In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
Yes, I agree. The NYT/Athletic is particularly good - they've hired a lot of the best British writers. They can afford it. It's the casual viewers who make stunningly naff remarks
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
It has, but it should set its sights on overtaking basketball and ice hockey first.
Ice hockey is way behind both baseball and soccer.
Not by revenue it’s not. The NHL is still way ahead of MLS
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
Surprised he didn't climb out of a SpaceX rocket that landed upright on the centre spot 5 minutes before the kick-off.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
Yes, I agree. The NYT/Athletic is particularly good - they've hired a lot of the best British writers. They can afford it. It's the casual viewers who make stunningly naff remarks
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
It has, but it should set its sights on overtaking basketball and ice hockey first.
Ice hockey is way behind both baseball and soccer.
Not by revenue it’s not. The NHL is still way ahead of MLS
That's because American soccer fans spend a lot of their money on international soccer from England and Spain.
By what quantifiable metric is it “ahead” then?
Active viewership.
It’s hard to compare because of the weirdly insular world of sport in the US. But football/soccer is huge there, albeit in the context of the broader atomisation of culture - it’ll never ever overtake gridiron football, and I struggle to see it take on basketball, shy of the latter going through a decline of cheating and mismanagement which been slowly doing for baseball.
Domestic attendances for MLS are pretty impressive though. I remember reading a few years back that MLS clubs had higher average match attendance than the Brazilian Serie A.
Football rights for foreign leagues (England especially, but also Spain and Mexico) are lucrative: they draw eyeballs (watching live too), and therefore draw ad spend. It’s in broadcasters’ interest to present the sport well too.
Back to politics and let's make some time next year to chew over the Luxembourg political scene ahead of their next general election.
The three party Government headed by Xavier Bettel polled 47.6% in the October 2018 election but the latest polls have the combined vote share of the Social Democrats, Democratic Party and Greens at 50.2%.
The opposition centre-right Christian Social People's Party is on 23.3%, five points down from 2018 but is still the party attracting the largest vote share. They polled 1,800 out of a population of 608,000 - that would be akin to polling a million people for an opinion poll here.
All very interesting, but it has fewer electors than for Essex county council
Of slight interest at most but I was more interested in what would happen if a polling company or companies decided to poll a million people over a 14-day period and what credence we would give (if any) to the results.
Most polls sample 1,000-2,500 people. I recall polls of 10,000 people before General Elections but would a poll of 100,000 people (assuming the usual caveats about it being representative) produce a more accurate result. What about polling a million people (even if it were logistically possible)?
Is there any evidence the larger the sample the more accurate the result?
Back to politics and let's make some time next year to chew over the Luxembourg political scene ahead of their next general election.
The three party Government headed by Xavier Bettel polled 47.6% in the October 2018 election but the latest polls have the combined vote share of the Social Democrats, Democratic Party and Greens at 50.2%.
The opposition centre-right Christian Social People's Party is on 23.3%, five points down from 2018 but is still the party attracting the largest vote share. They polled 1,800 out of a population of 608,000 - that would be akin to polling a million people for an opinion poll here.
All very interesting, but it has fewer electors than for Essex county council
Of slight interest at most but I was more interested in what would happen if a polling company or companies decided to poll a million people over a 14-day period and what credence we would give (if any) to the results.
Most polls sample 1,000-2,500 people. I recall polls of 10,000 people before General Elections but would a poll of 100,000 people (assuming the usual caveats about it being representative) produce a more accurate result. What about polling a million people (even if it were logistically possible)?
Is there any evidence the larger the sample the more accurate the result?
Yes, provided the methodology is otherwise robust, but beyond about 1,500 people the added accuracy becomes diminishingly small in relation to the increase in sampling and isn’t really worth the extra cost and effort.
On Topic - Have the British police begun arresting anyone at Westminster yet re: alleged COVID frauds?
My guess is no. Unlike the Belgian police who ARE arresting MEPs and other EUers re: alleged Qatar payoffs.
The Belgiums have been investigating this case for nearly 2 years before they started to make arrests, and then they found idiots who kept masses of cash under their bed, which sort of made life a lot easier.
In the UK, investigations have been ongoing for about a year now.
Financial crimes and misdoings are very complicated and often difficult to ensure that what has been done is definitely illegal (rather than immoral) and that your case won't fall apart, which has happened more often than it should in the past.
Back to politics and let's make some time next year to chew over the Luxembourg political scene ahead of their next general election.
The three party Government headed by Xavier Bettel polled 47.6% in the October 2018 election but the latest polls have the combined vote share of the Social Democrats, Democratic Party and Greens at 50.2%.
The opposition centre-right Christian Social People's Party is on 23.3%, five points down from 2018 but is still the party attracting the largest vote share. They polled 1,800 out of a population of 608,000 - that would be akin to polling a million people for an opinion poll here.
All very interesting, but it has fewer electors than for Essex county council
Of slight interest at most but I was more interested in what would happen if a polling company or companies decided to poll a million people over a 14-day period and what credence we would give (if any) to the results.
Most polls sample 1,000-2,500 people. I recall polls of 10,000 people before General Elections but would a poll of 100,000 people (assuming the usual caveats about it being representative) produce a more accurate result. What about polling a million people (even if it were logistically possible)?
Is there any evidence the larger the sample the more accurate the result?
Not unless scientifically accurate, remember the infamous Literary Digest poll putting Republican nominee Alf Landon ahead of Democrat President FDR in the 1936 presidential election. https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5168/
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
Back to politics and let's make some time next year to chew over the Luxembourg political scene ahead of their next general election.
The three party Government headed by Xavier Bettel polled 47.6% in the October 2018 election but the latest polls have the combined vote share of the Social Democrats, Democratic Party and Greens at 50.2%.
The opposition centre-right Christian Social People's Party is on 23.3%, five points down from 2018 but is still the party attracting the largest vote share. They polled 1,800 out of a population of 608,000 - that would be akin to polling a million people for an opinion poll here.
All very interesting, but it has fewer electors than for Essex county council
Of slight interest at most but I was more interested in what would happen if a polling company or companies decided to poll a million people over a 14-day period and what credence we would give (if any) to the results.
Most polls sample 1,000-2,500 people. I recall polls of 10,000 people before General Elections but would a poll of 100,000 people (assuming the usual caveats about it being representative) produce a more accurate result. What about polling a million people (even if it were logistically possible)?
Is there any evidence the larger the sample the more accurate the result?
Yes, provided the methodology is otherwise robust, but beyond about 1,500 people the added accuracy becomes diminishingly small in relation to the increase in sampling and isn’t really worth the extra cost and effort.
That's why I tend to sum and average the past 6-10 polls, (depending on their recency) before coming to any conclusions. You can then assume a poll of 10 000 plus. With caveats of course. Reducing the margin of error.
In footballing terms it has been a brilliant World Cup and that was an epic, thrilling, final. Stunning stuff.
First non-European winner in 20 years is good for the game, as is the first African Semi-finalist. Some great matches on the way too for the neutral fan.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
You can't link to Facebook or Vimeo from YouTube.
But you can instagram...lots of these sites seem to have inconsistent and random rules in terms of links elsewhere.
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
I’m sure Musky is a big fan of the soccerball.
He's South African. He would have grown up watching football, which is the biggest sport in South Africa
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
I’m sure Musky is a big fan of the soccerball.
He's South African. He would have grown up watching football, which is the biggest sport in South Africa
Musk's fondness for football is almost certainly real
A few weeks ago he joked on twitter he might buy Man Utd now they were up for sale, so clearly some awareness of their situation.
Also, stupid discussion. Rich and famous people go to the massive events all the time, with varying levels of knowledge and interest. Its part of the "social calendar". I have been to VIP area at F1 and it ranged from absolute nerd outs about F1 to airheads just there to be seen and had been invited as eye candy.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
Instagram doesn't allow accounts that link to TikTok.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
I don't see how this is monopolistic
Is the Guardian obliged to host adverts which say "don't read this lefty shit, come over to the Telegraph"?
No. Indeed the Guardian will censor any comments below the line which question the paper's probity, tax affairs, etc, and you will get banned for doing that
I do wonder what you would be saying if - post-Musk takeover - Facebook had banned linking to Twitter.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
Yes, I agree. The NYT/Athletic is particularly good - they've hired a lot of the best British writers. They can afford it. It's the casual viewers who make stunningly naff remarks
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
It has, but it should set its sights on overtaking basketball and ice hockey first.
Ice hockey is way behind both baseball and soccer.
Not by revenue it’s not. The NHL is still way ahead of MLS
That's because American soccer fans spend a lot of their money on international soccer from England and Spain.
By what quantifiable metric is it “ahead” then?
Active viewership.
It’s hard to compare because of the weirdly insular world of sport in the US. But football/soccer is huge there, albeit in the context of the broader atomisation of culture - it’ll never ever overtake gridiron football, and I struggle to see it take on basketball, shy of the latter going through a decline of cheating and mismanagement which been slowly doing for baseball.
Domestic attendances for MLS are pretty impressive though. I remember reading a few years back that MLS clubs had higher average match attendance than the Brazilian Serie A.
Football rights for foreign leagues (England especially, but also Spain and Mexico) are lucrative: they draw eyeballs (watching live too), and therefore draw ad spend. It’s in broadcasters’ interest to present the sport well too.
Tends towards the younger and wealthier demographic, too. Premier League games sit in a lucrative time slot too. Weekend mornings when there is no domestic live sport to compete with on sports channels.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
Instagram doesn't allow accounts that link to TikTok.
Which should also be regulated. These companies need to pick: either they are publishers with editorial control, and they are held liable for content on their websites, or they are platforms and have a responsibility for neutrality to users.
Gary Neville suggests Tories’ attitude to nurses is like Qatar’s human rights record
Says man who took millions from the Qatar's to host their coverage of the soccerball. I think you lose your ability to sit on your high horse and make those comparisons when you do that.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
So, would it be ok if Microsoft didn't allow you to visit Apple's website from a PC?
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
I’m sure Musky is a big fan of the soccerball.
He's South African. He would have grown up watching football, which is the biggest sport in South Africa
Musk's fondness for football is almost certainly real
Football is the black sport in South Africa. Musk is superwealthy, the son of a mine owner that treated his apartheid oppressed labour badly. The sport of the wealthy white elite was and is rugby.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
I don't see how this is monopolistic
Is the Guardian obliged to host adverts which say "don't read this lefty shit, come over to the Telegraph"?
No. Indeed the Guardian will censor any comments below the line which question the paper's probity, tax affairs, etc, and you will get banned for doing that
I do wonder what you would be saying if - post-Musk takeover - Facebook had banned linking to Twitter.
I think the ban is only on accounts that exist to promote content on other social media, Instagram does the same for TikTok. If it's a twitter user that links to an Instagram post they won't get a ban, if it's an account that just pushes out content primarily from Instagram they'll get banned.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
So, would it be ok if Microsoft didn't allow you to visit Apple's website from a PC?
That's not a good analogy. Twitter is not a gatekeeper platform and can't do anything to prevent people using competitors.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
Instagram doesn't allow accounts that link to TikTok.
Which should also be regulated. These companies need to pick: either they are publishers with editorial control, and they are held liable for content on their websites, or they are platforms and have a responsibility for neutrality to users.
I think they are classed at advertising accounts. I suspect Twitter will do the same.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
Is this whole "platform" vs "publisher" distinction in UK or EU law? It's not in US law, they wisely allow you to run a website full of your own opinions and delete comments you think are bad from the comments sections without becoming liable for the comments that aren't yours.
I'm personally finding Mastodon better but I think the US laws, which protect both free speech and the right to publish other people's free speech exactly as you judge best are pretty sound.
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
Liability, he says? It's hardly as if courts in France or any other country keep throwing authors of tweets in jail for anything or making financial awards against them in civil cases.
Financial liability, obviously. If Twitter want to operate in the EU, it has to follow EU law, and will be subject to EU penalties.
Though in this case, the legislation with real teeth won’t come into force until later next year.
Twitter cannot afford large fines if it wants to remain financially viable.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
I don't see how this is monopolistic
Is the Guardian obliged to host adverts which say "don't read this lefty shit, come over to the Telegraph"?
No. Indeed the Guardian will censor any comments below the line which question the paper's probity, tax affairs, etc, and you will get banned for doing that
I do wonder what you would be saying if - post-Musk takeover - Facebook had banned linking to Twitter.
I think the ban is only on accounts that exist to promote content on other social media, Instagram does the same for TikTok. If it's a twitter user that links to an Instagram post they won't get a ban, if it's an account that just pushes out content primarily from Instagram they'll get banned.
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
I’m sure Musky is a big fan of the soccerball.
He's South African. He would have grown up watching football, which is the biggest sport in South Africa
Musk's fondness for football is almost certainly real
Football is the black sport in South Africa. Musk is superwealthy, the son of a mine owner that treated his apartheid oppressed labour badly. The sport of the wealthy white elite was and is rugby.
But he would have been exposed to football from a young age. White South Africans do not exist in a total bubble: I bet he played football as a kid. He grew up in a footballing culture in a way Americans just don't. He will understand the nuance
That said, turning up at the World Cup Final with Jared Kushner is quite epic trolling
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
I’m sure Musky is a big fan of the soccerball.
He's South African. He would have grown up watching football, which is the biggest sport in South Africa
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
I’m sure Musky is a big fan of the soccerball.
He's South African. He would have grown up watching football, which is the biggest sport in South Africa
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
I’m sure Musky is a big fan of the soccerball.
He's South African. He would have grown up watching football, which is the biggest sport in South Africa
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
I don't see how this is monopolistic
Is the Guardian obliged to host adverts which say "don't read this lefty shit, come over to the Telegraph"?
No. Indeed the Guardian will censor any comments below the line which question the paper's probity, tax affairs, etc, and you will get banned for doing that
I do wonder what you would be saying if - post-Musk takeover - Facebook had banned linking to Twitter.
I think the ban is only on accounts that exist to promote content on other social media, Instagram does the same for TikTok. If it's a twitter user that links to an Instagram post they won't get a ban, if it's an account that just pushes out content primarily from Instagram they'll get banned.
That's not all they announced. They also have a blanket ban on linking to usernames on specified other platforms. These include Mastodon, Instagram, truth.social (lol) and Jack's new thing (lmao) but not Gab, Getter or Parler.
Back to politics and let's make some time next year to chew over the Luxembourg political scene ahead of their next general election.
The three party Government headed by Xavier Bettel polled 47.6% in the October 2018 election but the latest polls have the combined vote share of the Social Democrats, Democratic Party and Greens at 50.2%.
The opposition centre-right Christian Social People's Party is on 23.3%, five points down from 2018 but is still the party attracting the largest vote share. They polled 1,800 out of a population of 608,000 - that would be akin to polling a million people for an opinion poll here.
All very interesting, but it has fewer electors than for Essex county council
Of slight interest at most but I was more interested in what would happen if a polling company or companies decided to poll a million people over a 14-day period and what credence we would give (if any) to the results.
Most polls sample 1,000-2,500 people. I recall polls of 10,000 people before General Elections but would a poll of 100,000 people (assuming the usual caveats about it being representative) produce a more accurate result. What about polling a million people (even if it were logistically possible)?
Is there any evidence the larger the sample the more accurate the result?
Yes, provided the methodology is otherwise robust, but beyond about 1,500 people the added accuracy becomes diminishingly small in relation to the increase in sampling and isn’t really worth the extra cost and effort.
That's why I tend to sum and average the past 6-10 polls, (depending on their recency) before coming to any conclusions. You can then assume a poll of 10 000 plus. With caveats of course. Reducing the margin of error.
It reduces the margin of error, if all the polls are properly random.
But polling nowadays has stratification and weightings within which the random sampling takes place (truly random sampling being impossible, anyway, since however you try to contact people builds in inevitable bias). When there have been polling ‘mistakes’ these usually stem from mistaken assumptions (most commonly unidentified bias) within the stratification and sampling, and the various polling companies tend to make similar errors due to the herd effect. If all the polls are unwittingly building in bias for the same reason - for example the classic case of failing to spot the ‘shy Tory effect’ during the 1990s - then it doesn’t matter how many polls you average together since they all contain the same error.
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
I’m sure Musky is a big fan of the soccerball.
He's South African. He would have grown up watching football, which is the biggest sport in South Africa
Musk's fondness for football is almost certainly real
Football is the black sport in South Africa. Musk is superwealthy, the son of a mine owner that treated his apartheid oppressed labour badly. The sport of the wealthy white elite was and is rugby.
Musk's father was actually elected to Pretoria council for the anti apartheid Progressive Party at a time of National Party domination
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
I don't see how this is monopolistic
Is the Guardian obliged to host adverts which say "don't read this lefty shit, come over to the Telegraph"?
No. Indeed the Guardian will censor any comments below the line which question the paper's probity, tax affairs, etc, and you will get banned for doing that
I do wonder what you would be saying if - post-Musk takeover - Facebook had banned linking to Twitter.
I think the ban is only on accounts that exist to promote content on other social media, Instagram does the same for TikTok. If it's a twitter user that links to an Instagram post they won't get a ban, if it's an account that just pushes out content primarily from Instagram they'll get banned.
That's not all they announced. They also have a blanket ban on linking to usernames on specified other platforms. These include Mastodon, Instagram, truth.social (lol) and Jack's new thing (lmao) but not Gab, Getter or Parler.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
I don't see how this is monopolistic
Is the Guardian obliged to host adverts which say "don't read this lefty shit, come over to the Telegraph"?
No. Indeed the Guardian will censor any comments below the line which question the paper's probity, tax affairs, etc, and you will get banned for doing that
I do wonder what you would be saying if - post-Musk takeover - Facebook had banned linking to Twitter.
I think the ban is only on accounts that exist to promote content on other social media, Instagram does the same for TikTok. If it's a twitter user that links to an Instagram post they won't get a ban, if it's an account that just pushes out content primarily from Instagram they'll get banned.
That's not all they announced. They also have a blanket ban on linking to usernames on specified other platforms. These include Mastodon, Instagram, truth.social (lol) and Jack's new thing (lmao) but not Gab, Getter or Parler.
Yes, they want you to post the goats, just as Instagram want you to make the reel of your goats rather than link to the TikTok that has your goats on it. It's fair.
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
I’m sure Musky is a big fan of the soccerball.
He's South African. He would have grown up watching football, which is the biggest sport in South Africa
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
Liability, he says? It's hardly as if courts in France or any other country keep throwing authors of tweets in jail for anything or making financial awards against them in civil cases.
Financial liability, obviously. If Twitter want to operate in the EU, it has to follow EU law, and will be subject to EU penalties.
Though in this case, the legislation with real teeth won’t come into force until later next year.
Twitter cannot afford large fines if it wants to remain financially viable.
What's shocking is how little revenue the EU generates for social media companies, they may choose to exit the EU market entirely.
Back to politics and let's make some time next year to chew over the Luxembourg political scene ahead of their next general election.
The three party Government headed by Xavier Bettel polled 47.6% in the October 2018 election but the latest polls have the combined vote share of the Social Democrats, Democratic Party and Greens at 50.2%.
The opposition centre-right Christian Social People's Party is on 23.3%, five points down from 2018 but is still the party attracting the largest vote share. They polled 1,800 out of a population of 608,000 - that would be akin to polling a million people for an opinion poll here.
All very interesting, but it has fewer electors than for Essex county council
Of slight interest at most but I was more interested in what would happen if a polling company or companies decided to poll a million people over a 14-day period and what credence we would give (if any) to the results.
Most polls sample 1,000-2,500 people. I recall polls of 10,000 people before General Elections but would a poll of 100,000 people (assuming the usual caveats about it being representative) produce a more accurate result. What about polling a million people (even if it were logistically possible)?
Is there any evidence the larger the sample the more accurate the result?
Yes, provided the methodology is otherwise robust, but beyond about 1,500 people the added accuracy becomes diminishingly small in relation to the increase in sampling and isn’t really worth the extra cost and effort.
That's why I tend to sum and average the past 6-10 polls, (depending on their recency) before coming to any conclusions. You can then assume a poll of 10 000 plus. With caveats of course. Reducing the margin of error.
It reduces the margin of error, if all the polls are properly random.
But polling nowadays has stratification and weightings within which the random sampling takes place (truly random sampling being impossible, anyway, since however you try to contact people builds in inevitable bias). When there have been polling ‘mistakes’ these usually stem from mistaken assumptions (most commonly unidentified bias) within the stratification and sampling, and the various polling companies tend to make similar errors due to the herd effect. If all the polls are unwittingly building in bias for the same reason - for example the classic case of failing to spot the ‘shy Tory effect’ during the 1990s - then it doesn’t matter how many polls you average together since they all contain the same error.
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
I’m sure Musky is a big fan of the soccerball.
He's South African. He would have grown up watching football, which is the biggest sport in South Africa
Musk's fondness for football is almost certainly real
Football is the black sport in South Africa. Musk is superwealthy, the son of a mine owner that treated his apartheid oppressed labour badly. The sport of the wealthy white elite was and is rugby.
But he would have been exposed to football from a young age. White South Africans do not exist in a total bubble: I bet he played football as a kid. He grew up in a footballing culture in a way Americans just don't. He will understand the nuance
That said, turning up at the World Cup Final with Jared Kushner is quite epic trolling
The more I see it the worse it gets. The creepy, patronising rub of his hair. Macron is lucky that Mbappe doesn't deck him
Politicians inserting themselves into big sporting events rarely comes off well, but no footballer wants them trying to be matey matey minutes after you just lost the biggest game of your life. If you do want to be consoled by anybody, it will be teammates, who are going through the same thing.
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
I’m sure Musky is a big fan of the soccerball.
He's South African. He would have grown up watching football, which is the biggest sport in South Africa
Gawd, it’s burner phones all over again wherein you turn yourself into an expert from a standing start. I’m claiming he doesn’t give the teeniest one of your farts for football.
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
Liability, he says? It's hardly as if courts in France or any other country keep throwing authors of tweets in jail for anything or making financial awards against them in civil cases.
Financial liability, obviously. If Twitter want to operate in the EU, it has to follow EU law, and will be subject to EU penalties.
Though in this case, the legislation with real teeth won’t come into force until later next year.
Twitter cannot afford large fines if it wants to remain financially viable.
What's shocking is how little revenue the EU generates for social media companies, they may choose to exit the EU market entirely.
I'd bet they won't: China and Russia are closed to them right now (and are likely to remain so). If you remove the EU, the addressable market shrinks rather.
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
I’m sure Musky is a big fan of the soccerball.
He's South African. He would have grown up watching football, which is the biggest sport in South Africa
Musk's fondness for football is almost certainly real
Football is the black sport in South Africa. Musk is superwealthy, the son of a mine owner that treated his apartheid oppressed labour badly. The sport of the wealthy white elite was and is rugby.
But he would have been exposed to football from a young age. White South Africans do not exist in a total bubble: I bet he played football as a kid. He grew up in a footballing culture in a way Americans just don't. He will understand the nuance
That said, turning up at the World Cup Final with Jared Kushner is quite epic trolling
Trolling whom ?
The American Left, which is right now intent on bringing Musk down
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
Liability, he says? It's hardly as if courts in France or any other country keep throwing authors of tweets in jail for anything or making financial awards against them in civil cases.
Financial liability, obviously. If Twitter want to operate in the EU, it has to follow EU law, and will be subject to EU penalties.
Though in this case, the legislation with real teeth won’t come into force until later next year.
Twitter cannot afford large fines if it wants to remain financially viable.
Assuming the law applies, the maximum penalty can be 10% of global turnover. He has about six to nine months to get his shit together.
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
I’m sure Musky is a big fan of the soccerball.
He's South African. He would have grown up watching football, which is the biggest sport in South Africa
Musk's fondness for football is almost certainly real
Football is the black sport in South Africa. Musk is superwealthy, the son of a mine owner that treated his apartheid oppressed labour badly. The sport of the wealthy white elite was and is rugby.
But he would have been exposed to football from a young age. White South Africans do not exist in a total bubble: I bet he played football as a kid. He grew up in a footballing culture in a way Americans just don't. He will understand the nuance
That said, turning up at the World Cup Final with Jared Kushner is quite epic trolling
Trolling whom ?
The American Left, which is right now intent on bringing Musk down
I think your’re confused. Musk is trying to bring the American Left down. He banned liberal journalists from his site for example before cravenly capitulating like that babyman he is. To its shame, the American Left have done the square root of fuck all in retaliation save half heartedly, occasionally, pulling their Twitter accounts. A bit like the advertisers your mancrush is driving away.
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
Liability, he says? It's hardly as if courts in France or any other country keep throwing authors of tweets in jail for anything or making financial awards against them in civil cases.
Financial liability, obviously. If Twitter want to operate in the EU, it has to follow EU law, and will be subject to EU penalties.
Though in this case, the legislation with real teeth won’t come into force until later next year.
Twitter cannot afford large fines if it wants to remain financially viable.
What's shocking is how little revenue the EU generates for social media companies, they may choose to exit the EU market entirely.
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
I’m sure Musky is a big fan of the soccerball.
He's South African. He would have grown up watching football, which is the biggest sport in South Africa
Musk's fondness for football is almost certainly real
Football is the black sport in South Africa. Musk is superwealthy, the son of a mine owner that treated his apartheid oppressed labour badly. The sport of the wealthy white elite was and is rugby.
But he would have been exposed to football from a young age. White South Africans do not exist in a total bubble: I bet he played football as a kid. He grew up in a footballing culture in a way Americans just don't. He will understand the nuance
That said, turning up at the World Cup Final with Jared Kushner is quite epic trolling
Trolling whom ?
The American Left, which is right now intent on bringing Musk down
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
Liability, he says? It's hardly as if courts in France or any other country keep throwing authors of tweets in jail for anything or making financial awards against them in civil cases.
Financial liability, obviously. If Twitter want to operate in the EU, it has to follow EU law, and will be subject to EU penalties.
Though in this case, the legislation with real teeth won’t come into force until later next year.
Twitter cannot afford large fines if it wants to remain financially viable.
What's shocking is how little revenue the EU generates for social media companies, they may choose to exit the EU market entirely.
I'd bet they won't: China and Russia are closed to them right now (and are likely to remain so). If you remove the EU, the addressable market shrinks rather.
I'm not so sure, Twitter is no longer run by a rational actor and the balance of leaving the EU market (officially anyway, unless the EU tries to put up a great firewall) may seem like a big "fuck you" to the EU from Musk.
Really its just a shame Musk cannot run for US President, as he's clearly the right person to spend an entire presidency and aftermath on winding people up on twitter.
@conor_matchett@elonmusk Oh yes, he has just absolutely volunteered Twitter up as the poster child for the EU’s new DSA. And the EU is *itching* to massively fine a US tech giant. And the EU is the world’s most valuable bloc by GDP. So there are some *choices* ahead. https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1604593004274077696
Really its just a shame Musk cannot run for US President, as he's clearly the right person to spend an entire presidency and aftermath on winding people up on twitter.
Musk versus Trump would be funny, in a terrifying sort of way.
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
Liability, he says? It's hardly as if courts in France or any other country keep throwing authors of tweets in jail for anything or making financial awards against them in civil cases.
Financial liability, obviously. If Twitter want to operate in the EU, it has to follow EU law, and will be subject to EU penalties.
Though in this case, the legislation with real teeth won’t come into force until later next year.
Twitter cannot afford large fines if it wants to remain financially viable.
What's shocking is how little revenue the EU generates for social media companies, they may choose to exit the EU market entirely.
I'd bet they won't: China and Russia are closed to them right now (and are likely to remain so). If you remove the EU, the addressable market shrinks rather.
I'm not so sure, Twitter is no longer run by a rational actor and the balance of leaving the EU market (officially anyway, unless the EU tries to put up a great firewall) may seem like a big "fuck you" to the EU from Musk.
It's not just about Elon, it's about his financial backers. Twitter is already bleeding money, the lenders are extremely nervous, and leaving the EU (which also potentially means losing EU Tweeters) is unlikely to go down well with them
@conor_matchett@elonmusk Oh yes, he has just absolutely volunteered Twitter up as the poster child for the EU’s new DSA. And the EU is *itching* to massively fine a US tech giant. And the EU is the world’s most valuable bloc by GDP. So there are some *choices* ahead. https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1604593004274077696
Someone who doesn't understand social media at all, the EU accounts for a small proportion of revenue for most social media companies, Twitter even more so than Facebook and Instagram. Leaving the EU market is an option for Twitter, their main markets are the US, UK and parts of Asia.
Really its just a shame Musk cannot run for US President, as he's clearly the right person to spend an entire presidency and aftermath on winding people up on twitter.
Musk versus Trump would be funny, in a terrifying sort of way.
Musk one of the only people who could infuriate Trump by saying 'I am much richer than you!'
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
Liability, he says? It's hardly as if courts in France or any other country keep throwing authors of tweets in jail for anything or making financial awards against them in civil cases.
Financial liability, obviously. If Twitter want to operate in the EU, it has to follow EU law, and will be subject to EU penalties.
Though in this case, the legislation with real teeth won’t come into force until later next year.
Twitter cannot afford large fines if it wants to remain financially viable.
What's shocking is how little revenue the EU generates for social media companies, they may choose to exit the EU market entirely.
I'd bet they won't: China and Russia are closed to them right now (and are likely to remain so). If you remove the EU, the addressable market shrinks rather.
I'm not so sure, Twitter is no longer run by a rational actor and the balance of leaving the EU market (officially anyway, unless the EU tries to put up a great firewall) may seem like a big "fuck you" to the EU from Musk.
It's not just about Elon, it's about his financial backers. Twitter is already bleeding money, the lenders are extremely nervous, and leaving the EU (which also potentially means losing EU Tweeters) is unlikely to go down well with them
Twitter is not just bleeding money, it’s bleeding value. Musk is batshit.
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
Liability, he says? It's hardly as if courts in France or any other country keep throwing authors of tweets in jail for anything or making financial awards against them in civil cases.
Financial liability, obviously. If Twitter want to operate in the EU, it has to follow EU law, and will be subject to EU penalties.
Though in this case, the legislation with real teeth won’t come into force until later next year.
Twitter cannot afford large fines if it wants to remain financially viable.
What's shocking is how little revenue the EU generates for social media companies, they may choose to exit the EU market entirely.
I'd bet they won't: China and Russia are closed to them right now (and are likely to remain so). If you remove the EU, the addressable market shrinks rather.
Twitter specifically has relatively little market penetration in the EU, and people who want to continue to participate in the Anglosphere political conversation will get round any ban. I think the EU would show the limits of its pretensions to being a 'regulatory superpower' if it tried to get heavy handed with Twitter.
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
Liability, he says? It's hardly as if courts in France or any other country keep throwing authors of tweets in jail for anything or making financial awards against them in civil cases.
Financial liability, obviously. If Twitter want to operate in the EU, it has to follow EU law, and will be subject to EU penalties.
Though in this case, the legislation with real teeth won’t come into force until later next year.
Twitter cannot afford large fines if it wants to remain financially viable.
What's shocking is how little revenue the EU generates for social media companies, they may choose to exit the EU market entirely.
I'd bet they won't: China and Russia are closed to them right now (and are likely to remain so). If you remove the EU, the addressable market shrinks rather.
I'm not so sure, Twitter is no longer run by a rational actor and the balance of leaving the EU market (officially anyway, unless the EU tries to put up a great firewall) may seem like a big "fuck you" to the EU from Musk.
It's not just about Elon, it's about his financial backers. Twitter is already bleeding money, the lenders are extremely nervous, and leaving the EU (which also potentially means losing EU Tweeters) is unlikely to go down well with them
I assume most people who are that concerned would just access via a VPN.
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
Liability, he says? It's hardly as if courts in France or any other country keep throwing authors of tweets in jail for anything or making financial awards against them in civil cases.
Financial liability, obviously. If Twitter want to operate in the EU, it has to follow EU law, and will be subject to EU penalties.
Though in this case, the legislation with real teeth won’t come into force until later next year.
Twitter cannot afford large fines if it wants to remain financially viable.
What's shocking is how little revenue the EU generates for social media companies, they may choose to exit the EU market entirely.
I'd bet they won't: China and Russia are closed to them right now (and are likely to remain so). If you remove the EU, the addressable market shrinks rather.
I'm not so sure, Twitter is no longer run by a rational actor and the balance of leaving the EU market (officially anyway, unless the EU tries to put up a great firewall) may seem like a big "fuck you" to the EU from Musk.
It's not just about Elon, it's about his financial backers. Twitter is already bleeding money, the lenders are extremely nervous, and leaving the EU (which also potentially means losing EU Tweeters) is unlikely to go down well with them
The alternative may be vindictive and political fines from the EU. Instagram has already put in place a very similar policy to what Twitter has proposed without any attention at all, they fairly looked after their business interests by stopping people advertising their TikTok accounts.
Again, the unintended consequence from this could end up showing how little power the EU has over big US tech because the EU without the UK isn't a big market for a lot of them. Lots may choose to exit if Twitter does so and sees little to no effect on their bottom line.
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
Liability, he says? It's hardly as if courts in France or any other country keep throwing authors of tweets in jail for anything or making financial awards against them in civil cases.
Financial liability, obviously. If Twitter want to operate in the EU, it has to follow EU law, and will be subject to EU penalties.
Though in this case, the legislation with real teeth won’t come into force until later next year.
Twitter cannot afford large fines if it wants to remain financially viable.
What's shocking is how little revenue the EU generates for social media companies, they may choose to exit the EU market entirely.
Probably resulting in a major boost to European productivity!
Really its just a shame Musk cannot run for US President, as he's clearly the right person to spend an entire presidency and aftermath on winding people up on twitter.
Musk versus Trump would be funny, in a terrifying sort of way.
Musk one of the only people who could infuriate Trump by saying 'I am much richer than you!'
Although there are rumours most of us could actually say that to Trump at the moment...
Really its just a shame Musk cannot run for US President, as he's clearly the right person to spend an entire presidency and aftermath on winding people up on twitter.
Musk versus Trump would be funny, in a terrifying sort of way.
Musk one of the only people who could infuriate Trump by saying 'I am much richer than you!'
There are plenty of people who could tell Trump they are much richer than him. Even if you take his own estimations, which are probably much inflated, I doubt he cracks the top 50 richest americans. If it is on what others report his wealth to be, then probably not the top 100.
Yes yes, that is 'not many' in the grand scheme of things, but it shows there are quite a few in the public sphere who could run and be richer than him by a considerable margin.
Michael Bloomberg for one is massively richer than Trump, so on that basis alone its a shame he flopped so much.
@conor_matchett@elonmusk Oh yes, he has just absolutely volunteered Twitter up as the poster child for the EU’s new DSA. And the EU is *itching* to massively fine a US tech giant. And the EU is the world’s most valuable bloc by GDP. So there are some *choices* ahead. https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1604593004274077696
Revenue per customer is much higher in the US than Europe, for all social media platforms.
And the US has 20T gdp vs EU 16T, so he's not even right about that.
Edit: stats on revenue per use for Facebook, for example:
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
Liability, he says? It's hardly as if courts in France or any other country keep throwing authors of tweets in jail for anything or making financial awards against them in civil cases.
Financial liability, obviously. If Twitter want to operate in the EU, it has to follow EU law, and will be subject to EU penalties.
Though in this case, the legislation with real teeth won’t come into force until later next year.
Twitter cannot afford large fines if it wants to remain financially viable.
What's shocking is how little revenue the EU generates for social media companies, they may choose to exit the EU market entirely.
I'd bet they won't: China and Russia are closed to them right now (and are likely to remain so). If you remove the EU, the addressable market shrinks rather.
Twitter specifically has relatively little market penetration in the EU, and people who want to continue to participate in the Anglosphere political conversation will get round any ban. I think the EU would show the limits of its pretensions to being a 'regulatory superpower' if it tried to get heavy handed with Twitter.
Yes, that's the danger here. If Twitter fucks off and it doesn't make a difference for them other big US tech will follow and move their full operations out of EU reach.
@conor_matchett@elonmusk Oh yes, he has just absolutely volunteered Twitter up as the poster child for the EU’s new DSA. And the EU is *itching* to massively fine a US tech giant. And the EU is the world’s most valuable bloc by GDP. So there are some *choices* ahead. https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1604593004274077696
Revenue per customer is much higher in the US than Europe, for all social media platforms.
And the US has 20T gdp vs EU 16T, so he's not even right about that.
Edit: stats on revenue per use for Facebook, for example:
@conor_matchett@elonmusk Oh yes, he has just absolutely volunteered Twitter up as the poster child for the EU’s new DSA. And the EU is *itching* to massively fine a US tech giant. And the EU is the world’s most valuable bloc by GDP. So there are some *choices* ahead. https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1604593004274077696
Revenue per customer is much higher in the US than Europe, for all social media platforms.
And the US has 20T gdp vs EU 16T, so he's not even right about that.
Edit: stats on revenue per use for Facebook, for example:
When checking Trump's net worth came across an article claiming Biden has an estimated net worth of $9million, and that mostly from after his stint as VP. Supposedly even Jimmy Carter among ex Presidents is wealthier.
Really its just a shame Musk cannot run for US President, as he's clearly the right person to spend an entire presidency and aftermath on winding people up on twitter.
Musk versus Trump would be funny, in a terrifying sort of way.
Musk one of the only people who could infuriate Trump by saying 'I am much richer than you!'
Although there are rumours most of us could actually say that to Trump at the moment...
As the old saying goes, if you owe the bank £10k it’s your problem, but if you owe it £10Bn then it’s the bank’s problem.
When checking Trump's net worth came across an article claiming Biden has an estimated net worth of $9million, and that mostly from after his stint as VP. Supposedly even Jimmy Carter among ex Presidents is wealthier.
DeSantis and Buttigieg have net worths of just $319,000 and $250,000 respectively and yet are still prime contenders for the GOP and Democrat nominations in 2024 and the VP slots
Comments
I bet he hasn't won the Potteries Junior Youth league either, like me ;-)
Edit - of course they have...
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1604571538795249670
My guess is no. Unlike the Belgian police who ARE arresting MEPs and other EUers re: alleged Qatar payoffs.
https://twitter.com/ericswalwell/status/1604541953005477888?s=20&t=tO8dqBnPMAXMyE_colYNOw
Domestic attendances for MLS are pretty impressive though. I remember reading a few years back that MLS clubs had higher average match attendance than the Brazilian Serie A.
Football rights for foreign leagues (England especially, but also Spain and Mexico) are lucrative: they draw eyeballs (watching live too), and therefore draw ad spend. It’s in broadcasters’ interest to present the sport well too.
Most polls sample 1,000-2,500 people. I recall polls of 10,000 people before General Elections but would a poll of 100,000 people (assuming the usual caveats about it being representative) produce a more accurate result. What about polling a million people (even if it were logistically possible)?
Is there any evidence the larger the sample the more accurate the result?
In the UK, investigations have been ongoing for about a year now.
Financial crimes and misdoings are very complicated and often difficult to ensure that what has been done is definitely illegal (rather than immoral) and that your case won't fall apart, which has happened more often than it should in the past.
https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5168/
FDR ended up winning a landslide with 60% of the vote, 46 states and 523 EC votes. Landon only winning Vermont and Maine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_United_States_presidential_election
Quite astonishing today to think that in the 1930s the safest Republican states were Vermont and Maine
You can then assume a poll of 10 000 plus. With caveats of course. Reducing the margin of error.
https://www.globetrottinkids.com/the-big-3-sports-in-south-africa/
The Kaiser Chiefs!
Musk's fondness for football is almost certainly real
Also, stupid discussion. Rich and famous people go to the massive events all the time, with varying levels of knowledge and interest. Its part of the "social calendar". I have been to VIP area at F1 and it ranged from absolute nerd outs about F1 to airheads just there to be seen and had been invited as eye candy.
How the World’s Wealthiest People Travel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBNcYxHJPLE&
Premier League games sit in a lucrative time slot too. Weekend mornings when there is no domestic live sport to compete with on sports channels.
Says man who took millions from the Qatar's to host their coverage of the soccerball. I think you lose your ability to sit on your high horse and make those comparisons when you do that.
I'm personally finding Mastodon better but I think the US laws, which protect both free speech and the right to publish other people's free speech exactly as you judge best are pretty sound.
If Twitter want to operate in the EU, it has to follow EU law, and will be subject to EU penalties.
Though in this case, the legislation with real teeth won’t come into force until later next year.
Twitter cannot afford large fines if it wants to remain financially viable.
That said, turning up at the World Cup Final with Jared Kushner is quite epic trolling
Is Musky your new anti woke strong man crush?
So if I were to post that my goats are at
https://www.instagram.com/gethpari/
I would be breaking the rules as stated.
But polling nowadays has stratification and weightings within which the random sampling takes place (truly random sampling being impossible, anyway, since however you try to contact people builds in inevitable bias). When there have been polling ‘mistakes’ these usually stem from mistaken assumptions (most commonly unidentified bias) within the stratification and sampling, and the various polling companies tend to make similar errors due to the herd effect. If all the polls are unwittingly building in bias for the same reason - for example the classic case of failing to spot the ‘shy Tory effect’ during the 1990s - then it doesn’t matter how many polls you average together since they all contain the same error.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1604540896674205697?s=20&t=kElbicii2kBT-is6R_lRCg
His school has actually produced a number of football stars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretoria_Boys_High_School
I’m claiming he doesn’t give the teeniest one of your farts for football.
He has about six to nine months to get his shit together.
The Digital Markets Act: ensuring fair and open digital markets
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en#what-will-be-the-consequences-of-non-compliance
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-cup/2022/12/18/emiliano-martinez-shocks-lewd-gesture-argentinas-world-cup-win/
Elon: “Twitter is a publisher”
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604588904828600320
https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1604593004274077696
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1604581493287792642
French Twitter is convinced. This is weird and intrusive from Macron, it looks bad, creepy and patronising
Again, the unintended consequence from this could end up showing how little power the EU has over big US tech because the EU without the UK isn't a big market for a lot of them. Lots may choose to exit if Twitter does so and sees little to no effect on their bottom line.
Yes yes, that is 'not many' in the grand scheme of things, but it shows there are quite a few in the public sphere who could run and be richer than him by a considerable margin.
Michael Bloomberg for one is massively richer than Trump, so on that basis alone its a shame he flopped so much.
And the US has 20T gdp vs EU 16T, so he's not even right about that.
Edit: stats on revenue per use for Facebook, for example:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average-revenue-per-user-by-region/
https://twitter.com/WhaleChart/status/1604219443529351171
Trump stole the images of his trading cards from stock photos. People have found watermarks on the NFTs they forgot to remove.
Still, I guess that underlines their authenticity.
He went to give a little speech to the losing French team. Watch and cringe. Has there ever been so much beta male punching of fist into palm?
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1604581493287792642?s=20&t=uZhaiW4Nv5tVg6QUwnbckg
And then he awkwardly tries to hug the coach like David Brent on a work outing
(Of course, he can't actually stand next time under the current rules anyway, as you can't serve more than two consecutive terms.)
https://www.businessinsider.com/ron-desantis-net-worth-is-just-319000-2022-6?r=US&IR=T
https://www.gobankingrates.com/net-worth/politicians/pete-buttigieg-net-worth/
Based on the English subtitles it was rather impressive.