Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532746)

It's worth noting, he had already been on some pretty significant boards, including Amtrak, had been CEO of a couple significant investment funds, a senior officer in MBNA, and had some other pretty good experience in things that drive a pretty high compensation as a norm. And he's got a Yale Law Degree.

Sure, his father's and brother's political connections helped every step of the way, but he had the kind of resume, built over many years, that fetches that kind of coin.

Yes, I would love to do something about income inequality in America, but I bet I could identify a dozen boards that would compensate him that well or better in the time it takes to quaff a beer down.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 532744)

The only thing I’m ideologically opposed to is non-transparent moderation. But I’m not in favor of doing anything about it. Twitter can do whatever it likes and it can moderate anything, for any reason it likes. If people don’t like it, they can go elsewhere.

BUT, if Twitter wants to make indefensibly poor decisions, it can take shit for it. And it should not be trusted. And if a crazy billionaire sees bias and decides to buy it because of its bad decisions, and turn it into something that robs those mobs - right and left - who use Twitter to call for squelching of info and views they don’t like, well... Good. The market has spoken.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532747)

Yeah, if I played in the market I'd short that sucker.

I suspect their car business will be beaten to a pulp, since it's just put out mediocre overpriced product, but the battery business could be a survivor. If they're smart, they'll keep that and sell off the vanity business.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532749)

Not to my half of the conversation.



So fucking what? Lots of people earn $50K a month to do lots of things, and it isn't newsworthy. The fact that he's Joe Biden's son doesn't make it newsworthy either.



So fucking what? Maybe Hunter Biden has been lying about his assets to get loans, but that wouldn't be not newsworthy either.



Clinton or Obama kids no, because they were private citizens, and also minors. For the Trump kids, depends on which ones, because some of them became involved in the government and Trump's business in a way that makes what they do newsworthy, depending on what the allegations are.



There is no "objective definition of newsworthy" on this or any other planet. We are having a conversation about what the term means, which is why my opinion is material. You say that the word means nothing -- anything people want to hear is, ipso facto, newsworthy. That is not how any journalist sees their job, although the free market keeps pushing them that way. I wasn't the first person to put out that by your definition, porn is newsworthy, which no one thinks. It's not "newsworthy" because it's not "worth" -- in the sense of having intrinsic value -- being in the "news" -- which is not everything that happens in the world, but a subset of the things that we all think people should know about.

The whole origin of this story should make any sane person think the whole thing is bogus. After other Trump/Giuliani efforts to smear Joe Biden by fabricating dirt on his son, a laptop purportedly abandoned by Hunter Biden in a repair shop for a long time falls into Rudy Giuliani's hands and then is given to the New York Post, which runs credulous stories about what's on it. Really? Really? Do you remember what Giuliani was doing in Ukraine? Under these circumstances, no one should think for a second that anything found on that computer is authentic, although surely much of it is.

If someone lies to you, do you trust them the next time?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532751)

That's fine. All moderation tends not to be transparent, for reasons that are clear to anyone who pays attention. You're ideologically opposed to moderation. I'm often not a fan of it either, but not because I think Twitter is run by the woke. I'm not a fan because it's inconsistent, capricious, easily gamed, and difficult to correct. I think that social media companies have a social responsibility to do it right, and can't be bothered, and I think the people who are working at them and enabling stuff like COVID disinformation and ethnic cleansing of the Rohynga ought to take a long look in the mirror. I have a much bigger problem with Facebook and Google (esp. Youtube) on this score than Twitter, because both of them algorithmically promote harmful crap to make themselves money. Twitter might like to do this more, but has the wrong basic model for it. The thing I like most about Twitter is that I can decide whom to follow, and when they start messing with that basic architecture, that pisses me off, as a user.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532752)

How does that not become a commodity business? Do they have essential patents to make good batteries?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 532753)

Just concede the point. This is the most convoluted Rube Goldberg explanation you’ve ever assembled to support a really dumb position.

But you’ll go down swinging. I’ll give you that. You’ll invent a thousand nonsense standards for “newsworthy” and claim the story is bogus (despite the Times and Post now admitting it isn’t) before you’ll concede the obvious that any sane person would’ve 10 posts ago.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 532754)

I agree it’s inconsistent and capricious. But I’ll add that I think it is also ripe for abuse.

It’s a perfect excuse for Musk to say “I didn’t do the CCP’s bidding. The algorithm did it.”

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532755)

I haven't done a deep dive, but my understanding is they do have some proprietary technology and that their solar batteries are real quality stuff.

But again, not any real expertise here, just someone who has been shopping for batteries.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532752)

How does that not become a commodity business? Do they have essential patents to make good batteries?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532758)

I see people around here with the batteries in the walls, in their houses. I would be super reluctant to make that investment, because I figure the technology is going to get better in the next few years, and then you have to rip the wall out again to replace them. If I'm worried about blackouts, I would get a gas-powered generator instead. But people buy them.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532758)

I see people around here with the batteries in the walls, in their houses. I would be super reluctant to make that investment, because I figure the technology is going to get better in the next few years, and then you have to rip the wall out again to replace them. If I'm worried about blackouts, I would get a gas-powered generator instead. But people buy them.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 532756)

I don't think what Hunter Biden does with his life is news, as a general proposition. I think the same is true for Chelsea Clinton and Barron Trump. If they make a lot of money -- not news. If they beat their spouses -- not news. (If they want to do puff pieces in People or Us, whatever, but that's not news either, even if lots of people want to read it.) If, OTOH, Hunter Biden uses his access to do something corrupt -- that would be news. But that hasn't happened.As close as you can come is, some Ukrainians gave him a bunch of money because they hoped he'd be helpful. Not news.

You aren't explaining why you think people should care about how much money Hunter Biden -- you're pointedly refusing to have that conversation, by playing semantics with the word "newsworthy." If you really think that word means what you're pretending it means, then you would say, yes, porn and Zillow listings are newsworthy. You decline to say that. So, you're playing semantics, just not very well.



I only argue with you when you're wrong, so it's not that fatiguing tbh.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 532747)

Yeah, if I played in the market I'd short that sucker.

I suspect their car business will be beaten to a pulp, since it's just put out mediocre overpriced product, but the battery business could be a survivor. If they're smart, they'll keep that and sell off the vanity business.