I don't think Twitter is anywhere near profitable. You state he 'spent $44 billion on Twitter which was worth half of that.' So he overpaid for a company which was losing money. That isn't exactly the hallmark of a business mastermind. The three bullet points you listed aren't enough for the company to be turning a profit on. Nor will they cover the interest he has to pay on the loans he took out to finance the takeover, which he tried to back out of lest we forget.

This is a bizarre article that is loose with the truth. He's hardly turned the company around and to suggest it's been 'effortless' is ridiculous.