techostritch

So, if this does get some where with Jim Jordan also on this, what would be the standard? You have to document that your advertising spend is not based on viewpoint?

As I understand it advertising benefits from Twitter are notoriously hard to quantify in the first place.

I’m narrowly empathetic to the idea that we shouldn’t starve certain view points (though I think that suggesting that there are only two “significant” viewpoints in America cemented in law is a very bad precedent) but these kind of freedoms are also what makes America so good for business.

According to Musk, Twitter is busier than ever and about to start being a financial company. Why do they need advertisers in the first place?

Rather than sue a bunch of advertisers why doesn’t Elon, who is clearly a once in a generation business genius, execute on his plan and show the world why we don’t need advertisers?

> Not kind, but what’s the play? No off-color jokes allowed on the internet?

It seems like I see two positions. One that algorithmic social media is bad, but the second that certain negative trends are definitely normal.

Maybe the algorithm is weighted towards negativity in a way that isn’t actually aligned with the network beneath it.

> Put the power to the people

But this is the problem is it not? Like if individuals are organically making crazy shit trend, then great. If the algorithm is inorganically promoting a few small accounts, left or right, at the expense of more organically trending topics than that should be looked at?

So has the daily wire

Do the employees know?

I also wonder, I think there probably a continuum between patient academic strategist and like driven tactical disruptor. I would say I deploy lots of tactical impatience to get shit done.

It’s very weird the me that Curtis Yarvun doesn’t seem to see the fundamental flaw in the whole monarch thing which is like trying to find and maintain the benevolent dictator. Maybe if I’d read his fifteen year blog history I’d see his defense of that, but like Yarvin hangs out at BDSM parties and Burning man. Seems odd to me in a country where the Conservative Party is mostly controlled by a deeply conservative religious right, that the autocrat that would win game of thrones would be remotely aligned with the vision Curtis has for the future.

Also, let’s not forget the whole, if you’re ideas are that good, why do you need a dictator to implement them, why not submit them to the marketplace of ideas, and if they’re good people will vote for them.

I suspect a decent amount of this is selection bias on the internet. Also I don’t know if anger is an opposite to happiness. Maybe you can be happy a lot and angry a lot. But I also wonder if the original study isn’t selection bias too. Would a “secular person” be happier if they didn’t give up religion even if they felt moved too?

I basically agree with this and it totally makes sense to me why religious teens are happier than secular teens,

But one weird realization I’ve had is that i’m sort of devoutly atheistic. Like you might think as an atheist I wouldn’t care about say converting to Judaism to get married and yet I wouldn’t. Partly out of respect for Judiasm! I think I wonder, what is the implication of this.

Should I try to be more religious? Is happiness the ultimate goal over I dunno, some sense of being true to myself? Does it even work for people who don’t truly believe?

As a deeply liberal-secular person I find this research very interesting and I don’t really combat it, I think trying to find more community and meaning in life is definetly a path towards happiness ala Victor Frankl, and one big precept of a more existential approach to life is that it in fact does make you less happy. Like one dispute I have with a very spiritual associate of mine, is that I think there’s virtue in trying to sit with it all and accept that there are no answers.

At its root I wonder - is there a halfway point between I have all the answers and will try to remake the world into that image, and staring into the abyss.

I mean, part of becoming an adult is accepting the fact that it’s not all happiness all the time.

It looks like a typo? The referenced article has it too:

“Phelps has huge palms that support his paddling ability and is 14 feet tall, which essentially act as flippers (the kind of fingerless arms that seals have).”

Like 30% down the page of:

https://www.scienceabc.com/sports/michael-phelps-height-arms...).

What are you on about? I can’t really dissect your words, but 60% of the worlds population is Asian. Like only 10% of the worlds population is white.

I’m not the most in touch person in the world but this ad felt super out of touch.

I was having this discussion with someone and they said the problem with tech is they’re just going to teach our kids to be prompt engineers and learn nothing else, and I naively defended the tech industry and said no, of course not, AI will be used to enhance people’s learning of traditional skills, not replace it, and boy does this ad make me feel wrong.

Almost everyone sees operations as this easy thing to automate and almost everyone has been continuously wrong and even as a practitioner in this field I find it interesting to wonder why. Even as someone with lots of experience in ops/decops sometimes I wonder why the job still exists and yet it seems like demand for SRE’s has increased over time, not decreased. The cloud for instance was supposed to make it easy for software engineers to interact directly with API’s and eliminate the middle man.

But yeah, five years to fully automating devsecops? I’ll believe it when I see it.

My initial thought was no, that Delta should be responsible for their own software deployments, but I wonder what kind of best practices and recommendations the CrowdStrike Enterprise Support team shared with Delta airlines.

I have to imagine a big part of their sales pitch was, you should definitely put this everywhere and turn on automatic updates because then you'll be the most secure. If it's written down anywhere about how their QA practices prevent exactly this kind of thing happening, then I think there's probably an argument they should be held liable. (This is from an tech perspective, not a legal perspective)

I noticed that in the past month or so usage doubled, from 6.4 billion visits to 12 billion visits, that seems both a lot of organic traffic and a lot to game.

Right but if everyone has to declare the wages, It becomes a competition right, so it might be clear that a company pays minimum wage and b company pays minimum wage +25% in fact I think it would be the opposite problem that to attract talent you might say this job pays up to $1 million a year (theoretically)

I don’t necessarily see a correlation between voting straight ticket and not wanting direct democracy. I get what you’re saying, that people aren’t thoughtful of who they’re voting for, but in a bi-polar first past the post system, it’s nigh impossible not to.

I would vote for both liberal and conservative policies if given the opportunity to, but if I have to vote for a collective bag of policies in the form of a politician, the groupings are just too big for me to go to the other side.

But for instance, there are plenty of single issue voters who seem to otherwise vote against their own interests. I think a lot of people would vote for liberal policies if they could also vote anti-abortion. Maybe similarly people would vote for conservative policies if they could vote pro abortion / gay rights / etc.

It seems there is a big constituency of people are say who are pro-union and socially conservative. Who do those people vote for?

It is an interesting question. I think most people have an intuitive belief/understanding that say AWS is more resilient than home grown services but it’s very high profile when AWS goes down.

That being said it is probably better for say 1 hospital in a city to go down every month rather than all 10 hospitals in a city to go down at the same time once a year.

I think this idea of what it means to be a person of vision is interesting, we’re in this place now where we’re trying to make the future happen. Self driving cars, robots, AI, if you’d thought of all this stuff 100 years ago, you’d still be a visionary but you’d be writing science fiction, If you have these ideas 100 years from now, it would be too late.

AI is amazing, but I think it will continue to be a relatively specific product for the near future. So 10 years from now we’ll probably revolutionize the UX of a lot of products on the market right now, but will the world look fundamentally different than it does now? I’m not so sure.

So wait, he created a PAC and donated $45 million dollars to the PAC and the pac is meant to support Trump right?

I feel two ways in this, you probably need one voice for certain key tactical decisions, but the fact that everyone feels the presidency is this important in America supports the idea that the presidency has gotten way to powerful. Loosely speaking, the person who is president shouldn’t matter as much as who is in congress.

This feels like evidence of interesting new phenomenon, I get why 99% of politics topics should be removed, but if we post one when presidents get elected, it seems like something as impactful as president dropping out should count too.

What would be the steps in de escalating here? I assume the first step might be breaking down and understanding all of the incentives around extremism? But like to both sides for a second how do you get one side to stop calling the other a threat to democracy and how do you get the other side to stop acting like a threat to democracy? Are there any incentives in modern politics towards moderation and mutual respect?

I think this prediction underestimates the value of UX. Yes, ChatGPT with the right prompts will make all your legal documents, yes prompting will become easier as LLMs become more mature. But one thing that’s been clear In the past 10 years of Saas is there is always room to be more specific to your use case.

Maybe this prediction is about the level of abstraction then? Like Harvey thinks they need to be between ChatGPT and legal zoom and they don’t?

I definetly appreciated what you’re trying to say, for my own part, the only political content I really find engaging is either historical or that says something unique in the regard that you mention, but it often feels like little more than a hobby, and at the end of the day I feel like the only meaningful political action I take is voting my color down one side of the ballot.

I have considered a split ticket lately though, federal in one side and local on the other, or more diverse, but it’s not really getting to do what you describe, it’s just the only independent option you can take that may have an impact

Isn’t the point that the VC’s want the Republicans to be anti big-tech (and pro small tech) I wonder if there’s a strategy for like AH to move more towards core tech and away from consumer tech I.e. things that have been politically controversial. I’ve been wondering how these movers might work with the religious right and this might explain it.

I have a question maybe you know, are boom and bust cycles good for the economy long term? Or is it too extreme to be useful,

Like my understanding of risk in financial markets is that (though of course a security could go bust) a high risk security is one that has bigger swings, but that those bigger swings lead to bigger long term gains.

I guess even if things go bust if you’re let’s call it morally flexible, boom cycles give you a better chance of making your millions.

> 2. What the GOP platform is for prices & inflation. Tax cuts, 10% tariffs, forcing interest rate cuts, and mass deportation would all seem to lead to more money in the economy or direct price increases

I hate to be this cynical because I think policymakers and economists who lean in different ideological differences all have contributions to make, and in some way probably value right wing economic ideas slightly more than left wing ones

But It seems pretty clear to me that the goal of the Republican platform is just to be as self serving as possible and there is no actual plan for a healthy economy, and at best they might engineer temporary economic outcomes that benefit certain groups, I wouldn’t be surprised it there’s some kind of big economic crash aka 2008 in the next 10 years.

I would be genuinely interested to hear how I’m wrong.