Elon Musk | Doer of things on X and sad little man

Elon engaging Stephen King in a written contest of wits. Bold strategy, let's see if it pays off.
I almost feel bad for him making such a fool of himself. Then I remember what a dick he is and shadenfreude engages.
 
Would their employment contracts not specify where their office was based?



If they were hired in the last 2 years then their contact probably specified remote work and they wouldn't have an office. That's why this is causing so much chaos and Twitter's HR has been scrambling like crazy to try to catch up to Musk's idiotic create company policy by Tweet method. As posted Twitter announced a "WFH Forever" back in 2020 so there is no possible way to instantly transition to everyone coming into the office for 40+ hours a week as Musk demands.
 
If they were hired in the last 2 years then their contact probably specified remote work and they wouldn't have an office. That's why this is causing so much chaos and Twitter's HR has been scrambling like crazy to try to catch up to Musk's idiotic create company policy by Tweet method. As posted Twitter announced a "WFH Forever" back in 2020 so there is no possible way to instantly transition to everyone coming into the office for 40+ hours a week as Musk demands.
If their contract specified they are a remote worker then they’re fine, their office is no more Dublin than it is San Francisco, although that would be rare.
 
Absolutely fascinating watching a multi billion pound company run by the richest guy on the planet crash and burn within 2 weeks because of his dumb ideas and ego. It’s almost unthinkable yet here we are.
 

And he looks like a Disney villain who would spit at a poor person...

elon-musk-is-getting-that-smug-look-that-filthy-rich-people-v0-rpl2zre7y4x91.png
 
One thing I don't really get in these scenarios, were these people looking after their children all day during their work day?

Why not? If your kid is one or two years old, they are sleeping most of the time, if you are in the same room you do not need to do much. Feed them, clean them, it takes a few minutes.
 
Why not? If your kid is one or two years old, they are sleeping most of the time, if you are in the same room you do not need to do much. Feed them, clean them, it takes a few minutes.
If you ever have kids, you will be in for a shock :lol:
 
One thing I don't really get in these scenarios, were these people looking after their children all day during their work day?

Exactly. I never ever understood that. I thought being a housewife/mother was in itself 'a full time job'?

ps. I'm not saying it isn't, quite the opposite. It's very much full time.
 
Why not? If your kid is one or two years old, they are sleeping most of the time, if you are in the same room you do not need to do much. Feed them, clean them, it takes a few minutes.
There is literally no way you can look after a child and work at the same time :lol:
 
Why not? If your kid is one or two years old, they are sleeping most of the time, if you are in the same room you do not need to do much. Feed them, clean them, it takes a few minutes.
I abhor children, but even I know that ain’t quite right.
 
No you went off on one there implying I said something that I haven’t (that Elon isn’t responsible, he is and he’s in charge). You said it’s “This is categorically untrue.” so I was agreeing that your point is correct and that the other poster is also correct that advertising is falling due to the economy. It doesn’t have to be only one of those. It’s easier to make the decision to pull spend in this environment as well, I know first hand budgets are being tightened and it will be more of the case in Q1 as the recession impact on earnings is only just starting in the US & UK. Or you could read the recent earnings reports from some of the major advertisers and technology providers, they will have referenced the same point. As a side note, I expect more to be pulled from Twitter before other platforms going forwards (and so did the market which is partly why it was overvalued amongst other reasons).
The point the other poster made was completely wrong (categorically untrue) because he drew an incorrect conclusion despite publically-available evidence to the contrary, so whether or not a part of his sentence is technically true does not really matter.

I also don't understand why you insist on repeating something that is publically known (advertising spend/revenues falling during recession) in relation to the specific point about Musk's personal actions costing Twitter advertising revenue. Marketing spend falling during recession it is a seperate matter and not the argument that caused contention.
 
If they were hired in the last 2 years then their contact probably specified remote work and they wouldn't have an office. That's why this is causing so much chaos and Twitter's HR has been scrambling like crazy to try to catch up to Musk's idiotic create company policy by Tweet method. As posted Twitter announced a "WFH Forever" back in 2020 so there is no possible way to instantly transition to everyone coming into the office for 40+ hours a week as Musk demands.
Musk's actions equate to constructive dismissal in certain jurisdictions.
 
Absolutely fascinating watching a multi billion pound company run by the richest guy on the planet crash and burn within 2 weeks because of his dumb ideas and ego. It’s almost unthinkable yet here we are.
In Canada, the fact that he buys a company unrelated to his main domain to absorb losses would be illegal by all financial laws. I don't know what US laws say about that part, but this whole Musk/Twitter thing is just pure stench.
 
In Canada, the fact that he buys a company unrelated to his main domain to absorb losses would be illegal by all financial laws. I don't know what US laws say about that part, but this whole Musk/Twitter thing is just pure stench.
Is the "to absorb" losses (if proven I guess) the illegal bit or you are simply not allowed to own (or manage?) companies in different industries?
 
Is the "to absorb" losses (if proven I guess) the illegal bit or you are simply not allowed to own (or manage?) companies in different industries?
Let's say you do in the food industry business and own a supermarket chain, you are allowed to have some losses after buying a related business like an independent grocery store or convenience store(s). But fecking up a company that is not related to your primary company from a different industry is illegal. The illegal part would stand out from the part about unrelated domains.
 
The person knows this but it's likely related to healthcare which has been selling off in the market (along with energy) as it rotates money into technology and semiconductor stocks following the lower than expected CPI (inflation) announced on Thursday. You can see this with other companies like United Health Group (UNH) which shows the same drop and the S&P500 healthcare sector ETF IHUC. LLY is up 30% YTD and this is such a small dip, unlikely as announcements in this environment would have more of an impact on share price which constantly move up and down.

At this point, I'm not sure you are either stupid or a paid shill or a completely naive hero worshipper. Truth
 
One thing I don't really get in these scenarios, were these people looking after their children all day during their work day?
On my team we have multiple parents of young children. In each case their spouse also WFH, and so they make it work by alternating and working extended hours to fill in the gap. Not ideal, but it beats the outrageous cost of childcare.

I am guessing if one of their spouses had to shift immediately to the office this would throw things into chaos.