TWTR -- the publicly traded company -- dipped so badly that Musk needed to make it private. It's effectively less of a public commons now than it is Musk's investment on manipulating information.
Afaik, open nazi were actually silenced on twitter prior Musk. But, you could talking in euphemisms and it would be mostly fine. Also, when you went really really far with harassment.
I guess I know why you're getting downvoted. Saying Twitter is at death's door is like saying that sanctions are going to crush Russia any day now. People really really want to believe it despite all the evidence. Twitter is very much alive, and it's doing exactly what Musk wants it to do.
Exactly. When he fired 90% of the employees everyone here and on Reddit said it would fall apart within days due to the complexity of the systems that Elon’s employees and the remaining traitor engineers had no hope of maintaining.
When it didn’t fall apart in days, the goalposts were moved to “technical issues won’t become obvious right away, give it a few months”.
It’s been over 2 years and on a technical level running better than ever. You can disagree with the content and users all you wish, but pretending it’s dying because you hate the bad orange and mars man is delusional.
>"It’s been over 2 years and on a technical level running better than ever"
Isn't it also simply doing less? Weren't some APIs shut off or reduced? My limited memory is having me think they reduced or shut down some functionality altogether, which would also help something run smoother. Fewer things running means fewer things can break.
They just closed a single API which was also abused by botfarms. Closing the API immediately improved the site from a spam perspective and was welcome by most actual users, likely all users who understood the impact.
This is pure cope - the site is doing a TON more than it used to, and more stable than ever.
Also arguing that a site that is designed to scrape and re-represent a website without ads or other stuff 'was likely a huge load' is a very weird argument to try and claim the site is no longer being used.
I can say anecdotally I used to use nitter, and while it didn't work for a few days I switched to the regular site. Now I would never go back. The actual site works better now, I have no need. On old twitter 1.0, nitter worked better.
Thats a black eye on Dorsey twitter, not the new twitter (or X or whatever you prefer)
>It’s been over 2 years and on a technical level running better than ever.
Ask the worker's how they are doing, and then maybe I'll be convinced that it's "running better". When you grind 10x the users into the dirt, you can make up for cutting 90% of your staff. For a while. Especially in a crap economy like this where job hopping is harder.
I also agree that most of the cuts may have been managerial and logistics. It's probably a clown circus trying to do anything more than maintain.
I agree only on a surface level that it looks better. But old tech dies very hard. Digg is technically still up today. Myspace is technically still up today. hell, 4chan is still arguably bustling.
“Move fast and break things” seems like a horrible approach when things like Social Security and Medicare payments are on the line. If a few thousand random tweets get lost in a refactor, nobody cares. If somebody stops receiving their checks because Whiz Kid #3 doesn’t know how to work with an enterprise database system, what does that person do? Who do they escalate to?
It sounds like you think SOX auditing means “super secure and careful accounting”.
SOX is a specific law with the motivation of giving markets more confidence in public stocks (for example must hire external auditors, certain board member rules, how certain assets must be valued, etc).
The SOX audit is to make sure that law is followed.
One criticism of SOX is that encouraged many startups and other businesses to remain private.
So long story short, no. Our government does not resemble a public stock corporation and these things don’t have an analog.
I specifically meant the parts of SOX related to access controls, infrastructure, and codebase management to ensure a baseline level of security for processing payments and PII to ensure this does not represent a risk to the valuation of the enterprise.
These measures are universal to running any payment platform, not a public/private issue.
*No, I'm not thinking of PCI, but that is also a valid measure here. There are recent updates to SOX in the past few years covering these aspects of payment operations. Some old-school SOX experts may not be familiar and the strictness on these aspects of the audit varies by auditor in my experience. I recently helped a client navigate these developing and responding to a very strict audit process covering their entire IT landscape including process flows, deployment planning and user/role management.
Yes, rules and roles for reporting, ie accounting.
I don't know what you think you are implying with the "super secure and careful" comment, we are looking for the roles that ensure the accountability of SOX.
Your complaint is that SOX "nationalizes" companies because apparently it becomes so transparent, or something? If that's what you mean by "nationalize" shouldn't that be used for our nation's accounting?
To be fair, no 19 year old in the world concerns himself with audits or proper regulatory procedure, including law students. There is a reason proper structure exists
It’s week 2. I think they will have time to go after those big orgs.
But also you’re missing an important theme of the administration. Foreign aid doesn’t go to Americans. Social security and Medicare do. Trump didn’t run a tea party platform.
Intuition. If the majority of bitcoin usage was for transactions involving services and goods instead of speculative investment, there's a pretty strong case for a wager that the impact of speculative investment on its price would decrease.
I don't personally believe this will ever happen. BTC has too much legacy cruft. The "digital gold" narrative won out. Day-to-day transactions will happen in a newer, perhaps not invented yet crypto.
I agree but that’s like saying if my grandma had wheels she’d be a wheelbarrow innit? BTC is not set up to ever be a reasonable currency. Agree digital dollars is where we’re headed.
You should not sell your shares in the S&P 500 to buy pizza unless your financial situation changes drastically for the worse or I guess maybe you are near death. As I said in the other thread, the problem is that btc is too desirable in the market to be a functioning currency and using it for pizza or impulsive daily purchases is a nonstarter in reality.
But you’re wrong. People sell S&P and BTC everyday even if they aren’t dying.
This is time value of money. If I wait 20 years instead of buying a house, I can have more money. But that’s 20 years of my life I didn’t live in the house I wanted.
I could invest more in S&P and not go on vacation, but then I won’t have as much time to go on vacations.
Goods and services now can be more valuable than money later, and that’s why people sell. And that’s why deflationary currency is fine.
I notice you mentioned big ticket purchases which I specifically did not mention. Your argument looks a bit different if you replace houses and vacation with lattes and sneakers. We live in a consumer economy where a marginal drag on purchasing activity due to currency deflation would probably be pretty disruptive to put it mildly.
If you’re arguing that people would think harder about their purchases and frivolous spending would decline. I agree. And I think that’s a benefits
If you’re asking if people would not use their deflating currency to buy lattes and sneakers, I disagree. People like sneakers and lattes more than money. They prove this everyday by buying them instead of s&p.
There is an issue of the cost of a transaction - which nis bad for btc and s&p. Nobody wants a tax form for buying a pizza. But the regulatory environment creating high selling costs is orthogonal to the deflationary property.
The argument simply is that exchange should be frictionless and deflationary currency will slow the velocity of money. I guess you agree this will lead to reduced prosperity and economic activity, though you call it frivolous purchases. Your comment about preferences doesn’t play into it; this is about mechanics of exchange, and a precious asset is an inefficient medium for commerce which would lead to reduced economic activity because not only do you have to factor in the opportunity cost of buying a good or buying some other good (sneakers or s&p), now you also have hodling, zero economic activity, as a 3rd option with its own expected return and opportunity cost to forgo. When I buy sneakers, the s&p 500, or btc, my dollars don’t disappear. A counterparty receives them and they stay in the economy. If you pay me in btc and I just hold it, then that money effectively does disappear from the economy.
And I’m not even mentioning all the macro issues of not being able to provide liquidity in the form of new capital in times of crisis.
I agree that it will reduce the velocity of money and maybe “GDP”. But not prosperity, individuals being able to save wealth into the future is a better life outcome than more goods changing hands.
> and a precious asset is an inefficient medium for commerce
You are conflating liquidity with deflation. To be a currency it has to be liquid, we agree. We also agree btc is not as liquid as cash. But deflation or stability is orthogonal from liquidity.
> now you also have hodling, zero economic activity,
Already addressed. People want money to buy goods.
> my dollars don’t disappear.
The value isn’t lost in the exchange but it’s lost everyday due to inflation.
And by “lost” I mean transferred to government projects.
> that money effectively does disappear from the economy.
No it merely is saved for a future consumption date. If we average consumption needs of participants in the economy there is no reason to expect a monotonic hoarding effect. That would mean consumers are not satisfying their desires for goods.
Here is one last framing. The economy is not money, it’s goods and services. Money is just a tool for claiming them. So what does an inflationary currency do to help the economy? Does it cause more people to get out of bed and create new goods and services? No. It just transfers claims to resources to someone else.
> You are conflating liquidity with deflation. To be a currency it has to be liquid, we agree. We also agree btc is not as liquid as cash. But deflation or stability is orthogonal from liquidity.
I’m not; you have a limited view of what inefficiency means. The currency can be liquid and still inefficient for exchange due to other kinds of overhead such as opportunity cost of spending the currency itself.
The economy is not money but a frictionless (opportunity cost wise NOT liquidity wise as you keep trying to divert to) currency is better for facilitating exchange and access to goods and services.
I think a perfectly stable currency could be OK too but that would require incredible management on the monetary side to maintain that equilibrium. And absent being able to hit that bullseye it’s been proven, as much as things like this can be, that a stable little bit of inflation with a fiat currency is much stabler and leads to more prosperity than a currency bound by finite resources external to the economy.
Isn’t it enough that you can buy gold or whatever or bitcoin with your depreciating dollars? Why the fixation on it being a currency?
Maybe it's improved but when i played with btc and made 3x and freaked out and bought a secondhand pixel with my $800 stake in milliBTC the friction was huge. I paid unpredictable vig getting $ and I had very indirect access to sell price which was being constantly fucked over by whales playing.
A true economy of low friction btc transactions for pizza has never existed at the scale banks do pay wave. Its hypothetical frictionless, not actual. I'm willing to bet even legalised state coins will be tracked, frictive and taxed.
Totally. The practicalities of BTC or any crypto as currency today are also a big problem. On top of the fundamental whyyyy of it all. If you can easily convert to/from USD to crypto or other desired store of value doesn’t that provide the required buffer against inflation? Why imbue the currency itself with value? I know societies used to do it that way but that’s not really an argument for doing so in the present day on its own…
You could and should ask the same question about stock shares - and indeed there’s an entire profession with centuries of history around that – but it’s a fundamental error to ignore magnitude. The stock market is based on real value and that avoids wild swings when nothing has fundamentally changed - even through the mortgage bubble my portfolio made made gains because people still needed to buy food, cars, phones, clothing, etc. and if did even a little research it had been easy to spot companies whose fundamentals didn’t support their valuation. In contrast, a pure fiat currency like bitcoin has value only from social consensus and has far more volatility.
The problem is a currency which is also considered a precious good. It’s like using diamonds as the medium of exchange. Gold is far from the most valuable commodity, and silver even less so. So I think it means we should use some other crypto than BTC if we want to have it be a currency.
