NonDawg Twitter “rate limit exceeded”
- Thread starter gtanduga
- Start date
You could be right. Billionaires typically don’t mind trying new things. See: Steve Cohen’s Mets.
It is no longer publicly traded. Probably closer to $20-25
And he there are a lot of people who, for some reason, want to see him fail. Not you but Just look at this thread. So he is fighting an uphill battle.
I am no Elon fan but the venom spewed his way is …. Odd
But I think you are correct in that he completely underestimated what a disaster twitter was and the pushback he would receive from removing the censorship.
I haven't had a twitter account in 10 to 15 years. I don't remember exactly how long it has been and it's not even worth it to me to check. So this is a non-event for me.
There's a guy that does a similar thing with recruiting coverage networks if you haven't heard.
Can you send me an invite code? I’m on the waiting list now, but who knows how long that will take.
It's all good.
Outages and errors happen with technology all the time. While temporarily inconvenient, it's not a sign of the end.
I do think it's funny that the #1 use of Twitter I've seen since Elon bought it is people tweeting about Twitter failing and being unusable.
The guy building rockets that take off and land again is a charlatan? The guy making brain implants that can fix paralysis? The dude making the most advanced cars on the planet?
That guy?
Twitter is a fun side project for Elon Musk, who bought it to reform it on principle. He can light it on fire if he wants to…
He bought it because he was going to get sued if he didn’t.
You can go ahead and put Elons brain implant in your head, have fun with that. Do you think Elon is personally building those rockets? He’s for sure a great businessman and really good at getting people to invest, but it’s not like he has much of an impact on the day to day activities of his companies anymore.
damn dude take him out to dinner first
A
anon_q2raz786xy94b
Guest
I dont even have an account. But all these people thinking they are smarter than Musk makes me laugh.
No, he knew because he got to look behind the curtain. Users were grossly overstated.
- Aug 31, 2012
- 571
- 1,072
- 122
He was on the verge of bankruptcy before raising $$ under the premise of having 1 Million robotaxis on the road in a year on 4/22/2019. How is that going?
The bulk of his profits have come from government subsidies. Keep singing his praises, yet complaining about your taxes.
He made a joke about buying twitter, realized he was overpaying by at least 2x, but the Delaware courts do not fold as easily as the Securities and Exchange commission did to him.
I remember people using your light on fire comment for Bernie Ebbers of Worldcom as well as the guys from Enron.
Take a look here to get some small view of the hypocrite with the world's largest carbon footprint, but by all means, do not let get facts get in the way of your analysis or your fanboying.
Elon Musk Today
elonmusk.today
Still feeling the same way regarding how liberals reacted to Elon's purchase of Twitter?
He openly boosts right wing conspiracy theories, open boosts Trump, is telling us that if Trump loses it will be our last election and has jacked the algorithm to provide an endless feed of right-wing crap.
None of this was difficult to see coming, although after this weekend it's clear how entirely in the bag Musk is for MAGA. All that "free speech, protecting the town square" malarky was BS. He self-declared as "Dark MAGA" this weekend.
All of which, by the way, is his right. He bought the platform, and he can do what he wants with it. But for those of us who predicted how he might use it, it's fair to say we have been vindicated.
I don't pay anything, and I've never reached any type of limit. In fact, I've never heard of it.
Guy is arguably the most important human being in history if you believe that fossil fuels cause rising water temps.
Arguably would be the one who would benefit the most on the planet from US EV mandates.
Voted for Joe Biden in 2020
Yet now is supporting Trump. And is all the sudden public enemy number one.
Arguably would be the one who would benefit the most on the planet from US EV mandates.
Voted for Joe Biden in 2020
Yet now is supporting Trump. And is all the sudden public enemy number one.
Nice sidestep of the fact that he’s been promoting destructive right wing lies and conspiracy theories at an increasing frequency since he bought the platform. But I guess if you are fine with Trump doing it, it’s to be expected that you are fine with Elon doing it.
Not a sidestep. What I trust in most is that people typically act in their own self interests. If one of the moss intelligent people on earth has pulled a 180 on politics seemingly against his interests, maybe you should ask why? How bad must the policies of the left be?
I obviously don’t agree with your dramatic take here. Free speech is what it is.
The fact that the owner of twitter supports trump doesn’t mean that the app itself filters info based on political lean. Which is exactly what it used to do.
He is a famous person using it to broadcast his thoughts. Taylor Swift is more than welcome to do the same, and proclaim that Trump is the sole author of project 2025 and whatever else she wants to do.
That was Elon’s point. Mission axcomplished.
Here is an interesting article from the Financial Times that I believe outlines what Elon is really up to with Twitter.
Subscribe to read
EDIT: Paywalled, so I cut and pasted.
Why techies are going for Trump
The addition of JD Vance to the ticket was Silicon Valley’s triumphal moment. PayPal alumnus David Sacks, who spoke at the Republican National Convention this week, was also ecstatic with the Vance pick.
I confess to audibly guffawing upon reading the following X post by historian Timothy Snyder this week: “Got all the way through the Constitution and did not find the provision whereby the South African oligarchs select the vice-presidential nominees on behalf of the Russian dictator.” Snyder was, of course, referring to Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and David Sacks—all Silicon Valley billionaires at least partly raised in South Africa or South Africa-adjacent (Namibia in Thiel’s case).Donald Trump’s selection of JD Vance as his running mate on Monday was their triumphal moment. Not only was Vance’s entry into politics funded by Thiel to the tune of $15 million for his 2022 Ohio Senate campaign; Vance is also a former Thiel employee, having worked for the PayPal founder’s venture capital firm.
Musk, meanwhile, has reportedly pledged $45 million a month to a Trump super PAC. David Sacks, who is also a PayPal alumnus where they all met, was equally ecstatic about the Vance pick.
What is it about Vance that they like so much? Sifting through the techno-libertarian mind is no easy task. Each has different business interests and personal idiosyncrasies. But I think Snyder was onto something in his tongue-in-cheek posting. Musk, Thiel, and Sacks were all exposed at formative ages to the decidedly undemocratic experience of apartheid South Africa. Each has made a ton of cash—some more than others (Musk being the richest man in the world)—on America’s West Coast.
Two of them, Musk and Sacks, have made statements seen as sympathetic to Russia’s cause. Indeed, Sacks said on the opening night of the Milwaukee Republican convention that the U.S. “provoked” Russia to invade Ukraine. As much as Sacks denies strenuously that he was booed by delegates, I beg to differ. The skeptical reception to Sacks’ Putin-friendly diatribe was one of the least reassuring moments at what is arguably the most dystopian political convention I have witnessed. Musk, for his part, has said accusations that he is a Putin apologist are “absurd.”
Of the three, Thiel is the one with the longest Trumpian record. I was on the floor of the 2016 Republican convention in Cleveland when Thiel endorsed Trump. For those who missed what retrospectively was a highly significant moment, it is worth reading what Thiel said. Musk only endorsed Trump last Sunday following a failed assassination attempt. However, to anyone who has been paying attention, Musk has been telegraphing his Trumpism for years.
Much as I have tried, I cannot find a coherent philosophy that links these tech founders to Vance’s worldview in particular. But the psychology is easy to explain. All three hate Washington, detest the “deep state,” resent America’s cognitive elites, and think the U.S. is being crushed by authoritarian liberalism. Anti-wokery features strongly in their political utterances. It would be a mistake to label them either libertarian or authoritarian; they are very rich people who want to buy political power. This week they got a vice-presidential candidate and potential future president for a bargain-basement price.
How will Vance repay them? Rather than indulge in deeper speculation about their mutual love of Bitcoin and shared countercultural resentments, I think the trade-off is very simple: Vance, like Trump, will cut their taxes, disable regulatory agencies, and give them gold-plated access to the White House. In spite of Vance’s anti-corporate rhetoric in Milwaukee on Thursday, my bet is that this is the real bargain—no need to overcomplicate things.
Richard, you wrote a Swamp Note with your usual felicity and insight on this subject very recently. So I am aware you have already expressed your more nuanced perspective. My question to you is whether I’m missing some deeper ideological affinity that links these tech founders to Vance or if I am correct in focusing first on the implicit money transaction taking place? It seems to me that Occam’s razor fits well in this instance.
Richard Waters responds: Ed, I think you’re absolutely right about the self-serving nature of all this. As for buying access to the White House: It’s pretty revealing that investor Marc Andreessen and his business partner Ben Horowitz—who just came out for Trump in this podcast—spend a lot of time complaining about being refused an audience with Biden while they recently had a chance to push their tech policy ideas over dinner with Trump.
Andreessen, who historically backed Democrats, says it was a Biden plan to tax billionaires that finally made him defect. Of course, like Musk and Thiel, they would say that what’s good for them (and for their companies and tech startups) is also good for America; they wouldn’t see anything amiss in this.
If this is all transactional; however, it seems to rest on some questionable calculations. One is that any Trump vendetta against tech (he hates Google and social media companies) would be channeled into attacking and restricting big companies. Vance has been all for continuing Biden administration antitrust campaigns against Big Tech.
The risk here is that any attacks on tech would be less targeted and rebound on the whole industry; it’s hard to see how Musk’s X wouldn’t get caught in fallout if Republicans gained control of Congress and really did try to scrap legal protections they claim lead to censorship of right-wing voices on the internet.
Another calculation seems to be that access to the White House will give them an inside track in carving out exceptions to any damaging new policies—immigration being a big unspoken issue here. The tech industry relies heavily on foreign talent and would be hurt by strict limits on immigration; expect plenty of special pleading over this and other issues in the name of “the innovation economy.” But that might not carry much weight against Trump’s overriding political goals.
Last edited:
Could have been an asset. But Joe toed the union line, snubbed the undisputed grand master of all things electric vehicle from of all things the White House EV summit….and unleashed the Kraken. A business minded leader would have looked past party line. I remember specifically Trump including Jaime Dimon in economic discussionsHere is an interesting article from the Financial Times that I believe outlines what Elon is really up to with Twitter.
Subscribe to read
www.ft.com
EDIT: Paywalled, so I cut and pasted.
Why techies are going for Trump
The addition of JD Vance to the ticket was Silicon Valley’s triumphal moment. PayPal alumnus David Sacks, who spoke at the Republican National Convention this week, was also ecstatic with the Vance pick.
I confess to audibly guffawing upon reading the following X post by historian Timothy Snyder this week: “Got all the way through the Constitution and did not find the provision whereby the South African oligarchs select the vice-presidential nominees on behalf of the Russian dictator.” Snyder was, of course, referring to Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and David Sacks—all Silicon Valley billionaires at least partly raised in South Africa or South Africa-adjacent (Namibia in Thiel’s case).Donald Trump’s selection of JD Vance as his running mate on Monday was their triumphal moment. Not only was Vance’s entry into politics funded by Thiel to the tune of $15 million for his 2022 Ohio Senate campaign; Vance is also a former Thiel employee, having worked for the PayPal founder’s venture capital firm.
Musk, meanwhile, has reportedly pledged $45 million a month to a Trump super PAC. David Sacks, who is also a PayPal alumnus where they all met, was equally ecstatic about the Vance pick.
What is it about Vance that they like so much? Sifting through the techno-libertarian mind is no easy task. Each has different business interests and personal idiosyncrasies. But I think Snyder was onto something in his tongue-in-cheek posting. Musk, Thiel, and Sacks were all exposed at formative ages to the decidedly undemocratic experience of apartheid South Africa. Each has made a ton of cash—some more than others (Musk being the richest man in the world)—on America’s West Coast.
Two of them, Musk and Sacks, have made statements seen as sympathetic to Russia’s cause. Indeed, Sacks said on the opening night of the Milwaukee Republican convention that the U.S. “provoked” Russia to invade Ukraine. As much as Sacks denies strenuously that he was booed by delegates, I beg to differ. The skeptical reception to Sacks’ Putin-friendly diatribe was one of the least reassuring moments at what is arguably the most dystopian political convention I have witnessed. Musk, for his part, has said accusations that he is a Putin apologist are “absurd.”
Of the three, Thiel is the one with the longest Trumpian record. I was on the floor of the 2016 Republican convention in Cleveland when Thiel endorsed Trump. For those who missed what retrospectively was a highly significant moment, it is worth reading what Thiel said. Musk only endorsed Trump last Sunday following a failed assassination attempt. However, to anyone who has been paying attention, Musk has been telegraphing his Trumpism for years.
Much as I have tried, I cannot find a coherent philosophy that links these tech founders to Vance’s worldview in particular. But the psychology is easy to explain. All three hate Washington, detest the “deep state,” resent America’s cognitive elites, and think the U.S. is being crushed by authoritarian liberalism. Anti-wokery features strongly in their political utterances. It would be a mistake to label them either libertarian or authoritarian; they are very rich people who want to buy political power. This week they got a vice-presidential candidate and potential future president for a bargain-basement price.
How will Vance repay them? Rather than indulge in deeper speculation about their mutual love of Bitcoin and shared countercultural resentments, I think the trade-off is very simple: Vance, like Trump, will cut their taxes, disable regulatory agencies, and give them gold-plated access to the White House. In spite of Vance’s anti-corporate rhetoric in Milwaukee on Thursday, my bet is that this is the real bargain—no need to overcomplicate things.
Richard, you wrote a Swamp Note with your usual felicity and insight on this subject very recently. So I am aware you have already expressed your more nuanced perspective. My question to you is whether I’m missing some deeper ideological affinity that links these tech founders to Vance or if I am correct in focusing first on the implicit money transaction taking place? It seems to me that Occam’s razor fits well in this instance.
Richard Waters responds: Ed, I think you’re absolutely right about the self-serving nature of all this. As for buying access to the White House: It’s pretty revealing that investor Marc Andreessen and his business partner Ben Horowitz—who just came out for Trump in this podcast—spend a lot of time complaining about being refused an audience with Biden while they recently had a chance to push their tech policy ideas over dinner with Trump.
Andreessen, who historically backed Democrats, says it was a Biden plan to tax billionaires that finally made him defect. Of course, like Musk and Thiel, they would say that what’s good for them (and for their companies and tech startups) is also good for America; they wouldn’t see anything amiss in this.
If this is all transactional; however, it seems to rest on some questionable calculations. One is that any Trump vendetta against tech (he hates Google and social media companies) would be channeled into attacking and restricting big companies. Vance has been all for continuing Biden administration antitrust campaigns against Big Tech.
The risk here is that any attacks on tech would be less targeted and rebound on the whole industry; it’s hard to see how Musk’s X wouldn’t get caught in fallout if Republicans gained control of Congress and really did try to scrap legal protections they claim lead to censorship of right-wing voices on the internet.
Another calculation seems to be that access to the White House will give them an inside track in carving out exceptions to any damaging new policies—immigration being a big unspoken issue here. The tech industry relies heavily on foreign talent and would be hurt by strict limits on immigration; expect plenty of special pleading over this and other issues in the name of “the innovation economy.” But that might not carry much weight against Trump’s overriding political goals.
CNN panel says Dems 'messed up' with Elon Musk — Daily Mail
A CNN panel acknowledged where the Democrats messed up their relationship with Elon Musk and admitted they should have celebrated him.
Elon hasn’t created a free speech platform, he has created a right-wing propaganda platform that allows blatant lies like this and then blocks community notes, which is the suppose way to address blatant lies.Could have been an asset. But Joe toed the union line, snubbed the undisputed grand master of all things electric vehicle from of all things the White House EV summit….and unleashed the Kraken. A business minded leader would have looked past party line. I remember specifically Trump including Jaime Dimon in economic discussions
CNN panel says Dems 'messed up' with Elon Musk — Daily Mail
A CNN panel acknowledged where the Democrats messed up their relationship with Elon Musk and admitted they should have celebrated him.apple.news
This isn’t free speech. This is screaming “fire” in a crowded theatre when you know there isn’t one.
