• Art35ian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    166
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    All this dude has to do is be filthy rich and shut the fuck up. That’s it.

    Give me a billion, trillion dollars and I’d just walk the earth, man. You’d never hear from me.

    • LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      9 months ago

      You’d never get to a billion, because nobody needs a billion to live. You only get to a billion by being insane, thinking you need to get the high score in capitalism.

      People who say they’d retire and walk the earth would just do that at a million or four, and not wait until you hit billions to stop.

      • J12@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        2 million at 6 percent a year in gains/dividends is 120k a year. I would say a vast majority of us could live a very comfortable life with 2 million. That’s a middle class income for the rest of your life.

        The sad thing is we’re all closer to 2 million than 2 million is to the 200 billion Elon is worth.

        • zenofpython@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          The “rule” is 4%, and even that number is high at this point. I think 3, it 3.5 is closer to reality.

          So it would get you ~60k.

          • mayonaise_met@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            That’s still plenty to live a comfortable life (assuming your investments allows you to adjust this figure for inflation in perpetuity). Maybe not everywhere, but since you don’t have to work anymore you’re quite flexible.

          • LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Depends on how old you are when you retire. 3-3.5% is much safer if you are like 20yo and never want to (or can’t) work again.

            4% is plenty safe if you are 65yo. Once you hit 80+ your expenses are probably going to be pretty low, you probably own your house, probably aren’t traveling much, and you don’t really need more “stuff”.

      • loutr@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        Reminds me of this quote from Succession:

        You can’t do anything with five, Greg. Five’s a nightmare. Can’t retire, not worth it to work. Oh yes, five will drive you un poco loco. Poorest rich person in America. The world’s tallest dwarf.

    • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      9 months ago

      Tom from Myspace. He sold it at the top and just cruises around the earth with his beautiful wife knowing that his family’s wealth is secure. And everyone who was online in the early 2000s is his friend.

    • Bappity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      9 months ago

      hell, if he kept his mouth shut people would probably still be lauding him as some genius billionaire innovator but no he had to open it like a true brainlet

    • thejml@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      Seriously. I’d probably buy a nice comfy sailboat and travel the world, staying away from the spot light, mostly off the grid, seeing new places and enjoying exploring and generally not working or being at all publicized.

      If I had enough, I’d probably throw some money at a university to build a building with my name on it and a bequest to specialize in research to un-fuck the planet and stay the hell out of their way.

  • zeppo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Oh, at first I interpreted this as he deleted someone else’s tweets that were doing that. But of course that’s not what it means.

      • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s like how hitler killed hitler

        But then it’s '43 and you just misread

    • xantoxis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Interesting. Journalists are probably used to that information being enough: “Blah deletes tweets” has always meant “deletes their own tweets” because nobody can delete someone else’s tweets.

      Except, Elon can, so it’s perfectly reasonable to interpret this headline as him deleting someone else’s nazi shit. Just a bit of a careless headline tbh.

      • zeppo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        Right, like if someone said “Reddit mod deletes controversial posts” we wouldn’t assume it was their posts.

  • Grant_M@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Instead of banning Nazi accounts, he just reverses his own retweets of Nazi accounts. Nazi-move by a Nazi.

  • Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    9 months ago

    People need to actually read the article. By “Blatant Antisemitism”, they literally just mean “Pro-Palestinian”.