834
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 133 points 9 months ago

WOW. That's interesting. Kinda brilliant if it works. Wouldn't work in the US, unfortunately.

[-] reksas@sopuli.xyz 122 points 9 months ago

fine the fucker for 20% of his net "worth", that should give him some pause

[-] DancingBear@midwest.social 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Not really billions is beyond being halved

(Was drinking when I wrote this, was saying billions is a so much money it’s difficult to conceptualize, seems like folks understood for the most part, but someone said musks money is in stocks etc which is a factor, anyways be well)

[-] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 77 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Hi I'm a mathematician.

What the actual fuck are you talking about?

[-] Drusenija@lemmy.world 32 points 9 months ago

I think they're just saying that if you're a multi billionaire and get a 50% net worth fine, you're still a billionaire once it's done.

[-] gedhrel@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

I'm a mathematician too. They're probably speaking from an intuitive grasp of utility.

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

While I disagree that "billions is beyond being halved", there is some truth to the idea that numbers can get so big that halving doesn't make much difference. That seems very very counter-intuitive, so I'll try to briefly explain.

Consider (10^10 + 2). That's 10000000000+2. I think it's fair to say that the +2 doesn't make a lot of difference. It's still approximately 10^10.

So then, consider 10^(10^10)×100. That's a huge number, too big to type here, then multiplied by 100. So the result is 100 times bigger than the huge number. But... writing it down we see this:

10^(10^10)×100 = 10^(10^10+2) ≈ 10^(10^10).

So although ×100 does make it one hundred times bigger... that just doesn't really make a lot of difference to a number as big as that one. As numbers get bigger and bigger, they start to take on properties a bit like 'infinity'. Addition stops being important, then multiplication, then for even bigger numbers exponentiation doesn't huge much of an impact either.

Mathematically, I think this is really cool and interesting. But I don't think 1 billion is that big. 10^9 is big enough that +2 doesn't matter much, but not so big that ×2 doesn't matter.

[edit] (I'm struggling to get the nested powers to look right... So hopefully my meaning is clear enough anyway.)

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago

A single billion, when put in terms of money, is enough that - simply invested in GICs and bonds, earning a very, very conservative 1% interest - it would earn you ten million dollars a year in interest alone.

I would challenge you to even come up with a reasonable way to spend ten million dollars a year. By my back of the napkin math you could vacation every single day, living in hotels and eating at fancy restaurants, and still not make a dent in that.

Musk has an estimated net worth of $247 billion. You could fine him 99% of his current wealth, and he would still struggle to spend enough that he wouldn't end up increasing his remaining wealth every year.

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 10 points 9 months ago

And this is why it is ludicrous to believe that ultra-rich people earn their fortune with hard work or good ideas. Being rich generates its own money. Being poor is expensive. There should be no billionaires, for any reason. Such concentrated wealth is very bad.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

I would challenge you to even come up with a reasonable way to spend ten million dollars a year.

I would fund multiple forms of art media and have them released for free every year while living on ramen in my leaky apartment

Hello to any billionaires looking for a worthy heir

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago

Now imagine a world where, instead of there being billionaires, everyone had their basic needs met, so artists could afford to focus on creating their art instead of relying on handouts from a capricious god.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

But I want to be a capricious god

[-] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

now I like you, you see the good combinations immediately

[-] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Interesting concept, thank you!

Have you ever played idle champions of the forgotten realms? At some point you start to get this feeling.

[-] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 6 points 9 months ago

They're not talking about Maths. They're talking about wealth.

[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 5 points 9 months ago

division has no power here old man!

[-] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 104 points 9 months ago

Do it. The crimes are almost entirely by him personally, and had unprecedented damage. He should be responsible with all his money - a Twitter-sized blow would be a slap on the wrist as the platform is worth just $5B or thereabouts.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 70 points 9 months ago

Less considering more doing

[-] GeneralInterest@lemmy.world 61 points 9 months ago
[-] pandapoo@sh.itjust.works 58 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That would be extra funny, considering at least some motivation behind his initially bidding on Twitter, was to cash out his absurdly overvalued Tesla stock, without causing it to crash.

Clearly he signed that initial Delaware contract while he was still riding high on mania, but still, his desire to convert his overpriced Tesla stock played no small part. The remaining rationale was mostly drug-induced psychosis, but I digress.

So, calculating fines based on his overpriced assets, forcing him to sell off a bunch of those shitty assets, and risking their price falling closer to their true worth, would be hilarious.

It's also why I am skeptical that they'll do it, or at least I'm skeptical they'll do it in a way that would trigger a domino effect, or market contagion.

[-] Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world 56 points 9 months ago

How about making them such a high percentage that it would genuinely impact their bottom line and not a measly amount calculated as "cost of doing business"

[-] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 9 months ago

4% of gross revenue is not a negligible amount. For no company.

[-] threeganzi@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago

Probably, but it would depend on how much gross revenue they make on said practice, and how often they get a fine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] x00z@lemmy.world 41 points 9 months ago

It's finally time to hold the people hiding behind the companies accountable!!

woohoo!

[-] Zannsolo@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago

I mean he is leveraging his Tesla stock

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

For twitter, he actually isn't. That was the original plan, but he moved away from it and got additional external financing, and then put up more cash himself by selling additional Tesla stock.

Not sure about boring company / neuralink.

[-] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago
[-] skvlp@lemm.ee 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It’s easy to support when Elon is the recipient, but is this a good precedent to set?

[-] GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 117 points 9 months ago

Unironically, yes. You shouldn't be able to shield your actions under a different corporate umbrella.

"Oh, guess we can't fine them much because Twitter is a money pit, so they'll get to continue breaking the law for cheap"

Nah, make the fine off of his entire net worth, make him cash in some of that stock so he can finally pay taxes and fines. Make it hurt enough for him to consider not breaking the laws of countries he wants to do business in.

[-] tekato@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

Sounds good in principle, but isn't the one of the main purposes of creating an LLC or Corporation to shield your personal assets from the company's finances? Everyone cheers for these policies until you're the one they're coming for. I hope you're as cheerful when the government wipes your personal bank account as consequence of your company's affairs.

[-] Zorque@lemmy.world 43 points 9 months ago

The problem is if we give major companies a way out, on the off chance that it might have a benefit for the little guy... those major companies end up stepping on the little guy anyway.

So why let them shield themselves from the consequences of their action?

[-] tekato@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

There’s no need to give a company a “way out”. The government can be as harsh as it wants to be within the limits of the law. But as soon as you start targeting the owner when he is supposed to be financially protected by the law, there are worse consequences in the long term. No matter how much they personally fine Elon, he has infinite money, this doesn’t really hurt him and I doubt he cares since he seems more focused in helping Trump win than helping X (or himself) succeed.

[-] GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 9 months ago

Gotta ask, what would you propose that would curb Elon from willfully committing crimes as he is?

He continues to do so because he's proven the system is broken as soon as someone is sufficiently wealthy. He fights the charges, then when that runs out he fights the amounts, and even when he does get his comeuppance to the tune of 44 billion, he's an even bigger brat cause he finally got stood up to. Do you think that there's a way to systematically even the playing field?

[-] tekato@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Gotta ask, what would you propose that would curb Elon from willfully committing crimes as he is?

I’m not a lawmaker so I don’t know. And it hasn’t been dealt with by those who are because it’s not an easy decision. But the solution can’t possibly be allowing governments to damage the owner’s personal finances for choices at the company level. Truth is you can’t open this road for Elon Musk and never use it again, because that’s never how it goes down. If this is allowed to happen, more people will be unwilling to open businesses because the only protection that they’re supposed to have can be completely ignored by the government. Governments are as predatory as mega corporations, and neither can be given too much power. This takes away power from the companies and gives it to the government, not the average citizen.

Do you think that there's a way to systematically even the playing field?

I don’t know, and nobody else knows.

[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago

To clarify the cost of creating an LLC is a hundred bucks more or less depending on the jurisdiction. So Elon should be allowed to create "Musk Corp Oct2024 LLC" and then say or do anything under the guise of Musk Corp Oct2024 LLC, then if he's sued or fined just declare bankruptcy and create "Musk Corp Nov2024 LLC" and do whatever he wants?

At some point you have to recognize the individual is at fault. You can't just hide behind "Oh that wasn't me, that was the company" or " That was Musk of SpaceX having an opinion of Musk of Tesla, they are different entities."

If someone is attempting to be genuine and truthful when it comes to personal statements, fine, we can consider the protections. But if someone is flagrant and malicious then those protections no longer apply.

[-] tekato@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Yes that’s how it should be. But who determines if the person is doing it on purpose or if it’s a genuine mistake? There shouldn’t be ambiguity in the law, which is why you always either end up hurting corporations, or hurting citizens. Can’t please both with objective law.

[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

But who determines

How about a governing body with systems of checks and balances? You're pretending that laws are just out there enforcing themselves. The EU isn't just some dude with a vendetta. It's a large collection of people making decisions.

And in fact as a business, in order to do business in the EU, you've agreed that the EU has the ability to make decisions like this.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 9 months ago

I don't think I quite agree about governments being predatory by nature. I think they can be, have been in the past, and safeguards and checks and balances need to be there to prevent it. But generally a democratically elected government is beneficial, albeit flawed. Often reactive rather than proactive, but not commonly bloodthirsty. I mean, they often can't even jail executives for criminal decisions or negligence.

In Elon's case, I do believe governments around the world are going to have to adapt to protect their citizens from popular, but provably false and dangerous propaganda, as well as protect their privacy in the EU's case.

Also, I agree, we both aren't lawmakers. So for now I will just have to cheer any attempt at adaptation, and hope that their solution is functional and passes scrutiny.

[-] tekato@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I don't think I quite agree about governments being predatory by nature.

Well, if you look at the history you might change your mind. If you look at the Top 10 Most Politically Influential Countries, by US News, you will notice that out of the 10, at least half cannot be considered "beneficial".

  • I hope we can agree that Russia (1) and China (3) are predatory. But in case you don't believe so:

  • We have the UAE (9) and Saudi Arabia (7), who will literally kill you for the crime of being a journalist [SA], being gay [SA], and arrest you for speaking against them [UAE]

  • Israel (5): I guess it depends on where you stand with the current Israel-Hamas situation. But I wouldn't say Israel has an utopian government.

  • Iran (10): From numerous results from a quick Google search, I can point to Pakhshan Azizi being sentenced to death for her humanitarian work.

That's 6/10 of the most influential governments being provably predatory against their own citizens.

I mean, they often can’t even jail executives for criminal decisions or negligence.

That's one of the unfortunate advantages of creating companies, but I believe such protections are needed for the average citizen who wants to start their own business. Maybe you disagree.

In Elon’s case, I do believe governments around the world are going to have to adapt to protect their citizens from popular, but provably false and dangerous propaganda, as well as protect their privacy in the EU’s case.

If you must "protect" your citizens at all cost from misinformation being spread on X, then you can do what Brazil did, and just force all ISPs to block traffic to it, then fine thousands of dollars to those who get caught using a VPN to access it. This is also extremely predatory (against X and Brazil citizens), but nobody cared for some reason.

Also, I agree, we both aren’t lawmakers. So for now I will just have to cheer any attempt at adaptation, and hope that their solution is functional and passes scrutiny.

Hopefully it can be solved in a way that doesn't harm small businesses.

[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

isn't the one of the main purposes of creating an LLC or Corporation to shield your personal assets from the company's finances?

It is but it is not written in stone for all eternity. If people are abusing this law, like Musk, then it gets amended or rewritten.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 13 points 9 months ago

LLCs shouldn't exist in the first place.

A companys owner should always be liable for the laws its company breaks.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 43 points 9 months ago

Absolutely and without question yes

[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 41 points 9 months ago

Yes. Next question.

[-] toothpaste_sandwich@feddit.nl 31 points 9 months ago

Why not? Which person owning multiple companies would be disadvantaged in a way that could be considered unfair in this way?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MiltownClowns@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

and this is why we dont fuck with the chinese wall

[-] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 5 points 9 months ago

Do it if you're bad

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
834 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

72828 readers
2352 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS