"It takes a massive level of narcissism to see yourself as some barometer of the universe, as a balancing point..."
This is such a smart observation. If your belief is "Everybody is wrong but me", you can't claim everybody is wrong in exactly the same way, so instead you claim some are "too far left" and some are "too far right" and where does that place you?
I beieve he is trying to bankrupt the company (without committing fraud) because it will cost him less money -- i.e. he'll recoup some of what he paid. We'd need to see the merger and privitization docs to know for sure but some dumb company will pay a lot for twitter in bk court (just for the customer list).
I'd go with the second theory, it's a mistake to assume rich people are more clever and rational than the rest of us (or even clever or rational at all.)
Yes, I think the idea that he’s trying to deliberately bankrupt the company (which I’ve heard expressed by others) falls under the category of “Musk is playing three dimensional chess.”
Even the hardcore sycophants can’t claim that his inept and destructive management of Twitter is anything other than…inept and destructive. So in order to avoid cognitive dissonance (I guess) they’re now claiming he intended to go bankrupt all along.
The reality is as you said — he’s not as smart as he and his followers think he is.
Which also points to another reality about Musk — his success (as it is with many) is more about luck and being in the right place at the right time than talent.
Now that’s taken on a really big complicated problem (making a social media platform profitable) he’s showing everyone his own glaring flaws and limitations.
Absolutely the right take on this article Parker, as this article is absolutely indefensible. It will stand as one of the worst things of the 2020s for the NYT.
About its author, Upton Sinclair had his type figured out decades ago: " It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Hate to reveal I skimmed this too fast but Steve Bannon is his buddy. He gave a shoutout to this author, called him 'our great friend ' or something. Between him and Paula whatshername and her ex Bret Stephens it's sad that Bari didn't realize she would fit right in. Oh, and what a shame Alec Berenson didn't stick around at the Times. They know how to pick em! Who is next over there? The 'both sides' ploy is getting old but it's better than lying I suppose (though it involves a lot of lying).
I find it interesting that his analysis of Twitter files decided the worst thing was that "conservatives that routinely break the rules got light taps on the hand", and ignored the whistleblower report that Twitter was one oops away from possibly never booting, thousands of people had privileged access to production, and they didn't follow even the most basic development principles.
You know, things he should have looked for *before* he bought the damn company, and information that would have been legit reasons to break the purchase off.
It's like finding your house is on fire and complaining that the paint in the bathroom is fuchsia.
All this effort to not-see what's right in front of your face makes a little more sense this morning, now that we know Elmo's banning journalists he doesn't like. Must protect ones Twitter account at all costs, how could I possibly be a professional "journalist" without one?
I have not been reading the NYT for many years except for the occasional article on non-political topics. I never heard of this Peters guy before. Is he somehow related to Jordan Peterson? ;-)
The paper of record long ago abandoned any pretensions of journalistic integrity. Judith fucking Miller anyone? The best one can hope for is that the NYT withers and dies on the same vine as Twitter.
"It takes a massive level of narcissism to see yourself as some barometer of the universe, as a balancing point..."
This is such a smart observation. If your belief is "Everybody is wrong but me", you can't claim everybody is wrong in exactly the same way, so instead you claim some are "too far left" and some are "too far right" and where does that place you?
I beieve he is trying to bankrupt the company (without committing fraud) because it will cost him less money -- i.e. he'll recoup some of what he paid. We'd need to see the merger and privitization docs to know for sure but some dumb company will pay a lot for twitter in bk court (just for the customer list).
Or maybe he's just a narcissistic jerk.
I'd go with the second theory, it's a mistake to assume rich people are more clever and rational than the rest of us (or even clever or rational at all.)
Yes, I think the idea that he’s trying to deliberately bankrupt the company (which I’ve heard expressed by others) falls under the category of “Musk is playing three dimensional chess.”
Even the hardcore sycophants can’t claim that his inept and destructive management of Twitter is anything other than…inept and destructive. So in order to avoid cognitive dissonance (I guess) they’re now claiming he intended to go bankrupt all along.
The reality is as you said — he’s not as smart as he and his followers think he is.
Which also points to another reality about Musk — his success (as it is with many) is more about luck and being in the right place at the right time than talent.
Now that’s taken on a really big complicated problem (making a social media platform profitable) he’s showing everyone his own glaring flaws and limitations.
Absolutely the right take on this article Parker, as this article is absolutely indefensible. It will stand as one of the worst things of the 2020s for the NYT.
It will be lucky to be the worst thing this week for the NYT, whose opinion page is affirmative action for mediocre conservative "thinkers".
About its author, Upton Sinclair had his type figured out decades ago: " It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Hate to reveal I skimmed this too fast but Steve Bannon is his buddy. He gave a shoutout to this author, called him 'our great friend ' or something. Between him and Paula whatshername and her ex Bret Stephens it's sad that Bari didn't realize she would fit right in. Oh, and what a shame Alec Berenson didn't stick around at the Times. They know how to pick em! Who is next over there? The 'both sides' ploy is getting old but it's better than lying I suppose (though it involves a lot of lying).
I find it interesting that his analysis of Twitter files decided the worst thing was that "conservatives that routinely break the rules got light taps on the hand", and ignored the whistleblower report that Twitter was one oops away from possibly never booting, thousands of people had privileged access to production, and they didn't follow even the most basic development principles.
You know, things he should have looked for *before* he bought the damn company, and information that would have been legit reasons to break the purchase off.
It's like finding your house is on fire and complaining that the paint in the bathroom is fuchsia.
All this effort to not-see what's right in front of your face makes a little more sense this morning, now that we know Elmo's banning journalists he doesn't like. Must protect ones Twitter account at all costs, how could I possibly be a professional "journalist" without one?
I have not been reading the NYT for many years except for the occasional article on non-political topics. I never heard of this Peters guy before. Is he somehow related to Jordan Peterson? ;-)
The paper of record long ago abandoned any pretensions of journalistic integrity. Judith fucking Miller anyone? The best one can hope for is that the NYT withers and dies on the same vine as Twitter.