That is the point. He only violated it if you take the obviously wrong interpretation that the 500k was a new material statement. It was not.
The agreement only covered new, material information, not repeating a previously given the high-end estimate.
Also, note that the market was closed at the time of the tweet and the second tweet clearing up any possible confusion, thus, having no impact on the stock.
Actual government legal agency going after someone on a stupid immaterial technicality about requiring approval for disclosing material information that might affect stock:
The tweet didn't have material information. The 500k number was public and discussed on a public investor call.
vs.
Crazy guy that bankrupted himself trying to build a rocket company and a car company simultaneously is less than overly cautious about his tweeting and how it could be used in bad faith by a government legal agency in the USA to persecute him.
Guidance for this year was 350k - 500k. Elon said several times on the call that he thought they could beat the 500k. This is a technicality on not getting approval for a tweet that could unreasonably be interpreted as saying they are definitely hitting 500k 8 months from now. This is stupid.
Not misinformation, guidance was 350 - 500. This is a technicality of not getting approval for a tweet that could be interpreted as saying they are definitely hitting 500k 8 months from now. This is stupid.
> Publishing in a magazine that’s not peer reviewed doesn’t matter if they’re reporting on their research
This framing should tell you the bad faith in which the statement is being made. The authors didn't call it a research, critics rightly pointed out that it wasn't an academic research when they first revealed the hoax, and that nobody should take it seriously. Now that it is convenient to attack them by saying otherwise, now all of the sudden it is an academic research
The hell are you talking about, none of the cliamed in any way that this was an academic research affiliated with any university, only one of them is affiliated with one. In their quillete article they even talk about how this is not an academic study, but rather a hoax like the Sokal hoax before it
I find it interesting you can read this negative article about him and choose to believe the bad things, but dismiss the parts you think some might consider a positive
> Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC.
> Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC.
> Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC.
> Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC.
> Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC.