Musk said early Saturday that cash flow at Twitter remains negative because of a nearly 50% drop in advertising revenue coupled with “heavy debt.”

    • I trust his companies when I know the engineers don’t let him have any say whatsoever.

      Neuralink and spacex are interesting to watch, because how badly could he fuck them up in a way that engineers will let him? Not much.

      Tesla is just on the edge of being fucked up by him, his weird yoke and insistence on capacitive buttons are very close to being too much… but the thing that made me finally decide not to ever get a tesla was his insistence on using exclusively cameras instead of cameras+radar for autopilot.

      If you don’t care about self-driving, and don’t care about the yoke/capacitive buttons, teslas are fine cars.

    • Well, Tesla is publicly traded, makes money, and clearly their cars work because they have lower than average road fatalities. With the disparity of how badly Twitter’s being run vs Tesla I wonder how long it’s been since Elon’s actually been in charge of anything other than being a spokesperson for Tesla.

    • I don’t see how a social media site and an automobile company have much in common.

      It’s quite possible that Musk is better at some things than he is at other things. Engineering and manufacturing are quite different from maintaining a large social media company, the skills don’t translate.

      Another major difference is that Musk built Tesla up from a small size, so it was always structured according to his style and expectations of management, whereas he bought Twitter as an already-large company with an established corporate culture that didn’t match what he would have done. That’s the first time he’s bought such a large pre-existing company, as far as I’m aware, and he’s having huge problems “reshaping” it.

      •  Hypx   ( @Hypx@kbin.social ) 
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        @FaceDeer

        @kuontom @const_void Bullshit. He did not found Tesla. And Tesla gets many billions of dollars of subsidies, something you can’t do with Twitter. It’s easy to imagine how Musk mismanaged Tesla just as badly as Twitter now, but with the advantage of the government saving him back then. Also, with ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) by the Feds, you can borrow money at basically zero cost anytime you want. You can string along a disastrous mismanaged company for years in that scenario.

        • As I said:

          Another major difference is that Musk built Tesla up from a small size,

          Emphasis added. From Tesla’s Wikipedia page:

          Tesla was incorporated in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning as Tesla Motors. The company’s name is a tribute to inventor and electrical engineer Nikola Tesla. In February 2004, via a $6.5 million investment, Elon Musk became the company’s largest shareholder.

          Given the current size of Tesla, being able to buy a majority share of it for a mere $6.5 million clearly makes it a very small company by comparison.

          Also, with ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) by the Feds, you can borrow money at basically zero cost anytime you want. You can string along a disastrous mismanaged company for years in that scenario.

          Why do any companies go broke, in that case?