razor provides a simpler explanation. It's not Hanlon's razor, which presumes incompetence. It's Occam's razor. There's no incompetence to making a deal that is good given the available information at the time that the deal was signed. New information presented itself (in the form of an unexpected broader market crash) after the deal, which altered the optimal decision.

Musk wants to settle Mars. Twitter is noise.

by smm11 4y ago

Musk wants to settle Mars. Twitter is noise.

> Musk wants to settle Mars. Twitter is noise. I think this is backwards. I think perhaps more accurately Musk wants to make ungodly amounts of money on selling the dream of settling Mars. Mars settlement is a monorail. And I don't think Twitter is just noise. It appears to me that Musk knew exactly what he was doing and got the results he desired, knocking the value of Twitter down 11% for his own personal political and/or narcissistic agendas.

phendrenad2 4y ago
I think Musk wants to make ungodly amounts of money so he can settle Mars.
lmm 4y ago
He already had ungodly amounts of money before he got involved in SpaceX, which at the time looked far more likely to burn money than make it. I'm no fan of the guy but I do think he's serious about the space stuff.
- Maursault 4y ago
  LEO is proven; there's a need, thus a market, and the science is sound. Mars, not so much. No need, just dreams for an irresponsible solution to Earth-bound problems that still will need solved. The lack of air on Mars can be solved; we could terraform it, over a long time, create the air needed to support life. The lack of a planetary dynamo and magnetic shield from radiation probably can't be solved. What is the difference between tin cans in LEO using centripetal force for artificial gravity and tin cans on Mars? One is a lot less expensive, and if something goes wrong, there is at the very least a possibility of escape or rescue. Mars is somewhat of a death trap. So no doubt Musk cares about space stuff, which has been profitable for him. I'm just not sure he's really serious about Mars or if it is his version of a reality distortion field. It really looks like a monorail to me.
hackerlight 4y ago
I think Musk wanted to buy Twitter then he realized it was overpaying when the market crashed. There's no need for overcomplicated conspiratorial explanations that are unlikely.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > then he realized it was overpaying when the market crashed. His initial security filing announcing stake seems to be related to Twitter's value increasing 27%. If knowledge of Musk owning a stake in Twitter increases the value of all shares, we can forgive Musk for believing that the value would continue to increase if he made an offer to buy Twitter above that amount, which he did. If he had just kept his mouth shut, but his statements had the opposite effect than intended, and Twitter's share started dropping following his stated intentions to change specific things at Twitter, and never rose again to his estimation based on his extrapolating from the positive effect of his initial security filing. He screwed the pooch, his mouth was causing shares to fall, and then he wanted out. > There's no need for overcomplicated conspiratorial explanations that are unlikely. I see that now, appreciated. Hanlon's razor provides a simpler explanation.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    That's almost certainly not what happened. What happened was the broader market crashed after the deal was signed. TWTR's intrinsic valuation is largely driven by other listed tech stocks. So when those crashed, TWTR's intrinsic valuation also crashed, which meant the deal price became unattractive. Merger arbitraguers, in light of the crash, started shorting in anticipation of the deal being reneged on. Musk was initially happy to pay some premium above market price, which is normal in acquisitions, but it no longer made financial sense for him to continue with the deal following the sell-off in the broader market. There almost certainly was no prior plan to sneak out of the acquisition agreement irrespective of developments in the broader market. If the broader market had rallied instead of crashed, Musk would be licking his lips at the opportunity to scoop up a relatively cheap TWTR. > Hanlon's razor provides a simpler explanation. It's not Hanlon's razor, which presumes incompetence. It's Occam's razor. There's no incompetence to making a deal that is good given the available information at the time that the deal was signed. New information presented itself (in the form of an unexpected broader market crash) after the deal, which altered the optimal decision.