Yeah, cause while blood type is like horoscopes which absolutely no meaningful information, silly personality quizzes at least tell you back what you told them, so some kind of correlation exists, even if the categorization and implications are basically spurious.
I'm not sure they're really "into" mbti. Most of the people I know who know about mbti talk about their result ironically. About as seriously as talking about their star sign or which planet is in retrograde. I've yet to see anyone actually into it.
I believe that's more of a thing in east asia. I've stumbled upon it only a few times in English speaking media and never here in Sweden. Though people were obsessed with some colour thing a few years back
Because it feels warm and fuzzy to be kind and empathic. Being hateful and greedy and letting avarice rule over your worldview is incredibly sad. But who am I to say.
It's kind of a "life arc" that gets fulfilled when you've done it all and have all the money in the world, and reach a certain age. It's a very traditional arc for a humane human being.
That API was already reasonable before he took over Twitter. It was prohibitively priced afterward. You are making arguments out of things where there is objective proof otherwise. Anyways, I think he cut aid programs and fired a bunch of people too. That's a whole nother' matter though (I'll drop the whole holistic argument).
For example the firehose/streaming API more or less require 5 grand a month, so off limits to a indie dev. Does he not even have solidarity with developers?
> He has 10x more of everything in the world than he could ever possibly use in his lifetime.
Your multiplier is miles off. Not only on basic maths but because he has no idea what to do with all of his wealth other than accrue more and try to prove he's still not the unlikeable teenager he was in SA.
Without a rounding error on his wealth he could fix world wide problems such as clean drinking water for everyone. Instead he follows his self-made "I'm a genius" agenda.
I know there will be no actual day of reckoning for him, but if there were he would have a lot of difficult questions and no decent answers.
Not justify anything he does or does not do but this is clearly not the case since he had to take out loans against equity in his other companies to buy Twitter.
When twitter became x they switched to basically the same limits Instagram has, I don't think this is a particular failing of Elons, even though he might have many.
Restricting content from AI is the big messy debate we're going to see over and over for the next who knows how many years.
Twitter's strategy was to keep the platform very open and inviting, in order to make it relevant. This included having a relatively unrestricted API compared to other platforms.
I don't know if this was successful or not. Ultimately they convinced someone to buy the platform for $44bn, so I guess you can say it was. That buy has locked the platform down more, and the new version certainly feels less culturally central and relevant than it used to.
I wouldn't dare say that to a colleague or friend, because although they might appear to take it well, I don't think I'd be doing our relationship any favors. I'd step out with an excuse instead.
But given my lifestyle, I almost never have to be around anybody who's eating, except in contexts in which I can't hear them eating (busy brunch, say).
I have an X account that I only use to access tweets friends send me occasionally. Whenever I go there, my "for you" page is filled with Elon Musk, Alex Jones, libs of TikTok, etc. Not a single remotely left-leaning account in sight.
If you don't believe me, try it. Create a new account and see for yourself.
Well yeah. If it said anything else they wouldn't be allowed to post it on X. Did you see the recent news that Elon banned his former supporters en masse for disagreeing with his stance on H-1B visas?
Also Marc Zuckerberg: "I notice Elon and Trump are 2 weeks away from running the primary government to which I'm more or less answerable... better batten down the hatches"
Unfalsifiable does not mean pseudoscientific. Plenty of things might be unfalsifiable for humans (e.g. humans lack the cognitive capacity to conceive of ways to falsify them), but then easily falsifiable for whatever comes after humans.
> Public confidence in scientists fell from 87 percent in April 2000 to a low of 73 percent in October 2023
It's incredible public confidence in scientists is still that high.
When the public turned to scientists with valid questions, they were met with "just trust me bro" and mockery for "doing your own research" in response to being dismissed.
Even worse: the "just trust me bro" people kept being wrong about one thing after another, then pretending a year later the opposite position was their position all along.
The general public isn't smart, but most people can remember life-and-death information they were given a year back.
We're perhaps middling at diagnosing neurology issues and we're terrible at treating them. Absolutely useless. If we haven't moved the needle in the last 50 years, then let's try to use AI to do it.
There'll be casualties along the way, but it's a lot better than being stuck in the dark ages blindly trying to repair neurological problems with stone knives and bearskins for another 3 generations.
It's extremely premature to be using this tech in critical real-world situations like this. This sort of thing makes me very nervous about using hospital services. Here's hoping that I don't have to be the next guinea pig.
But I was talking at a deeper level. I don't trust the use of this tech in things as critical as medical treatment. I think it's far too green for that.
That hospitals are beginning to incorporate it reduces my trust in hospitals.
reply