Hacker News Reader

Comment by macspoofing | Hacker News Reader

>That's incompetence

It may well be. I guess it's a question of semantics. To me his ability to afford a money-losing company is the salient factor, not his chaotic early tenure as 'Chief Twit'.

>> As bad as those things are, in-and-of themselves, they don't represent an existential crisis. >Why not?

1. Because none of his actions are irreversible.

2. If he acted responsibility, he still would be running a company that is losing billions (plus the extra debt he saddled it with) in a terrible economic climate. I don’t think he can afford it.

View on HN

> 1. Because none of his actions are irreversible.

They are partially reversible, but definitely not fully reversible. For example, there's no taking away that Musk started his tenure by angering advertisers. He can apologize, he can make amends, but there's no taking away that some amount of the damage will remain, if only because some companies already made new plans, allocated their budget, and aren't about to tell some other company that they changed their mind because Musk said "sorry".

> 2. If he acted responsibility, he still would be running a company that is losing billions (plus the extra debt he saddled it with) in a terrible economic climate. I don’t think he can afford it.

Well, if he couldn't afford it before making things even worse, how is that not an existential crisis?

>if only because some companies already made new plans, allocated their budget, and aren't about to tell some other company that they changed their mind because Musk said "sorry".

How is that 'partially irreversible' ... a bunch of companies paused ad-buys for this quarter or maybe even next year. If Twitter becomes viable next year, you think advertisers wouldn't come back, this year, or next, or year after that?

>Well, if he couldn't afford it before making things even worse, how is that not an existential crisis?

That is the existential crisis. Not the incompetence, the lack of ability to afford Twitter. That would have been the case even if the early Musk tenure wasn't so chaotic.

> How is that 'partially irreversible' ... a bunch of companies paused ad-buys for this quarter or maybe even next year. If Twitter becomes viable next year, you think advertisers wouldn't come back, this year, or next, or year after that?

Any lost money is irrevocably lost. If I skipped on advertising in 2023 because I think Musk is an asshat, and then change my mind in 2024, I'm not going to double my budget to compensate. The money I didn't spend on Twitter in 2023 was spent on something else, and for Twitter was lost forever.

>The money I didn't spend on Twitter in 2023 was spent on something else, and for Twitter was lost forever.

Uh huh.

You're just playing semantic games now. I think we've reached a steady state here.

Not sure what's semantic or controversial here. If you take an unpaid year off work, you permanently lose a year's worth of wages. Yes, you will earn again next year, but the year you weren't earning isn't coming back. It's lost.

Same here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com