Elon Musk is a nice chap

[CatalinaWOW]

Finally, someone who recognizes that the answer is local.  In the US the definition is at state level, so there is the possibility of 50 state definitions, with a few odd more for places like Puerto Rico, Guam and the US Virgin Islands.  There are similarities between the laws of various states because copy and paste was a thing long before graphical operating systems, but even as a non legal person I also know that there are differences.

For someone like Musk with domiciles and businesses in many locations there are enormous possibilities for lawyer enrichment just in deciding which jurisdiction applies.

[helius]

There was an alimony case some years ago against the founder of Le Cirque Soleil that ruled that his pre-nuptial agreement was void in relation to the laws of Quebec. I don't have the details to hand but lawyers didn't expect it.

[Ed.Kloonk]

Has the 8-car pile up been discussed here?



If you can get past the typical, nauseating Elon-hate, what do you think about this situation?

[tooki]

Has the 8-car pile up been discussed here?

If you can get past the typical, nauseating Elon-hate, what do you think about this situation?

It’s not as nauseating as the Cult of Elon’s ongoing blind fawning and adulation, no matter how stupid his decisions and actions are…

[Ed.Kloonk]

Has the 8-car pile up been discussed here?

If you can get past the typical, nauseating Elon-hate, what do you think about this situation?

It’s not as nauseating as the Cult of Elon’s ongoing blind fawning and adulation, no matter how stupid his decisions and actions are…

Yet they keep keeping him financially afloat. 

I don't see how fail-tailgating on a freeway is Elon's fault. Any other mechanical issue or problem that results in a sudden stop in any other brand of shitty car, the cause of a pile-up is understood to be the car's behind driving too fast and too close. The law states this does it not? Drive to the conditions of the road.

[MadScientist]

for all intents and purposes they are effectively married; whether in the official sense or not; so why should they be treated differently in the legal sense.
Obviously in practice they are treated differently - but that isn't really just

Because they're not married, they have not agreed to a contract that combines their assets. If they wanted to be married they would be, if they've been living together and not married it's because they chose to. They should absolutely NOT be treated as married in the legal sense.
[/quote
In the vast majority of jurisdictions thd act of a “ couple” living together for a period of time is recognised in family law and hence the courts have a sag lay if an action is taken this is especially true if offspring are involved or shared assets like the “ family home “ etc you don’t get to just walk away

[PlainName]

Has the 8-car pile up been discussed here?
...
If you can get past the typical, nauseating Elon-hate, what do you think about this situation?

The car stopping and moving over was a bad move, but it didn't cause the pileup. What did was the cars behind not being awake - the van right behind, which got cut off, managed to just survive that manoeuvre and the car behind him didn't have a problem, but two cars bacvk the driver was asleep and just piled in.

You can argue that the Tesla caused the crash, which it did in a pedantic sense (because any accident is usually the result of more than one issue in sequence), but suppose someone had broken down there or a dumb car had a blowout or any similar problem - it is nearly always the fault of the driver behind if they run into something in front.

[MadScientist]

I don’t think in any circumstances can Musk be regarded as a “ nice guy “. He brilliant , creative , adventurous, mad as a hatter , unconventional etc. but “ nice “ is not an adjective that is easily applied to him . His attitudes to employees is rather bizzare , his actions in Twitter had him fall immediately foul of Irish employment law at a twitters European HQ and it will cost him a packet in compensation when the employment court rules in favour of the dismissed employees which they will 100 % surely will anyone with significant service years will get big money in compensation or could be forced by the courts to be rehired. You just can’t fite people like that.

Musk clearly was badly advised or choose to ignore it. I presume he doesn’t care about thd 100000k in compensation his actions will cost Twitter Europe , it will also mean the labour courts will look extremely carefully at any subsequent layoffs and could levy Twitter with enormous fines , the labour courts have huge powers and they take it seriously they could in effect completely prevent arbitrary layouts without significant reasons in future. In fact it could force Elon to move the operation to another country but in the EU the labour laws simply prevent this type of reasonless layoff approach without significant compensation resulting.

[james_s]

In the vast majority of jurisdictions thd act of a “ couple” living together for a period of time is recognised in family law and hence the courts have a sag lay if an action is taken this is especially true if offspring are involved or shared assets like the “ family home “ etc you don’t get to just walk away

But this is stupid, if a person is not married they have not agreed to a contract and assets should remain the property of each individual. Kids are of course a different matter, they are inherently shared, obviously a person shouldn't be able to just walk away from their kids and not support them in any way but a person should absolutely be able to walk away from a relationship. If you want to combine assets and have legal protections that apply to married couples then get married. I personally choose not to.

[MadScientist]

In the vast majority of jurisdictions thd act of a “ couple” living together for a period of time is recognised in family law and hence the courts have a sag lay if an action is taken this is especially true if offspring are involved or shared assets like the “ family home “ etc you don’t get to just walk away

But this is stupid, if a person is not married they have not agreed to a contract and assets should remain the property of each individual. Kids are of course a different matter, they are inherently shared, obviously a person shouldn't be able to just walk away from their kids and not support them in any way but a person should absolutely be able to walk away from a relationship. If you want to combine assets and have legal protections that apply to married couples then get married. I personally choose not to.

Whether you think it’s stupid is irrelevant. Many countries family law accept evidence where a couple demonstrates living together that both parties have responsibilities   Yes people can of course “ walk away but they cannot escape their responsibilities either. Family law is clear on that , say you’ve been financially supporting your partner for a long time , irrespective of formal marriage an order can be issued to force you to continue that support for a period etc.  yes it’s not the same protection as being married but there is support in many legal jurisdictions for abandoned partners etc.  asset division orders can also be made in certain cases , family law in many countries is extremely powerful and robust

[james_s]

Whether you think it’s stupid is irrelevant. Many countries family law accept evidence where a couple demonstrates living together that both parties have responsibilities   Yes people can of course “ walk away but they cannot escape their responsibilities either. Family law is clear on that , say you’ve been financially supporting your partner for a long time , irrespective of formal marriage an order can be issued to force you to continue that support for a period etc.  yes it’s not the same protection as being married but there is support in many legal jurisdictions for abandoned partners etc.  asset division orders can also be made in certain cases , family law in many countries is extremely powerful and robust

People should consider those things before they enter into a formal marriage. I know commonlaw marriage is a thing but IMO that is outdated and needs to change. Women can have careers these days, they can support themselves. It is absolutely crazy that a person can voluntarily walk away from a relationship, cheat, etc and their partner can end up having to give them assets or support. I see no reason for commonlaw to exist though, if a couple wants to combine assets then get married, if they want the legal protections in the event of a breakup then get married. If they didn't get married then why should the state treat them as if they did? If they're not married then they're just two people living together and it should be treated no differently from a legal standpoint than roommates.

[MadScientist]

Whether you think it’s stupid is irrelevant. Many countries family law accept evidence where a couple demonstrates living together that both parties have responsibilities   Yes people can of course “ walk away but they cannot escape their responsibilities either. Family law is clear on that , say you’ve been financially supporting your partner for a long time , irrespective of formal marriage an order can be issued to force you to continue that support for a period etc.  yes it’s not the same protection as being married but there is support in many legal jurisdictions for abandoned partners etc.  asset division orders can also be made in certain cases , family law in many countries is extremely powerful and robust

In fairness it’s most usual where children have resulted even though no official marriage has occurred

People should consider those things before they enter into a formal marriage. I know commonlaw marriage is a thing but IMO that is outdated and needs to change. Women can have careers these days, they can support themselves. It is absolutely crazy that a person can voluntarily walk away from a relationship, cheat, etc and their partner can end up having to give them assets or support. I see no reason for commonlaw to exist though, if a couple wants to combine assets then get married, if they want the legal protections in the event of a breakup then get married. If they didn't get married then why should the state treat them as if they did? If they're not married then they're just two people living together and it should be treated no differently from a legal standpoint than roommates.

This is not about common law marriage   Where I live there is no common law marriage. Common Law marriage is in effect a legal acceptable of marriage or a defacto  state of marriage  existed

What family law typically does is accept evidence that a relationship may have
Existed and that in some cases financial supper was provided. So where a wife supported the income of a partner would be take intp account and an order could be made that such support continue for a period of time.

It’s not the same as civil marriage but family law typically accepts evidence of Co habitation and therefore looks of the situation

In my view it’s right and proper if two people live together for a considerable find and get financially interwoven then one party can’t just walk away without consequences.

[TimFox]

In the US, the tradition of common-law marriage (now legal in only a few States, as I listed in a previous post in this thread) arose due to rural populations that were located far from a magistrate, justice of the peace, or clergyman.

Edit:  fixed typo.

[Kjelt]

https://bits-chips.nl/artikel/thanks-elon-well-take-it-from-here/

[EEVblog]

Elon came through on his promise to monetise creators.
Once this is proven to work, watch people fall over themselves to tweet like mad.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1621544497388875777

[Ed.Kloonk]

Elon came through on his promise to monetise creators.
Once this is proven to work, watch people fall over themselves to tweet like mad.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1621544497388875777

This kind of reply is disturbing..

https://twitter.com/_Melbourne_82/status/1621544701479485441

Rakesh
@_Melbourne_82
·
13h
Replying to
@elonmusk
Musk poured $44 billion into Twitter. The global population is 8 billion people. He could have given $5 billion to each individual and still had money left over. Most people's lives would be changed if they received a $5 billion check. But he squandered it all on Twitter.

[james_s]

It could be a while. The company I work for is involved in advertising on social media and Twitter ad spend has been flatlined since Musk got involved. It's bad enough to essentially shelve development and focus on other platforms for the time being. Online ad spend is down across the board and has been for a couple of quarters now so it's not JUST Twitter, but none have tanked the way it has. The thing they're going to have to prove is brand safety, it's a *big* deal to advertisers, nobody wants to have their ads served alongside potentially offensive content. The thing that Musk or whoever running Twitter has to remember is that these advertisers are the customers that they need to be catering to, the users are the product. Something like 90% of Twitter's income has come from advertising.

[james_s]

This kind of reply is disturbing..

https://twitter.com/_Melbourne_82/status/1621544701479485441

Rakesh
@_Melbourne_82
·
13h
Replying to
@elonmusk
Musk poured $44 billion into Twitter. The global population is 8 billion people. He could have given $5 billion to each individual and still had money left over. Most people's lives would be changed if they received a $5 billion check. But he squandered it all on Twitter.

That's certainly some funny math going on there. 

It's off by many orders of magnitude, but $44B is still a LOT of money to spend on something.

[vk6zgo]

This kind of reply is disturbing..

https://twitter.com/_Melbourne_82/status/1621544701479485441

Rakesh
@_Melbourne_82
·
13h
Replying to
@elonmusk
Musk poured $44 billion into Twitter. The global population is 8 billion people. He could have given $5 billion to each individual and still had money left over. Most people's lives would be changed if they received a $5 billion check. But he squandered it all on Twitter.

That's certainly some funny math going on there. 

It's off by many orders of magnitude, but $44B is still a LOT of money to spend on something.

In some poor countries, people would welcome the $5.50 it really works out to be.

[vk6zgo]

Elon came through on his promise to monetise creators.
Once this is proven to work, watch people fall over themselves to tweet like mad.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1621544497388875777

Hot Gospellers worked out how to monetise "the Creator" years ago!

[Infraviolet]

The regrettable truth is that sending $5.50 to every person in the world would lead to probably $5.40 of each payment being pinched by midlemen, bureaucrats, administrators, governments and others along the way. One wonders though if $44x10^9 might be enough to have set up a whole separate truly censor proof internet, rather than just buying up a social media firm on the present internet.

[tszaboo]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64520157
So apparently Musk is not guilty of blatant stock manipulation and fraud.
It cost the investors 12B USD.

"Just because I tweet something does not mean people believe it or will act accordingly."

[wraper]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64520157
So apparently Musk is not guilty of blatant stock manipulation and fraud.
It cost the investors 12B USD.

"Just because I tweet something does not mean people believe it or will act accordingly."

Or so they claim. As of stock manipulation, you need to gain something from that for it to become such. Also testimonies show funding was sort of secured.

"Just because I tweet something does not mean people believe it or will act accordingly."

Actually it's like from a mouth of Captain Obvious. Just because they claim they would be 12B richer if he had not made those tweets, does not mean it's true. And if they actually make financial decisions based just on some tweets which did not even claim it will actually happen, they're idiots (he wrote he's considering taking it private).
FWIW jury made an unanimous decicion, so it says something.

[tszaboo]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64520157
So apparently Musk is not guilty of blatant stock manipulation and fraud.
It cost the investors 12B USD.

"Just because I tweet something does not mean people believe it or will act accordingly."

Or so they claim. As of stock manipulation, you need to gain something from that for it to become such. Also testimonies show funding was sort of secured.

"Just because I tweet something does not mean people believe it or will act accordingly."

Actually it's like from a mouth of Captain Obvious. Just because they claim they would be 12B richer if he had not made those tweets, does not mean it's true. And if they actually make financial decisions based just on some tweets which did not even claim it will actually happen, they're idiots (he wrote he's considering taking it private).
FWIW jury made an unanimous decicion, so it says something.

There is a reason companies issue press releases, and keep info private before that.
So everyone is working from the same info. That prevents insider trading and other illegal transactions.
Musk pretty much tweeted, that this stock will be worth 420 USD in the future, because a private investor will buy it. Which was a higher price than what the stock was worth then. And the people who jumped on the bandwagon didn't loose some magical future gain, they were part of a pump and dump.
Which he did with Tesla (several times), Dogecoin (several times) and Bitcoin.
He just straight out lied several times. "OK I'm not going to sell more trust me bro dis time" before dumping billions.

[wraper]

Musk pretty much tweeted, that this stock will be worth 420 USD in the future, because a private investor will buy it. Which was a higher price than what the stock was worth then.

If you look on actual historic data, share price boost when he tweeted is not noticeable compared to general volatility of TSLA. And it did not affect long term investments. Only some stupid daytraders may got burned because of this.
To pump and dump you need to profit from that. If anything, he only pumped DOGE as a joke for no actual profit.