원문 보기
Elon Musk has become so inadequate that even some of his most loyal fans are starting to lose faith in him . In particular, due to the lack of attention to Tesla, which, let me remind you and him, is the company he runs. He doesn't seem to think much of it, even though he is technically their leader.
So, one of the fans we mentioned is Ted Park, and that's how dedicated a fan he really is. He believes in Tesla. He believes in the company so much that he once put his children in the path of a Tesla driving in full autopilot mode to prove that the technology was safe enough not to run them over. That's a pretty high level of devotion that should probably lead to him having his children taken away from him, right?
So, am I acting like a scumbag now? Well, like, you can't do that, right? In any case, putting aside the danger to the children, Park began to worry that the man he worshipped was too focused on SpaceX. Not to mention the dozen other companies he allegedly runs. So he says, "We just really, really want Musk to focus more on Tesla.
So I think it's become a sore point." In short, he loves Tesla so much that he borrowed money to invest more in it , which for a rich person—when you get money cheaply—is quite possible. For an ordinary person, this is a rather risky step. And for some of them, that risk didn't pay off, as Tesla shares have fallen more than 20% since the start of 2026—a year in which Musk really seems focused on SpaceX and , in particular, AI.
He does n't even talk about robots very often lately. But be that as it may , Tesla reported a year-over-year decline in profits, even though its revenue grew by 26%. Profits are falling. And so, according to Bradford Ferguson, founder of the Rebellion-Rebellionaire investment group. He says Tesla investors are confused, and some feel betrayed.
He points to the company's approval last year of a nearly trillion-dollar compensation package designed to keep Musk focused on the automaker. This didn't work as expected. It seems that Tesla has taken a back seat for him . And let me add briefly: even if it worked, is it worth promising him a trillion dollars to finally start doing his job?
Are there no leaders willing to do their jobs for the already huge money without a trillion dollars being waved in front of their noses? The funny thing is that he accepts this deal and then doesn't think about Tesla at all . He's busy with a million other things: Grok, image generation, digital girlfriends, all that.
This trillion dollars isn't even that big of an incentive. And, by the way, pay attention to this in the near future. You know what they're saying about Tesla merging with SpaceX, XAI and all the rest? If he does this, he will reportedly be able to bypass some specific requirements to get that trillion.
So, as in other cases where he has beaten the system, he can actually steal this trillion without meeting the performance metrics that were set for him. So it will be a good joke at their expense. Anyway, back to Ted Park, he was pretty blunt about what Musk should stop doing: "This is not a startup anymore.
If you're a trillion-dollar or near-trillion- dollar company, you need realistic goals, and they clearly don't have them." They don't even seem to have any goals when it comes to cars . For example, what new Tesla models are expected ? What major updates to their bestsellers are they ultimately going to make?
They have n't updated these cars for years, much longer than other automakers. What about the new models? What about a cheaper model? What about something that isn't a Cybertruck? Do they have anything in development? Oh, they have that jet- powered roadster they've been talking about for ten years.
When will it come out? But it's not because I'm some kind of villain or anything . The reason I focus on this is because they focus on jobs. Jobs, of which, as they say, there will be millions on our streets by the end of this year . This is what Elon Musk said. Does anyone believe this will really happen?
And look, I'm glad to see some of his longtime supporters are starting to question him or something. I would say: dude, you're years behind on life . You have to wake up sometime. Sharon, what do you think? Yes, these people who followed him, this cult thing—it was a mistake from the beginning. Watch for greatness, well, question it, but don't end up where we are now, with a guy who, ironically, is incredibly greedy, but there's not enough money in the world to make him do his job and focus on what he should be doing .
This is a farce. It's like some kind of magic act at, I don't know, a cheap carnival or something, but that's what he's involved in. You can take a trillion dollars, subtract one trillion, add 2,500, and I'll agree to the deal. It may not be the best option, okay, but it's better than nothing. Like you said, there are no new cars, there's not even that shine or enthusiasm, there's none of that, because he doesn't care.
He switched to something else, you know, what's going on in his head and what's stimulating him. And you know, it's like this , and is he still obsessed with Grok? I think so, he's a big Grok fan. He's a big fan, I... it's amazing that he and Trump are so similar. These are the guys everyone considers competent, considers geniuses.
This is all just hype. These are scammers. These are carnival chants . And they both get so terribly bored with things so quickly. Yes. And yet there are people whose financial well-being depends on them doing the work, and they say, "I'll trust this person to manage" when they can't even work consistently for a week and think about the company.
I don't know why they won't wake up. Tesla could exist without Elon Musk. I'll remind everyone: he doesn't make cars. The only thing that seemed like his direct idea was the Cybertruck, and we all know how that ended. He is not an engineer, he is not an inventor, he is not a programmer. Tesla could do much better without Elon Musk , and someday it will.
But now let's talk about what he did with his other product. A new study shows that Elon Musk has turned Twitter into even more chaos than we previously thought, and it appears to have been entirely intentional. So, this study found that the site's algorithm prioritized engagement of a certain kind over everything else when shaping the "For You" feed.
This is not a feed of what you subscribe to, which is what , in my opinion, social media should be. No, this is an algorithmically generated suggestions page that Twitter makes. If you've been using Twitter in recent years, you probably know that no matter who you follow or what your interests are, you'll still be pushed tweets from Matt Walsh.
You will be presented with Donald Trump, Republican politicians, and, above all, Elon Musk. So the platform is biased in many obvious ways . One is that Democrats are apparently shown more “ anger bait” than Republicans. Why this is so is not entirely clear, but here's how it works. The goal of the study was to understand how a user's own value system influences what they see on Twitter.
They state: “We recruited a representative sample of 715 Americans who were active Twitter users in September and October 2024, matched for ethnicity , gender, and political affiliation, to install a browser extension to collect data from their For You and Following feeds.” They collected what they called a “ value inventory” of volunteers using a research tool—Schwartz’s theory of core values .
Essentially, it is a set of different values, represented as a circle with 19 points, corresponding to traits such as tolerance, dominance, hedonism, and openness to change. This is similar to the academic work I did when I was in science. We used a different value system, but the point was to determine what was important to a person, how they prioritized, etc.
They also reported their political views. When a Twitter user sees a post that annoys them—for example, a press release from a politician or party they don't like— they sometimes engage in an argument in the comments. It doesn't matter who you follow or what your values are: Twitter sees a response as engagement and feeds you more of the same infuriating posts.
Of course, other emotions can also prompt you to respond, but it has long been established that it is anger, opposition, and conflict that most often compel users to comment. Most participants liked and reposted content on Twitter and received more of the same content in return. Commenting was a relatively rare occurrence.
This is only 6.8% of the total number of interactions, but it was the one that had the greatest impact on the algorithm. What you liked or reposted—and it would seem that this is the only thing that should guide the algorithm— actually has almost no effect on it. It is the answers that drive this process.
So, the fact that you like the content, you enjoy it, and you want to show it to others should be what drives your algorithm, and that's what social media should be about. No, instead, it happens when you get into arguments. This is exactly what the algorithm learns from the most. And while this is only a tiny fraction of engagement, there is plenty of evidence that this is what shapes your algorithm.
This happens across the political spectrum, but for some reason the provocative content being pushed at you has been much more prevalent among those who identify as Democrats. They don't have a clear answer as to why, and they're scientists, so they won't say that Twitter or Elon Musk have a political or ideological purpose in creating these algorithms, but I'm not a scientist anymore.
I can say that they do. They already pay more to the right for their content. They are more likely to push the right content into people's eyes. They are even more likely to push Elon Musk's content in front of everyone's eyes. So it's obvious that there is political bias. Why this is happening, we don't know.
And according to Twitter, you do n't even need to worry about it. Nikita Beer is their former head of product. They confirmed on Twitter that the site's algorithm did exactly that. Although they say that this is no longer true. The biggest driver of provocative content was the response predictor, and we knew that angry responses led people to see more of that content.
So last month we increased the weight of the response predictor by 15 times for friends' posts, and that reduced the number of provocations by an order of magnitude. This is what makes sense to me. Replies to your friends' posts should have a greater impact on the algorithm. Maybe social media should focus more on things like this.
I really wish we could go back to social media, where what matters is the people you know in the real world. I say this as a content creator. I don't care . I think it was better before. But just keep in mind, they wrote in that post, "We did this last month." The study used data for 2024. They've been doing this for years.
For years, they have driven Democrats crazy with this provocative content. And we may not know exactly why, Sharon, but I think we've all felt how annoying Twitter has become and how much of a waste of time it seems to me. I don't know. What do you think? Yes, I have n't been there in forever. I still have an account and probably some followers, but not enough to make it worth it or to put up with this nonsense.
Um, if you look at it -- and I'm not a tech guy, so I'm not even sure if I understand everything correctly -- but if you look at what I think is happening, these platforms, led by Twitter , are literally helping to understand who is creating this herd instinct in society and some of the rage in it. If it doesn't create it, then at least it reinforces it, you know?
In high school too, you know? I just think it's a problem, and as for the scientists—I understand them. They, you know, think schematically and only stick to the superficial level. We need to talk about this openly. Someone is behind this, they are making money from it, and in my opinion, they are doing it intentionally.
So, Yes. I don't know, but it's just ...if it doesn't feel right, it doesn't feel right. If it doesn't make us better, I do n't know why we waste our time on it . Yes, and by the way, about investments, I'll say it briefly: he bought Twitter for crazy money. It was a huge amount, and everyone thought: well, he overpaid, and now they will earn even less.
This was hardly a good deal. You know, we don't really know what happened to all of this because of all those mergers he's doing. So, Twitter merged with Grok, with SpaceX and others. Does anyone have any idea how much money Twitter is losing? He didn't... he could just ruin it for years, because now it's all been absorbed by SpaceX.
Does anyone else find this not just dishonest, but shouldn't investors be concerned about this? That there is no expectation that he will ever take Twitter out and make it a place that actually thrives and where people want to be. Very disappointing from my point of view.
Comments 0