• AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can’t fathom having the power to save our at least change millions of lives…but instead choose to leech more wealth from the people that need it most. And systematically make the world worse. It’s a sickness.

        There are no good billionaires.

        • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would build SO much low income, homeless, and transition housing. I would also start my own line of bamboo products and packaging to replace plastic.

          • kklusz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            The most important part of what you said is that you’d build “SO much” housing. If we’d just let the free market build all the housing it wants without letting NIMBYs get in the way, we’d have largely solved the housing crisis.

            • ThatWeirdGuy1001@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Except we already have more houses than there are homeless people. The problem is the empty houses have ridiculous price tags due to corporate landlords and landlords refusing the sell and only rent (also at ridiculous prices)

              • kklusz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Vacancy rates in the places where people actually want to live are really low. Besides, are people not allowed to have vacation homes?

                Market price is a function of supply and demand. We’ve been under building housing for years.

  • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    According to Hwang, the company now formerly known as Twitter did offer “an alternative handle with the history of the @x account” so that his original account, complete with its posts and followers, could live on and continue to be used.

    What short, catchy username did Musk’s company change Hwang’s handle to? @x12345678998765.

    You can’t make this shit up. God damn!

  • PrimalAnimist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be fair, no user “owns” their account. Everything about your Twitter account, from the user name to the data you tweet belongs to Twitter. I hesitate to call it a dick move. It’s more of an Elon move.

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What short, catchy username did Musk’s company change Hwang’s handle to? @x12345678998765.

    It could have been worse.

    They could have named him “X Æ A-12” 😵‍💫

  • anteaters@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah why would they pay the “owner”? It’s their platform they do whatever they want. What a dumb thing to complain about.

    • Little1Lost@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      the main problem with this is that with them doing it without asking or time to prepare all the people the guy knew where lost or have a problem finding him.
      And the huy was seemingly not even a nobody but instead had a company so even more company contacts could get lost or customers wanting to directly reach out to him could sent private data to a 3 party (twitter) about confidential informations.

      Secondly it says that the company can and will take over accounts when they have some reason, even if it is only the name.
      That means the trust in the handle gets completly broken because it could be a twitter account in just a few seconds without warning.
      So they have the power to take over an official governement or news account without warning and only leaving a reason. This is theoretical but if there is a news station with a handle like “xnews” i can really expect that it gets taken over in some time in the future.

    • Arnj@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure what you are trying to do with this link, the two x accounts are not the same…

        • Arnj@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think we’re talking past each other, the x who lost his account (I think) is now x12345678998765 the post behind the link was made by the account x12345678908765 they are not the same account, so the link does neither disprove nor prove the article in the main post which makes the comment by sam just useless and deceiving

  • Syringe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Man…

    I was pretty bummed when I heard that Twitter was going to die. There are some cool moments in history that happened on Twitter. It was a hell of a ride, but the writing was on the wall well before Elon bought it. It was time to go.

    But not like this.

    It deserved a good death. Not to have it’s corpse raped on full display over and over.

    A lot of very talented people committed so much time and energy to this. When it launched, it was a novel idea and they really forged some roads in our understanding of how we communicate and receive information.

    It was clear at the end that it would never produce the kind of ROI on advertising to make investors happy, and that Nazis had clearly taken over the platform and used it to bastardize journalism further. It was time to go to pasture.

    But not like this.

    Hopefully its mutilated, humiliated and desiccated corpse will feed the growth of the federated web.

    I hope you find peace, sweet prince.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Twitter was profitable before Musk took over.

      The purchase itself saddled Twitter with $13 billion in debt. Musk paid $26bn, other investors (including the Saudi prince) together paid $5bn, and the remaining $13bn was a loan Twitter took out to buy itself on their behalf.

      The new owners only paid tax on the $31bn they paid, not the $44bn that was paid to shareholders. (Here’s something I’m not sure about: Musk was one of the largest shareholders. Is the $44bn the total value of all shares - does that include Musk’s shares? Did he basically buy shares from himself?)

      The interest on that $13bn was comparible to Twitter’s revenue, before Musk started fucking around. Twitter could not afford that debt.

      The buyout itself was what killed Twitter. Everything since then has been nothing but a clown show to distract from the fact that was the original intention.

      • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        the remaining $13bn was a loan Twitter took out to buy itself on their behalf.

        That’s truly some Hollywood-accounting-style bullshit. I couldn’t even imagine the paradoxical mathematics it took to make that happen.

        It would be like me paying you to buy a candy bar from me.

      • narnach@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wait, that sounds like a leveraged buyout. I overlooked that detail in the news. It changes everything.

        I know that some investment firms use leveraged buyouts to drain every bit of money from a company before they chop it up, sell the good bits and let the rest go bankrupt due to the massive debts left in the carcass of the old company. It’s so scummy I wonder why it’s not illegal.