If you're going to correct someone, you'd likely want to do it right: he did not want to spend that kind of money after having agreed to do so in a legally binding way. Mark of a business genius who is definitely not impulsive and driven by ego.

> If you're going to correct someone, you'd likely want to do it right

The way you phrased it prepared me for a rebuttal, but you seem to agree that my comment was factual, but disagree with my temporal anchoring?

Signing the purchase agreement is a background to my point[1], and incidentally further strengthens my point: when he signed the agreement, it wasn't apparent that this was setting money on fire until after the bottom fell out of the stock market - which is when Musk started hinting at buyers remorse. None of which points to Musk wasting money just to show that he can (as gp was hinting); this is the mythologizing I am against - making it seem like he's playing 9D chess rather than someone with terrible risk management flailing and throwing stuff onto the walls to see what sticks.

1. One has to start somewhere, otherwise you'll have to go back to the big bang: you chose to start at the time Musk signed purchase agreement, but skipped over his rejecting the board seat, or secretly purchasing 9% of Twitter shares before that. However, this doesn't mean you are "not doing it right" in framing your correction-to-a-correction.

Musk was forced to buy Twitter for one reason and for one reason only: because he himself signed the agreement to do so. He offered that kind of money. At no point was there anyone else forcing Musk to buy, or forcing him to skip due diligence. That's all on Musk and on Musk only.

> I wasn't expecting the events to be mythologized beyond recognition within weeks.

Do you have any experience with the human condition?