If Elon is mismanaging Twitter your post would be a good example of the cognitive bias called the Halo effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

To say that somebody’s success at tasks that are highly correlated with a separate task is irrelevant is simply wrong.

And people who tend to succeed at most things they do, tend to do so for a reason. It’s effectively statistically impossible for it to be sheer coincidence/luck.

Or should I just pick random “logical fallacy” links to put in my replies instead?

If a baseball teams wins their first four games and you see them in the seventh inning behind by 30 points in game 5, is the relevant correlation how the team did in games 1 to 4 or is the relevant correlation how a team who is that far behind a particular game tends to do?

I simply noted you appear incapable of perceiving Elon as making bad decisions, which is kind of funny, since he seemed to think agreeing to buy Twitter was a bad decision, and was in the process of losing a court case about it before he saw the writing on the wall and closed the agreement.

If he actually is making bad decisions, I think the halo effect is at play.

You just used an appeal to Elons other companies while telling others to not use credentialism?

Actions that drives results aren’t credentials, they’re evidence.

Saying you have a degree in this or that, or title X/Y without having any results to show for it is credentialism. Unfortunately far too pervasive in our industry.

Ah you don’t value the outputs the same so you want to allow appeals to authority as long as it’s shown profitable outcomes. I’m on the same page now.

Yes, somebody building multiple of the world’s largest companies is a much higher hurdle than getting a degree or mid level manager job title.

By your logic we can’t consider any accomplishments from somebody’s past as a reliable indicator of their future results.

Which is obviously not true. “Credentialism” is giving far too much weight to low barrier to entry and easy to accomplish titles.

Ignoring past results, the fact that Twitter is functioning fine after 80% layoffs has already validated the decision to downsize. No need to look to the past.

The level of nastiness in your comments here makes it very hard to take you seriously as an "objective" observer. Considering that you're using your HN profile to attract clients—"Hire me for your development needs!"—you might want to tone that down. I wouldn't want to work with anyone who thought it was appropriate to behave that way.

(And I'll say your rosy impression of Twitter seems a little strange for a supposedly objective observer, given the recent outages/pervasive legal problems/chaotic feature rollouts/various fits and reversals/overall dysfunction that has characterized that company since it was acquired by Elon Musk.)

Nothing nasty about my comment, its a factual response to the parent comment.

Fortunately I couldn’t care less if somebody decides not to work with me because they disagree with my opinions. People who care about results will get ahead, those that don’t won’t

> ... small minded and intellectually weak detractors. ... Maybe use forethought and critical thinking ...

> Nothing nasty about my comment, its a factual response to the parent comment.

I called out your use of the word "obviously" without factual basis, and you responded with insults.

Insults and praise for the CEO of Twitter, which is irrelevant, since he still has not made any statement whatsoever on the subject, which was entirely the point of my initial comment.

"Elon who made Tesla and SpaceX some of the largest companies in the world in just a few years,"

What in earth are you talking about? He brought his way into those companies. I think you are confusing Elon Musk the fictional PR character who exists only in paid press releases with Elon Musk.

Elon Musk's success was being the CEO of a slimy payment processor.

your forgot '... until he was shown the door.' on that last sentence.

I didn't say he was an incompetent buffoon, you did. I think it's more true than not, but those are your words, not mine. I said only that he was frequently certain while being wrong.

When he makes a pronouncement and then reverses that pronouncement, one or the other was incontrovertibly wrong. Whether he was wrong first and right later, or right first and wrong later, the list of reversals at twitter is a long one, starting before he bought the company.

He tendered an offer that skipped due diligence, then attempted to avoid doing what he'd agree to do, invoking the due diligence he'd explicitly skipped in the process. Then they day before he would have to open up his financial records in court, he reversed his reversal and closed the deal. Since then he's stated multiple times he regrets buying twitter.

However many times you count him being certain-but-wrong in that story, it's more than zero, despite the financial success of his unrelated companies, and despite your unwarranted personal insults.