but likely just a useful idiot for the people in charge
that’s little bit too harsh. the authors of the article write general news, they do not specialize in technology, and it is pretty clear none of them is gamer (i suspect that telegraph correspondent to united states doesn’t have much free time to waste on gaming 😂).
so while that paragraph is stupid to the degree where it is bordering on funny, i am not looking for malicious intent behind it.
This is how modern propaganda works.
maybe it is modern propaganda, maybe the author is just incompetent moron trying to get as much clicks as possible 😔
Discord servers are restricted ring-fenced sections of the internet. They are often used by gaming groups and communities as secure chat rooms but are also used by fringe organisations to push their ideologies and discuss wild conspiracy theories and plots.
first of all, admin of some random discord server is something else than discord admin, but that wouldn’t give such nice tabloid headline…
You could have seeded nonsense into Google any time in the past nearly 3 decades
We could have, hence why we did.
is this legal in US? that sounds absurd.
and is it legal for a judge to be involved in business?
no. safety of bitcoin is based on cryptography, not lack of electrical power. that would be most bizarre case of security through obscurity.
It is not. It is open source, there will be updates when there will be updates, they are not pressured by board of directors to release something that doesn’t work.
I suggest checking the discord for more information, including endless stream of screenshots, to get an idea about state of the project.
I have edited the comment above to add link
On the ground, we are also talking about fast internet, not about internet with “really wide bandwidth”
What the fuck was the cat doing that far away?
xmpp is a protocol, it doesn’t have interface. you may be thinking about some specific software using xmpp, in that case you have to say what software you are talking about.
Thank you
ok, so that described strategy sounds almost like something that should be illegal. in fact it sounds very similarly to lot of stories that were happening here in central europe after fall of communism, when the state-owned companies were changing ownership and ending up in personal hands. lot of these stories did not end up well.
but no matter what, that strategy only covered part of the acquisition price, even according to these articles, so that is still not a reason for musk to intentionally drive the company into the ground.
twitter filing for bankruptcy doesn’t absolve him of his loans. the loans are musk’s, not twitter’s.
The thing is, if the business shutters he no longer has to pay back that 13Bn, nor will he likely have to pay back a fair amount of the other debts.
why would you think that? most of the money were his loans, not some 3rd party investors. why tf would he not have to pay back?
yeah, guess what, this is not your average home mortgage :D it is more complicated, but short story is yes, musk paid with his own money and money backed by his other property.
and no matter what, it still doesn’t explain this nonsense you said:
I think the point is to destroy it so he doesn’t have to pay back what he borrowed to buy it.
not sure where this absurd idea of yours comes from, but it is still nonsense. no matter where he borrowed the money from, he has to return them, even if he drowns the twitter in gasoline and then set it on fire.
On April 20, Musk disclosed that he had secured financing provided by a group of banks led by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, MUFG, Société Générale, Mizuho Bank, and BNP Paribas, for a potential tender offer to acquire the company.[27][28] The funding included $7 billion of senior secured bank loans; $6 billion in subordinated debt; $6.25 billion in bank loans to Musk personally, secured by $62.5 billion of his Tesla stock; $20 billion in cash equity from Musk, to be provided by sales of Tesla stock and other assets; and $7.1 billion in equity from 19 independent investors.[29][30][31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk
would you like to hear the udp joke? you might not get it, but I don’t really care that much
he did. the fact he had to borrow the cash is irrelevant, he now owes someone 44B.
I do think he was essentially forced to buy it.
he was, but it doesn’t contradict what i said. if he had a way to back out of his stupid bragging offer for 1b, and all he cared about was money, the reasonable thing would be to pay the fine, instead of paying 44 billion for something that doesn’t generate profit.
Yeah, they should lock them both, just to be on the safe side.