Elon Musk is a nice chap

[Black Phoenix]

If you were to look at your language, you have a rather bad habit of interspersing every sentence with needless vulgarity and blunt profanity, which not only makes you come across as VERY angry and defensive (which you may not be) but makes people want to listen LESS to you. That’s the irony of profane speech - people fool themselves into believing it’s impactful, whereas, in fact, it’s the polar opposite - it’s lazy and lacks imagination, and indicates that the person is unable to form a rational, calm response without resorting to “filler” which is attempting to make up for a lack of substantial, well-argued points.

Strange you say that because you are still in my ignore list (that doesn't work in mobile version so I still have to ignore you by scrooling down), even after that wholeheartedly message of the reasons why you done what you've done.

Although heartbreaking and painful and not wishing to happen to anyone of my close contacts, it sounded like empty and a way of (as I suspected) continuing the same trend but now you have an "excuse" of some sort and expect people to understand.

Although Tooki is not, and it is one of the users I respect their opinion the most. And I'm not the only one with the same opinion I'm sure.

So take your own assumptions from it...

[TimFox]

Going back to the title of this thread.
I have found this website very interesting since I retired, and this is one of today's posts relevant to Twitter:
https://www.askamanager.org/2022/11/i-work-at-twitter-what-do-i-do.html

[coppice]

A place that can't close its borders and survive in times of trouble is a vassal state. No reasonable person wants to forgo the richness of extensive trade in good times, but if its an absolute necessity to keep the population alive you will always be vulnerable to the whims of foreign powers, plagues and so on.

It's not even a matter of closing the borders, but just being self sufficient with the essential stuff. I don't blame China for looking after their own citizens first and giving them priority over goods produced. We got caught with our pants down because we were completely reliant on China to provide stuff like PPE for medical staff.

Sure. Closing your borders and the other side closing theirs, partially or fully, is functionally equivalent from the point of view of needing to be able to survive on your own in bad times.

[jancumps]

...
Once Musk bought Twitter, it was bound to appear in this thread and turn it political.

(again removed some quoted context off this post - but I think it's OK)

Yes. I believe so too. Because the goals that Musk stated for the purchase, have a political and society (both the policies and the layoffs) component. It's hard to strictly talk about this from the engineering/technology point of view.

[SiliconWizard]

Talking about Twitter has already been political for years now. Nothing specific about Musk.

And of course, such global communication networks are going to have a "political" aspect to them, in the general sense. Communication is the 21st century's biggest weapon.

[vad]

In my view, too much immigration is a huge threat to democracy in the UK.

Same here in the US. Look what immigrant Musk is doing to Twitter! 😂

[eti]

In my view, too much immigration is a huge threat to democracy in the UK.

Same here in the US. Look what immigrant Musk is doing to Twitter! 😂

The best thing he can do to that cesspool is bring it crashing to the ground and bury it for good.

[tooki]

I’ve never understood the appeal or utility of Twitter. With that said, I just read something that is a serious concern, if Twitter were to collapse on short notice, which looks to be a real possibility: if it goes down before some kind of archival contingency plan can be implemented, it would obliterate 16 years worth of primary sources for world history. Is it stupid, IMHO, that so much stuff was on Twitter (and only there!) to begin with? Possibly. But like it or not, it is. And we’d be wise to figure out a way to archive it first.

Note that the Library of Congress, which quite possibly knows a thing or two about archiving, tried and failed to find a way to archive Twitter back in 2018 or so. So it’s not a trivial task.

[Sal Ammoniac]

NO POLITICS ALLOWED.

If you make the rule you must adhere to it yourself!

Careful or captain tooki will be snapping at your heels telling you off lmao

Eti, please leave this thread for your own wellbeing. I don't have to tell you why.

 

[John B]

I’ve never understood the appeal or utility of Twitter.

Governments and super massive multinational corporations all having an easily censored and curated platform to control public opinion on any given topic? 

That at least explains why so many investors were happy to pour buckets of money into a holiday resort where the employees enjoyed restaurant meals and wine on tap.

[PlainName]

I’ve never understood the appeal or utility of Twitter.

It's a quick blog, essentially, but as simple as SMS. There are many uses - keeping up with your folks, for instance, or using a bot to monitor something - and although I don't use it I think it's a fine product at the base. The problems with it are merely the people causing problems of one sort or another. Whether something with the useful parts of Twitter is possible without the bad human parts is debatable, but I suspect not - it is just human nature that a bunch of disparate loudmouths with conflicting cultures, along with the vandals that break things for the lolz, are going to cohabit a cesspit.

[eti]

Why would I leave the very thread that I created?

[vad]

The best thing he can do to that cesspool is bring it crashing to the ground and bury it for good.

This is brilliant investment advice for those who have $44B to spare.

[coppice]

I’ve never understood the appeal or utility of Twitter. With that said, I just read something that is a serious concern, if Twitter were to collapse on short notice, which looks to be a real possibility: if it goes down before some kind of archival contingency plan can be implemented, it would obliterate 16 years worth of primary sources for world history. Is it stupid, IMHO, that so much stuff was on Twitter (and only there!) to begin with? Possibly. But like it or not, it is. And we’d be wise to figure out a way to archive it first.

Note that the Library of Congress, which quite possibly knows a thing or two about archiving, tried and failed to find a way to archive Twitter back in 2018 or so. So it’s not a trivial task.

People have deleted so much material from Twitter, when tweets didn't go well for them, that it in no way forms a historical record, even if it is intact.

[eti]

The best thing he can do to that cesspool is bring it crashing to the ground and bury it for good.

This is brilliant investment advice for those who have $44B to spare.

If you can afford it and you do it for the sake of mankind, yes it IS brilliant. That place causes so much upset and stress. Screw Twitter. It's hardly a precious archived repository of valuable information.

[james_s]

I’ve never understood the appeal or utility of Twitter. With that said, I just read something that is a serious concern, if Twitter were to collapse on short notice, which looks to be a real possibility: if it goes down before some kind of archival contingency plan can be implemented, it would obliterate 16 years worth of primary sources for world history. Is it stupid, IMHO, that so much stuff was on Twitter (and only there!) to begin with? Possibly. But like it or not, it is. And we’d be wise to figure out a way to archive it first.

Note that the Library of Congress, which quite possibly knows a thing or two about archiving, tried and failed to find a way to archive Twitter back in 2018 or so. So it’s not a trivial task.

About 10 years ago a friend convinced me to sign up for a Twitter account. I played with it for a few hours before deciding that it was completely useless and deleting my account, never looked back. It just seems so completely pointless that I struggle to understand why Musk purchasing it is resulting in such a big response from people, and before he's even done anything to the way the company moderates content. It's literally a huge panic over what people assume he's going to do. I just don't care what he does with it, if it goes down in flames I think the world would be a better place.

[vad]

The best thing he can do to that cesspool is bring it crashing to the ground and bury it for good.

This is brilliant investment advice for those who have $44B to spare.

If you can afford it and you do it for the sake of mankind, yes it IS brilliant. That place causes so much upset and stress. Screw Twitter. It's hardly a precious archived repository of valuable information.

Personally I would much rather see Musk donating to charity, rather than handing out 44B to Twitter shareholders, who were responsible for all the grievances.

Time to start a new thread about really nice chap  Bezos.

[eti]

The best thing he can do to that cesspool is bring it crashing to the ground and bury it for good.

This is brilliant investment advice for those who have $44B to spare.

If you can afford it and you do it for the sake of mankind, yes it IS brilliant. That place causes so much upset and stress. Screw Twitter. It's hardly a precious archived repository of valuable information.

Personally I would much rather see Musk donating to charity, rather that handing out 44B to Twitter shareholders, who were responsible for all the grievances.

Time to start a new thread about really nice chap  Bezos.

Everyone and their dog has “opinions” about how the rich should handle their vast wealth. The thing is, the people with that wealth are generally more canny than the great unwashed offering “ways to use it”. I’d say someone with an EV & space industry-shifting rocket company, might just have a bit more nouse about what he’s doing than most.

The most throw-away comment in the world, and the most commented, is “you could help so many people with all that money”; usually this “advice” is offered from those for whom it would be a far MORE generous sacrifice for them to donate a good chunk of their personal wealth (from a normal income), which would show they put their money where their mouths are. When you give a good amount away and yet have a modest income, that’s FAR kinder and speaks a lot more about a person.  It’s all very well commenting on “other people should do X” - who’s to say they AREN’T - the news? The “media”? People who do good are best doing it in private, lest they crow too loud and be seen as self-righteous.

I’ve no doubt Musk donates. I don’t need to “prove” in either direction, and can’t - it’s his business, and no amount of soap box “advice” will alter whether or not he does.

What others do with the funds they have been made stewards of, is none of my concern. If I see someone in need I’ll help them, because it’s the right thing to do.

[vad]

Everyone and their dog has “opinions” about how the rich should handle their vast wealth.

Couldn't agree with you more. Some even go extra mile and fantasize about the rich spending all their (liquid) wealth for a sole purpose of crashing some company to the ground.

[eti]

The logical fallacy that is often parroted to the rich, is "Give all your money away to the poor". If you pour all the water from a full bucket into an empty one, guess what happens? A situation reversal; then what should be done to fix that?  -to state the obvious, the rich is now the poor, and vice versa.

It amuses me how little critical thought is employed, by so many.

[vad]

Ok, donations to poor is a logical fallacy. Are we still allowed to donate to cancer research, medical research, animal charities, wildlife charities, environmental charities, veteran organizations, Red Cross, etc?

[Kasper]

Twitter is good in small doses: to get updates from interesting people but time spent reading the comments is like time spent reading posts from 2 people on this forum, except these 2 people write more words and use less manners.  I usually scroll past them but I made an exception here to see them argue with eachother.  While mildly entertaining, I doubt any good comes from it and I think a character limit would be good for them.

[tooki]

I’ve never understood the appeal or utility of Twitter. With that said, I just read something that is a serious concern, if Twitter were to collapse on short notice, which looks to be a real possibility: if it goes down before some kind of archival contingency plan can be implemented, it would obliterate 16 years worth of primary sources for world history. Is it stupid, IMHO, that so much stuff was on Twitter (and only there!) to begin with? Possibly. But like it or not, it is. And we’d be wise to figure out a way to archive it first.

Note that the Library of Congress, which quite possibly knows a thing or two about archiving, tried and failed to find a way to archive Twitter back in 2018 or so. So it’s not a trivial task.

People have deleted so much material from Twitter, when tweets didn't go well for them, that it in no way forms a historical record, even if it is intact.

It’s not just inflammatory crap; it’s primary sources of many world events. (For example, Malaysia Airlines’ tweet that MH17 had gone down in the Ukraine — their first communication about it.) The fact that it’s an incomplete record doesn’t negate that there’s a lot of important stuff in it.

[tooki]

About 10 years ago a friend convinced me to sign up for a Twitter account. I played with it for a few hours before deciding that it was completely useless and deleting my account, never looked back.

I only signed up in order to squat my username. (And even so, “tooki” was already taken, so I used my alternate…)

[tom66]

I’ve never understood the appeal or utility of Twitter. With that said, I just read something that is a serious concern, if Twitter were to collapse on short notice, which looks to be a real possibility: if it goes down before some kind of archival contingency plan can be implemented, it would obliterate 16 years worth of primary sources for world history. Is it stupid, IMHO, that so much stuff was on Twitter (and only there!) to begin with? Possibly. But like it or not, it is. And we’d be wise to figure out a way to archive it first.

Note that the Library of Congress, which quite possibly knows a thing or two about archiving, tried and failed to find a way to archive Twitter back in 2018 or so. So it’s not a trivial task.

The LoC has Twitter archived in its entirety from 2006 to 2017:
https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2017/12/update-on-the-twitter-archive-at-the-library-of-congress-2/

... and thereafter on a selective basis.

A great deal of Twitter is just crud, so I don't expect them to put 100's of TBs of crap on hard disks for archival purposes.  What needs to be saved: world leaders/politicians tweets (if only for historical continuity and to hold them responsible!), major public figures, and certain historical events.  You don't need to save someone asking the local bus company why their bus was delayed and could the driver please hurry up.