My take is that some of the most valuable domain brands on the internet are either made up nonsense words like Twitter or Google, or words that convey little or nothing about what they do like Amazon and Apple. Yet in the many discussions regarding domains and TLDs I've experienced including attending ICANN meeting for ten years they almost always seem to revolve around the notion that common dictionary words or product/service "compelling" words or very short domains are where to focus all efforts from resale price to various fights like the current several year fight over .WEB, auctions, making up rules like for geographic names (are any of them successful?) Yet so many seemingly valuable domains, by the reasoning of these discussions, went nowhere like furniture.com, sex.com (is it still the highest domain name sale price ever? it was), beauty.com, even much lusted after TLDs like .ART and dare I say it .XXX, .SEX, .PORN. Sometimes I'll type in common words usually .COM just to see where they go and mostly they're parked, they go nowhere. Or there's some 1990s quickly thrown together website behind them. OR sometimes they lead to some big brand name which I guess is useful (e.g., aspirin.com takes you to Bayer.) Which leads me to believe that you get a bunch of people in a discussion on this topic they will basically go into this strange hallucinatory cargo cult mentality based on pretty much nothing, or worse, despite actual evidence to the contrary. I have no idea if changing Twitter to X is brilliant or idiotic or somewhere in between despite all the product of the chattering classes which seems to believe they can simulate the entire internet and all its denizens in their heads. Far be it for me to defend Elon Musk but at least, as the saying goes, he put his money where his mouth is. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*