Comment Weâ(TM)re already doing this (Score 3, Informative) 65
https://www.cs.wisc.edu/2025/0...
And DARPA has a whole program for it:
https://www.cs.wisc.edu/2025/0...
And DARPA has a whole program for it:
People on ALL social media NEED to see what the other side says just as much as their own. Echo chambers make everything worse for everyone.
Ragebait isn't about seeing what the other side says.
It's about seeing an inflammatory caricature of the other side.
For example, a Liberal isn't going to see some Conservative discussing some of the hard tradeoffs we'll need to pay down the debt. They'll see a Conservative proposing that Trump be given a 3rd term and trans kids get rounded up and forced into conversion therapy or some crap like that.
Meanwhile, Conservatives won't see some Liberal discussing the economics of Universal Healthcare. They'll see someone proposing that the police be defunded and all drugs are legalized.
Ragebait creates echo chambers because it gives the false impression that everyone on the other side is insane.
This is why a lot of chronic diseases will NEVER have cures. It's more profitable to treat than to cure. Treat someone over a lifetime and milk 100k out of them. Treat someone once and present them with a 100k price tag to pay all at once and the consumer or insurance company will balk at the cost.
It's a fun conspiracy theory, but this is actually just how biology works.
There's basically four kinds of things that can go wrong with our bodies. Infections, mechanical issues, system errors, and cancer.
Infections we can cure by helping the body to kill off the infection, it's only some rare stubborn ones like AIDS that are chronic like you describe.
Mechanical issues we can fix with surgery.
System errors? That's stuff like genetic disorders where our body creates too much of hormone A or doesn't create the proper form of protein B. The problem is in our DNA and you can't cure it without rewriting our DNA (which we're getting to).
And then there's cancers, which are similar to infections, where we try to kill it (as they're doing here), though weirdly, some research suggests treating it as a chronic issue might be better for the patients.
In either case, it's not the fact that pharma is deciding "don't make a pill to cure it, just find a lifetime treatment!". It's only in the past few years that we're reaching the point where we can actually cure things that were traditionally chronic.
And Threads now appears to have roughly 66% more monthly active users than X.
I've heard almost nothing about Threads recently. Certainly no indication they were more popular than Twitter.
Is their user count some sort of trick with how they interface with Instagram? Or is Twitter just turning into a ghost town without people realizing it?
This is one of the reason why Western governments do invest in foreign aid.
It's not just charity (though that's certainly an element), but the more stable and prosperous developing nations are the less likely they're going to have to deal with a refugee crisis.
This is absurd on so many levels.
To start with, it's not like the lawsuit has anything to do with what state they're based in. The California AG happens to be leading it, but it's a coalition of 12 states. It's not as if they could escape the suit by moving to another state. This is purely a pressure tactic, nothing more.
I believe they can. States can only sue companies that operate in their state. If Paramount moves to a state that isn't in that coalition, the other 12 will have a difficult time collecting.
Actually moving would be incredibly expensive. Build entirely new studios. Relocate all their employees. Lose a whole lot of employees who don't want to relocate.
And exactly who's going to employ all those who refuse to move? California unemployment isn't exactly stellar these days.
And anywhere else they moved to would be a worse place. They're located in Los Angeles because that's the heart of the film industry. That's where the workers are. That's where all the other companies that support the industry are. Trying to operate in Georgia or Tennessee would be much harder for them.
Your information is...dated. There are thriving film industries in Georgia, for example. It got so good California got scared of it. Granted, things have scaled back a bit in recent years, but that's tracking the overall decline of the film industry. LA is even worse.
Even if they somehow decided it made sense to move, that's not a decision you make quickly or lightly. It would take long and careful planning to choose a new location and prepare for the move. But here he is, saying they're going to start moving in less than two months, and he hasn't even decided what state to move to. Is anyone really supposed to take this seriously?
Please, don't take it seriously. Then, when it happens, it'll be far more shocking.
If in spite of everything he really tries to go through with this, expect a shareholder lawsuit and calls for the board to fire him. But he'd have to be crazy to really do it.
Shareholders have this odd habit of wanting their CEO to do things that increase the profitability of the company. Given how many businesses are fleeing the anti-business climate of California for Florida, Texas, and other business-friendly states -- and thriving in those new states -- they might just give him a raise.
Why do you people have so many weird fantasies about California? Obsessed much? It's fucking weird, dude.
No state has ever gone bankrupt. California's economy is the fourth largest in the world.
Take your meds. Reconnect with reality.
And yet, with all that economy, they still can't make budget
One could be forgiven for saying they can't afford to lose a single dollar of potential tax revenue.
I never see Democrats defend Pelosi trading. I see maggots defending Trump grifts constantly. I hang out in places where I'm exposed to both. Stop making shit up, maggot.
I think there's some nuance needed there.
Pelosi's trading is legal, it's highly problematic from an ethics perspective, but it's completely legal and somewhat common for legislators to do. So she can be criticized for using an unfair advantage, but it's not unprecedented nor a major sin.
Trump's grifts on the other hand do violate laws and precedent, those laws just aren't enforced.
For an extra $100k you get a pardon!
See the thing to remember is those people is that what they accuse the other side of doing, just blind ideology.
It's just a variation of the Goebbel's playbook, which the Trump administration loves to follow - "accuse the other side of the thing you yourself are guilty of".
- Try to rig the upcoming election while yelling loudly about how the other party consistenly cheats - and without evidence, of course.
- Make up stories about how crooked the Dems are, while actively grifting yourself.
Regardless, it's nice to see Congress occasionally showing signs of having a spine, finally. It'd be great if they'd also figure out that the revenge dismantlement of NCAR is also going to cost money and lives.
I'm not even sure if it's that deliberate, or it's just the fact that Trump is thinking about rigging the election... so he talks about rigging the election.
But it's hilarious how consistent the pattern is. Normally with something like that there's just a few occasional examples. But with Trump if he says "Democrats are kicking puppies!" chances are that we're about to find out that Trump kicked a puppy.
SpaceX is worth more than Microsoft or Amazon at this point. It boggles the mind how much people are betting on the future just because Musk is a genius. If he gets sick the stocks craters 80% easily and this $60B is more like $12B.
He's not a genius, I sincerely think he's average to slightly below average intelligence for a software dev. Just look how clueless he really is when he pretends to be a technical guru in front of actual experts.
That doesn't mean he doesn't have some exceptional skills, but IQ isn't one of them.
First, he's hard working, at least in spurts (during critical deadlines), and he's willing to make and implement big decisions quickly. Just look at DOGE, Republicans have been trying to lay waste to the US government for decades, but Musk is the only one to actually do it. It was a complete disaster, but it wasn't ethics or common sense that stopped the previous attempts, that's a legit talent for Musk.
Second, CEOs aren't allowed to lie, but Musk has figured out that you can get around that by building a cult of personality and then making ridiculously optimistic predictions and then sell minor advancements as progress. The result is he has a core group of retail investors that buy his stocks based on vibes and refuse to sell once in. Since these retail investors prevent the stock from going down too much institutional investors also jump in on the ride. It's basically tulip bulbs.
Musk has risked almost every penny he has on multiple occasions.
I agree he has an extremely high risk tolerance, though that doesn't make him a good person.
He has created, commercialized or drastically improved four things (five if you count the boring company). The 1T of his wealth benefits society in the products we all consume, the environmental gains (he was the first to mass produce electric cars profitably), the jobs he has created and the taxes paid by him, his companies and his workers.
His car company is pretty small as car companies go, SpaceX means some new satellites, but Starlink is the only thing that's really making a difference to normal people. And Neuralink might help a lot of people in the future, but it largely R&D now.
His wealth doesn't come from what his companies have done. It comes from his ability as a promoter and its ridiculous effect on the stock price.
the environmental gains (he was the first to mass produce electric cars profitably),
He worked hard to get Trump re-elected, if he was in fact the tipping point, he has harmed the environment far more than he has helped.
Not to mention all the potentially hundreds of thousands of people who died due to his cuts to DOGE.
Do you see any socialists doing any of these things? This is one capitalistic person. He's done more for the environment than any green party. He's created more wealth and better jobs than all communists combined.
It sounds like this is more to do with your ideology than Elon Musk.
The entire original argument for Brexit was based on racist nationalism.
They wanted to kick the foreigners out (while still letting their own elite vacation in Europe).
Humans are tribal, in modern times that tribe is usually their nation, and they care deeply about the survival of their tribe.
If immigration is seen as changing the fundamental nature of that tribe (nation) people will resist it.
We need to figure out a way to deal with that fact if we want to continue to have relatively open borders.
Anthropic made Skynet? I think not.
As it happens, the Chinese are capable of making their own near-frontier models, many of which they release publicly as open weights.
It's not hype, Anthropic is literally saying there's no actual risk they're aware of.
What actually happened is they refused to let US Intelligence agencies use their models to perform illegal surveillance. So now the US government is illegally punishing them.
The whole point of stock markets and such is that you have hard core rational investors ensuring valuations are accurate.
But Musk figured out that you don't need solid fundamentals, all you need is a hyper-loyal core following of retail investors who support you regardless of fundamentals. So you just bullshit just enough to keep them happy, without crossing too far into fraud, and the retail investors stay on board.
The retail investors create a floor for the price and their crowing about their winnings creates a bubble. The institutional investors then see what's happening and hop along for the ride.
The result is the two most overvalued companies in history (Tesla and SpaceX). In theory, the whole pile eventually comes crashing down, but just like any bubble the fund managers who buy are unlikely to be the fund managers left holding the bag.
All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins