3 ms·

>Twitter has bleed so many advertisers strictly because it no longer offers a competitive ad platform That's irrelevant to its technical operations which was t

>Twitter has bleed so many advertisers strictly because it no longer offers a competitive ad platform That's irrelevant to its technical operations which was the concern I addressed though. >It's a myth that twitter is running fine. Seems like a reality in my daily use. Any operational issues you're seeing that I don't?

shortrounddev2 2y ago
Dude you're still using Twitter?
- coldtea 2y ago
  Like hundreds of millions. I don't flow with the fads. Any other question?
  - shortrounddev2 2y ago
    You understand that what you've just stated is an oxymoron right >like hundreds of millions >I don't flow with the fads Like this is textbook trend following
    - coldtea 2y ago
      Fad requires a recent and shortlived fashion or trend. The use of a 20 something old platform that's pretty much standard fair is as opposite as it gets. So if that's "textbook fad following" for you, invest in better textbooks. Dictionary: "A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze".
      - shortrounddev2 2y ago
        Well then I wish you and the few hundred million other free thinkers like you on the most popular social media apps in the world the best of luck in your free thinking.
  - 77pt77 2y ago
    > I don't flow with the fads. So why did you start to use it in the first place. I for example never did (apart from testing the API for professional reasons).
lesuorac 2y ago
> That's irrelevant to its technical operations which was the concern I addressed though. It's not irrelevant. If you're running a company you're have to take in more revenue than your expenses. Sure, you can run a deficit for a long time using outside investment like Uber as you grow revenue to exceed expenses. But, if you are a profitable company like Toys-R-Us and instead increase expenses (via interest payments) while not increasing revenue then you are going to go out of business eventually.
- coldtea 2y ago
  >It's not irrelevant. If you're running a company you're have to take in more revenue than your expenses. It's irrelevant to the discussion, not irrelevant to running a business in general. The context being whether the "shredding" of government size "like he did Twitter" is workable. And the observation I added being that, from an operational standapoint, Twitter works fine, despite the doomsday scenarios when Musk started his shredding. Government doesn't have to attract advertisers - or even turn a profit. Just to reduce it's spending. So if it can do that while (as Twitter) maintaining the same operational capacity, that's a win.

shortrounddev2 2y ago

Dude you're still using Twitter?

coldtea 2y ago
Like hundreds of millions. I don't flow with the fads. Any other question?
- shortrounddev2 2y ago
  You understand that what you've just stated is an oxymoron right >like hundreds of millions >I don't flow with the fads Like this is textbook trend following
  - coldtea 2y ago
    Fad requires a recent and shortlived fashion or trend. The use of a 20 something old platform that's pretty much standard fair is as opposite as it gets. So if that's "textbook fad following" for you, invest in better textbooks. Dictionary: "A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze".
    - shortrounddev2 2y ago
      Well then I wish you and the few hundred million other free thinkers like you on the most popular social media apps in the world the best of luck in your free thinking.
- 77pt77 2y ago
  > I don't flow with the fads. So why did you start to use it in the first place. I for example never did (apart from testing the API for professional reasons).

lesuorac 2y ago

> That's irrelevant to its technical operations which was the concern I addressed though. It's not irrelevant. If you're running a company you're have to take in more revenue than your expenses. Sure, you can run a deficit for a long time using outside investment like Uber as you grow revenue to exceed expenses. But, if you are a profitable company like Toys-R-Us and instead increase expenses (via interest payments) while not increasing revenue then you are going to go out of business eventually.

coldtea 2y ago
>It's not irrelevant. If you're running a company you're have to take in more revenue than your expenses. It's irrelevant to the discussion, not irrelevant to running a business in general. The context being whether the "shredding" of government size "like he did Twitter" is workable. And the observation I added being that, from an operational standapoint, Twitter works fine, despite the doomsday scenarios when Musk started his shredding. Government doesn't have to attract advertisers - or even turn a profit. Just to reduce it's spending. So if it can do that while (as Twitter) maintaining the same operational capacity, that's a win.