← Back to context

Comment by ourmandave

1 day ago

Or maybe the unelected moronic clown running it went in with a chainsaw like when he took over twitter.

Giving zero f*cks for the massive harm caused or the legality of it.

Well, for Twitter it's fine. It's a private company, and the shareholders can only blame themselves for the management they put in charge.

(From a broader society point of view, I'm a bit sad that they didn't actually manage to run Twitter into the ground. I think Twitter's a net-negative for humanity. But that's a different topic. People obviously like using it.)

Musk is uniquely stupid and arrogant for refusing to understand very complex systems before making radical changes to them. This behavior directly led to outages at Twitter after he bought it.

I don't think hanlon's razor applies to billionaires , unless the peter principle holds true all the way to the very top

  • Why wouldn't Peter Principle apply just because the magical financial threshold is crossed? This is Peter Principle in a textbook way, a promotion from managing companies to managing the government.

    • my original thesis is wrong - while musk may have petered up to the top, that doesnt imply his actions must also be attributed to stupidity. the error in the thesis is conflation of stupidity with the raw brutal strength of cancer