[notahacker]

That's... a long way from what I actually said, which is that it's fairly unusual for a Western ally to be dependent on infrastructure provided by a company lead by an-unstable-seeming guy whose screechingly bad takes on Twitter include an obsession with endorsing their enemy's talking points.

[panick21_]

Its always kind of funny to me that people call Musk unstable. He had the same 2 jobs for decades now. He does these jobs and works on them insane hours. He is successful in the things he does. Other then people not liking his opinion, he isn't really unstable in any meaningful way. People just prefer to call him crazy and unstable because then anything he says doesn't have to be taken seriously.

Of course he is often wrong about things, and has bad takes. And he can get angry and competitive. He is pretty petty. But if that makes somebody mentally unstable there are a lot of unstable people around.

[15457345234]

The takeaway that everyone is failing to appreciate is very simple: nobody should be paying any attention to what is being said on twitter.

As in, a person can be a screeching lunatic on twitter yet have two companies that are hitting milestone after milestone.

The achievements are what's relevant but everyone is glued to what's tweeted.

It's not a hard lesson to learn.

[notahacker]

There's a difference between merely tweeting nonsense and spending a large part of your fortune buying Twitter and driving its commercial partners away with the nonsense you tweet though...

And, back on topic, dependency on infrastructure provided by a company lead by someone who is publicly campaigning for you to surrender and occasionally publicly threatens to switch it off is a more conspicuous security risk than most.