STS-134
Active Member
Sure. BUT, absolutely not consistent with free speech absolutism.His company, his rules.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sure. BUT, absolutely not consistent with free speech absolutism.His company, his rules.
It identifies as free speech absolution though.Sure. BUT, absolutely not consistent with free speech absolutism.
She was using a "deceptive identify". She was making it seem as Elon Musk was liking certain people and post.
View attachment 871915
Is this parody?
Yes, and utterly ridiculous that he's personally jerking people around. Stupid, stupid, stupid.Sure. BUT, absolutely not consistent with free speech absolutism.
If by "nearly perfect" you mean "a bit less terrible" then you've got it right. I drive that area all the time and disengagements are constant. I asked my daughter today how she's finding FSD Beta (10.69.2.4) on her Model 3 and she says she's not using it much because she turns it on and then goes to the first disengagement, which is at most a couple of minutes. She's lost patience for any more than that. She drives all over the Bay Area.In areas with heavy Tesla car populations, the roads are so well marked, FSD is nearly perfect (Palo Alto to San Francisco essentially).
Yeah, well, this is useless for two obvious reasons. First conditions are as of the moment, not general, so it can't rely on such information. And second, it has to be able to tell the difference between real information and fake. If it can do that, it's way ahead of where things are now. As has been pointed out with the removal of radar, getting rid of a low information signal actually makes things better.A reading of local news / hospitals and police report history would certainly be flagged by text algos and the information passed on to augmented FSD would warn drivers/ reduce automatically speed.
What happened to free speech and bringing back people who have been banned? Now Elon doesn’t like it so forget everything he said before. It only applies to view he personally doesn’t like.
Now Elon doesn’t like it so forget everything he said before.
It's a LBO (leveraged buyout). What that means is that the buyer takes on debt using the purchased company as collateral for the loan (the company has assets, and can borrow against those assets, i.e. get loans in the name of the company). Think of a real estate investor who buys a property; he or she puts some money down, and borrows the rest of the money from the bank. The property he or she is buying is used as collateral for the loan and the cash flow from the asset he or she bought (like rent payments from tenants) is supposed to pay off the loan. If the loan can't be paid off because the market for real estate tanks and the rent payments aren't enough to pay off the loan, then the bank can foreclose on the property.With the deal Twitter took new debt About $13 billion. Please explain why Twitter took debt when others bought it?
Where does the money go when you take out a loan to buy a house? It goes to the seller. Who "sold" Twitter? The previous shareholders. So the money went to Twitter's shareholders, who got $54.20 per share.Where did that money go?
Like all his other ventures, he's going in knowing very little, but learning and iterating fast. I expect him to throw out many of his own ideas in fairly short order.What happened to free speech and bringing back people who have been banned? Now Elon doesn’t like it so forget everything he said before. It only applies to view he personally doesn’t like.
The problem with this is that his timeline is well known to be subject to shadow banning, and it is likely that those efforts will be redoubled now. It can be very hard to find the most important Tweets as a result.Why are we repeating Musk's timeline here?
I would suggest to get the updates from the source:
Bekijk Elon Musk op Twitter.
Twitter Complaint Hotline Operator
https://twitter.com/elonmusk?s=20&t=WV6B0oBTAQajG5JPx3V2BA
You can’t make this stuff up. (Or maybe you can - this Tweet has presumably been deleted and I am not sure how to look up deleted Tweets.)
With the deal Twitter took new debt About $13 billion. Please explain why Twitter took debt when others bought it? Where did that money go?
Thank you. So Twitter took loan to buy its own shares back from previous shareholders? If Twitter can't pay its loans back, can banks get the money from Musk?It's a LBO (leveraged buyout). What that means is that the buyer takes on debt using the purchased company as collateral for the loan (the company has assets, and can borrow against those assets, i.e. get loans in the name of the company). Think of a real estate investor who buys a property; he or she puts some money down, and borrows the rest of the money from the bank. The property he or she is buying is used as collateral for the loan and the cash flow from the asset he or she bought (like rent payments from tenants) is supposed to pay off the loan. If the loan can't be paid off because the market for real estate tanks and the rent payments aren't enough to pay off the loan, then the bank can foreclose on the property.
Where does the money go when you take out a loan to buy a house? It goes to the seller. Who "sold" Twitter? The previous shareholders. So the money went to Twitter's shareholders, who got $54.20 per share.