How do you know he tanked twitter? It wasn't profitable when he took over and now that it's a private company you don't have insight into the financials.
Whether you like or don't like the politics/policies of the company since he's taken over, it's not clear whether he's made Twitter more or less viable as a company going forward.
Fidelity, who remains a stakeholder in the private company and gets insight to internal financials, has cut the valuation of their holding by 75% so far [1]. While twitter might not have been profitable when purchased, it was structured as a growth stock (that is, expected to invest most profit back into the product, in order to continue to multiply revenue) and had yearly revenues of $5B.
This is a really elementary misunderstanding of free market principles. That theory only holds if the market is actually free.
As an extreme example, if they regulated minimum $1000 per ride. No logical person, free market oriented or not, would expect "alternatives" to take their place.
In Amazon-speak, "disagree and commit" means even if you disagree with the decision, you still commit to following the decision whole heartedly. You can't just debate endlessly or put in less effort because your preferred option was not chosen.
Except for the fact that I'm not going to commit to working in an office. COVID showed what kind of life is actually possible. Eliminating the commute alone means 10 more hours I get to spend with my family each week. I don't care how nice their campus is or what kinds of espresso machine they have. I'm not going back into an office, ever. Period.
2015 for me as well. The episode they did on Hilary Clinton where they tried so hard to make her sound like she's just another friendly normal everyday Jane running for president turned me off NPR. I didn't even mind Hilary as a presidential candidate, just the way NPR did it was so obvious.
They investigated nothing. They just 1000x-ed his tweets. All problems go away if the one twit that matters is happy. Not to mention that the guy who suggested that Elon's popularity went down (with charts) because his content is at the level of a 12-year-old, that guy got fired on the spot.
Like most everything around vitamin D, the causality typically is backward. Vitamin D isn't improving these people's mental health, but it turns out that if you have a healthy life that involves ample outdoor activity, you are mentally healthier.
Consider migrant workers, who spend so much time under the hot sun picking veggies, what do their Vitamin D levels and other health metrics look like?
According to the National Academy of Medicine, formerly known as the Institute of Medicine, 4,000 IU is the safe upper level of daily vitamin D intake. However, doses up to 10,000 IU have not been shown to cause toxicity in healthy individuals (11Trusted Source, 16Trusted Source).
Vitamin D toxicity is generally caused by excessive doses of vitamin D supplements, not by diet or sun exposure (17Trusted Source, 18Trusted Source).
Although vitamin D toxicity is a very rare condition, recent increases in supplement use may lead to an increase in reported cases.
A daily intake ranging from 40,000–100,000 IU (1,000–2,500 mcg), for 1 to several months, has been shown to cause toxicity in humans (15Trusted Source, 19Trusted Source, 20Trusted Source, 21Trusted Source, 22Trusted Source).
What if instead of posting a link to a blog of a "random person" that summarizes a number of studies, I post the study directly: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30611908/
Title: Daily oral dosing of vitamin D3 using 5000 TO 50,000 international units a day in long-term hospitalized patients: Insights from a seven year experience
> During this time, we have admitted over 4700 patients, the vast majority of whom agreed to supplementation with either 5000 or 10,000 IUs/day. Due to disease concerns, a few agreed to larger amounts, ranging from 20,000 to 50,000 IUs/day. There have been no cases of vitamin D3 induced hypercalcemia or any adverse events attributable to vitamin D3 supplementation in any patient.
> the vast majority of whom agreed to supplementation with either 5000 or 10,000 IUs/day. A few agreed to larger amounts, ranging from 20,000 to 50,000 IUs/day.
This study is mostly about << 20,000 IU/day.
Also, abstract doesn't say precisely how "long-term" they were supplemented for -- was it weeks or years?
Medium term (~1w) loading doses are probably fine given that U.S. president was treated with this for COVID. But we're talking about 20,000 IU/day, every day, for months and years, which is why the study's vagueness about "long-term" matters here.
> Doctors Are Idiots: Vitamin D Megadose. This Is Not Medical Advice, But I'm Correct
> You should be taking somewhere between 10,000-50,000 IU per day of vitamin D3. The optimal dose seems to be about 30,000 IUs as noted by a few people in my research but results will vary.
> Do not sue me if something goes wrong. I am poor and you will get nothing but my manga collection out of the lawsuit.
He recommends anywhere from 10,000 to 50,000 IU per day which he backs up with studies. N of 1 here but I have a friend who started taking 30,000 IU per day and feels great.
I was tested as having 15ng/ml of vitamin d in my blood. Clearly deficient and I was already taking 1000 IU/day. After a year of 2000 IU/day, it barely improved. I get a decent amount of sunlight outside of work, but I am an office work. Not until I increased to 10000 IU/day did the number materially improve. I've backed it off to 5000 to maintain, but I suspect I should just stay with 10000.
Whether you like or don't like the politics/policies of the company since he's taken over, it's not clear whether he's made Twitter more or less viable as a company going forward.