|
|
|
|
|
|
by gregjor
1304 days ago
|
|
|
I don't see how anyone can call the Twitter debacle an accident, so I have to conclude Musk does what he does intentionally, though possibly without a clear purpose. He alone has almost absolute control over the company. What does Musk stand to gain by tanking Twitter? I don't know. Nor do I know what he thought he might gain by buying it. His explanation -- that he wants to save free speech for all humanity -- sounds so delusional and self-important I took it as either insincere or narcissistic. Given his history I settled on narcissism. I don't doubt that if Twitter fails Musk will blame lazy and disloyal employees (or former employees), sabotage, the "woke left," spineless advertisers, greedy bankers. He won't see fault in his own actions, ignorance, failure to plan or set a course for the company. He already blamed "activists" for scaring off advertisers. |
|
|
They’re not all geniuses. Some were just born into it or were in the right place at the right time and had the willingness to let someone who knew what they were doing manage it.
But maybe the bigger problem is the transferability problem. You were ultra successful in A, so you must be great for B too, right?
What does Twitter have in common with SpaceX? They both have computers?
There have been tons of moronic ideas in valley in the last 20 years started/run by successful people that cratered. How many things has MS tried? And there must be tons of examples outside computing of people/companies trying to get into new lines of business that flopped hard.
But almost every time we’re surprised. “How could Elon fail?” Then the rationalization starts. “He must have a plan! He’s doing it on purpose!”
Nah. People fail at things. No one’s magic.