15 million impressions last year isn't what I'd consider a void. That's still over a million a month. Think about that. Just how much were they actually paying for that million a month? I doubt it's anywhere near what advertisers pay for the same amount.

Let's assume they paid somebody to spend a minute to copy-paste each post (which is dumb to not just automate, but whatever) that means they were spending about 40 hours per year, or one week for one person, for 15 million impressions. I don't know if they were paying for twitter premium, but that's peanuts compared to the labor estimate I just made.

Unless I'm missing something, the math just doesn't add up to say that "due to the costs involved, we think it's preferable to get zero impressions at all instead of 15 million."

Possibly, though I doubt anybody is actively deprioritizing them if that's what they believe. By their own statements, they had 15 million impressions from twitter last year, and whatever the reason may be, they determined that having zero is preferable.

If it's a cost thing as they claim...they're supposedly technically proficient, yet they can't figure out a way to automate syndication? That's just the most bullshit upon bullshit line of reasoning they could have come up with. Have a bit of integrity. I don't know what the merits (or not) of the RMS case is, because I honestly couldn't give a shit about him or the FSF, but I do (or at least did) give a shit about the EFF. So maybe there is something more to the whole RMS spat, and they're in fact being dishonest about that in favor of being politically polarized?

If they have a concern about Twitter that involves any of the issues they stand for, then fucking say it, and tell us why they think the rest of us should avoid it (though I don't post to it myself, so no change on my end.) Either way, don't fucking lie about it being a cost thing. I can tolerate certain amounts of petty partisanship, even though I really hate it. If it's a simple case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, then so be it, it's their decision, I see people do that every day and it doesn't bother me. But if they're just going to lie about it, then fuck them.

The cost thing has me wondering: What is the cost? Particularly when they mention LinkedIn, which goes out of its way to spam you anytime you do anything with it, (in my experience, they will provide anybody access to ALL PII you give to them, for a price) and whatever money they're paying them almost certainly exceeds the $8 they didn't have to spend on twitter. Or the fact that LinkedIn has a crap interface that they almost certainly have to spend more time fighting with than anything else.

Bluesky and mastodon should have basically the same cost, namely that of the time required to post there, with about 1/10th of the audience. So I'm calling bullshit on cost. Nor do I care why they're leaving twitter even, but they're literally trying to insult the intelligence of their audience here.

What's more telling is who they're staying with Fecebook...Seriously? The most privacy-hostile one of them all? The one who's CEO publicly threw a tantrum after Google and Apple removed their ability to passively collect your location data 24/7? The one who is putting by far the most lobbying effort towards OS level age verification laws so they can blame somebody else for their own misconduct?

Fecebook and LinkedIn are, IMO, the only two actively deserving abandonment. Gotta have "who needs privacy?" (Facebook) and sleezball salesmen (LinkedIn) demographic the most, I guess? Whatever floats your boat. If you're going to go out of your way to make sure everybody knows you're leaving a social media platform to make some kind of statement, can't you at least be consistent with your own statements and values? That's kind of important if your mission is entirely political.

That's what his advisors told him, go argue with them about it. I'm not sure who this "we" is, but that whole event was a huge international embarrassment to the government of Pakistan.

Iraq is a case of hindsight being 20/20. There are clear missteps for many things for sure, like enhanced interrogation. Just as a comparison, before the 2012 Osama Bin Laden raid, Obama was advised that they had a stronger case for WMDs in Iraq than they had evidence of where Osama was. Right or wrong, calls have to be made. Beyond that, Iraq was a bipartisan act of Congress.

You're always bashing America and Americans here, what did you expect? Respect is a two way street. And apparently we can take it, whereas you wildlings have very delicate skin. All somebody has to do is look at you the wrong way and you bleed.

Either way, you can relax in your igloo and take solace with the knowledge that nobody is going to send you to space, nor is anybody going to take away your seal club. The wildling went there voluntarily, not by force. He wasn't allowed to take his seal club, which I understand that to you is traumatizing, a bit like somebody cutting your balls off, but when you're going to space, every gram matters, and he'll get it back when he lands. And don't worry, when he returns home, he can have all the maple syrup that your government allocates to him from your strategic maple reserve.

Having said all of that, and more to the point, precisely how has this harmed you that made you feel the need to come here and complain about it?

So you're complaining about something that doesn't affect you in any way, shape, or form. Either that or you think wildlings are entitled to that money for some reason, even though they're not. The only connection you have to this whatsoever is America just sent the first wildling, ever, outside of the Earth's atmosphere, which entitles you to nothing.

It's a system of checks and balances. For example, how do you think we got rid of school prayer when the overwhelming majority of the country was in favor of it at the time? Because the constitution explicitly gave SCOTUS the power to do so. Not the voters, not the legislature.

Your king holds all of the checks. You're just relying on him to exercise restraint. You can't impeach him, and you can't veto him in any way.

So the only way to qualify as middle is to be able to afford two of the most expensive neighborhoods in the country? I tend to think "middle" or even "upper middle" would include a lot more than that.

And yours is a monarchy, with the closest thing to a constitution only being a charter that only guarantees any rights at all to barons and nobles, whose descendants to this day still hold their titles and rights from ages past. The only thing it promises, but does not guarantee to you, is a jury trial. You guys sentenced Markus Meecham to jail and a fine en banc, putting a felony conviction over his head making him unemployable, over a youtube comedy that didn't involve any kind of violence or threats. The only way he makes a living at all is because he's paid by an American company to entertain his viewers.

And for voting...well...you don't even get to vote for your German head of state, who is not just for life, but by birthright to each successive generation he begets. Your prime minister legally only acts in an advisory role, who your king has the power to veto.

Anyway, how is ol' Boris doing?

I know a lot more about this subject than you do, Pootin.

Who's anus did you felch this turdbit from?

https://x.com/spacex/status/18...

Unlike you, I'm a strong believer in giving credit where credit is due, regardless of what else I think about whoever it goes to.

Without Elon there's no SpaceX. Full stop. He bet everything on it twice. And unlike you, it hasn't received *any* federal government subsidies either. The ESA, NASA, Rocketlab, Blue Origin, and many others were essentially betting against the idea of reusability, the ESA in particular making fun of the idea in a press statement, and Elon in particular who was the only one in the industry pushing hard for it, not only to the engineers, but investors. The rest is history.

Shit in one hand, wish in the other, and see which one fills up with what you consider to be edible faster.

I'm sure that where you're from, that's exactly what would happen. I'd bet on it, even.

Effectively the argument is that by doing a split, you're going to reduce the market cap, which is total nonsense. In fact, usually the exact opposite happens after a split.

There's no rhyme or reason to this argument whatsoever. You guys are just fucking dumb.

The number of shares outstanding has zero relevance to that. What you're arguing falls entirely on trade volume. How are you supposed to increase trade volume if, as retardedsilvergun says, you're trying to keep the total number of shares outstanding to a minimum? That does exactly the opposite.