Point still stands if you call it a "simpler technology project". It's not about the tech, it's about the community, and communities are far harder to predict and manage than a rocket or a car.
> Point still stands if you call it a "simpler technology project".
Which point?
> It's not about the tech, it's about the community, and communities are far harder to predict and manage than a rocket or a car.
While I broadly agree with you, and also agree that twitters founders and/or leaders are better equipped to manage a community than Musk is, I fail to see how having someone with a track record of success (some in turning around failing businesses) automatically dooms the company.
That was the point I was responding to, in the original post. It's also why I ended of with "it takes a special kind of mind to automatically assume something is doomed just because someone with a track record of successes took it over".
I don't think Twitter is automatically doomed, but I think there are more things to consider than just Musk's "track record of successes". And one of the important things is that he doesn't look like he actually understands Twitter. He keeps calling it a "software and servers company", keeps talking about "hardcore coding", alienating and angering users and advertisers... People would be be more confident in his abilities if he actually looked humble enough to recognize the parts where his expertise is lacking.
