This is outdated information. X was profitable and valued at 90% of its purchase price according to valuations by its creditors as of last year, prior to the acquisition.
The vast majority of advertisers returned, including large ones like Apple plus their expenses were reduced by over half.
> The vast majority of advertisers returned,
They returned in the first few months of the Trump administration when Elon was an important man in the government with direct access to POTUS. But after Musk fell from the Trump's good graces the same advertisers quickly took their marbles and quietly left twitter.
The number I googled for 2024 US GDP was 29.18 trillion, so thats part of it. I'm flexibke enough to adjust that if wrong.
>Additionally, you seemed to have pulled the cherry-picked quote and compared with the “current” impact and ignored the immediately following text on latent automation exposure
There's no time scale presented in that section thst I can find for the "latent" exposure, so its not very useful as presented. That's why I compared it to now.
Over 5 years; I'm not sure but it can be realistic. Over 20 years, If the US GDP doesn't absolutely tank, that's not necessary as impressive a number as it sounds. You see my confusion here?
>that explains how it could have a greater impact that results in their 2.3t/39m estimate numbers.
Maybe I need to read more of the article, but I need a lot more numbers to be convinced of a 40x efficiency boost (predicted returns divided by current gdp value times their 2.2% labor value) for anything. Even the 20x number if I used your gpd number is a hefty claim.
>Or presented a better metric than my formula above on interpreting "impact". I'm open to a better model here than my napkin math.
2% of 29 trillion is 580 billions. Your number should be 610 billion, not 61 billion.