Womble

joined 1 year ago
[–] Womble@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Your grandmother (or great grandmother depending how old you are) had to spend hours of hard labour every day to wash clothes dishes and rooms with just a tub of water a broom and a mop. Now all that takes maybe 20 minutes of light labour with a vacuum, dishwasher and washing machine. Technology absolutely has reduced drudgery

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Lots of people spout this conspiracy theory, but Ive yet to hear a good reason why he had to be sued into making the purchase (after making price manipulating statements) if it was some sinister plan.

Far more likely he's just a fuck up.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Well yes, that is dumb!

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Waste burning at least seems to make sense, if its not burnt its only going to go into landfill and emit methane.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Thats right in Paypal and Tesla's cases, he bought them and then gave himself the title of founder, but he did actually found SpaceX. Per wiki:

In early 2001, Elon Musk met Robert Zubrin and donated US$100,000 to his Mars Society, joining its board of directors for a short time.[11]: 30–31  He gave a plenary talk at their fourth convention where he announced Mars Oasis, a project to land a greenhouse and grow plants on Mars.[12][13] Musk initially attempted to acquire a Dnepr intercontinental ballistic missile for the project through Russian contacts from Jim Cantrell.[14]

Musk then returned with his team a second time to Moscow this time bringing Michael Griffin as well, but found the Russians increasingly unreceptive.[15][16] On the flight home Musk announced he could start a company to build the affordable rockets they needed instead.[16] By applying vertical integration,[15] using inexpensive commercial off-the-shelf components when possible,[16] and adopting the modular approach of modern software engineering, Musk believed SpaceX could significantly cut launch cost.[16]

In early 2002, Elon Musk started to look for staff for his company, soon to be named SpaceX. Musk approached five people for the initial positions at the fledgling company, including Michael Griffin, who declined the position of Chief Engineer,[17] Jim Cantrell and John Garvey (Cantrell and Garvey would later found the company Vector Launch), rocket engineer Tom Mueller, and Chris Thompson.[18][19] SpaceX was first headquartered in a warehouse in El Segundo, California. Early SpaceX employees, such as Tom Mueller (CTO), Gwynne Shotwell (COO), and Chris Thompson (VP of Operations), came from neighboring TRW and Boeing corporations. By November 2005, the company had 160 employees.[20] Musk personally interviewed and approved all of SpaceX's early employees.[21]

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

You're right they should, and that was (eventually) pulling out the missiles they put in Turkey first which lead the USSR to respond in kind putting missiles in Cuba. So in this analogy that would be Russia GTFO of Ukraine.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Wishing something to be true doesnt make it so. I havent seen any credible assessments that Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal is so bad that it would be more that 90% non-functional. That's an insane level of broken that there is just no reason to assume it.

Put another way, way more than 10% of their tanks, planes, artillery and tactical ballistic missiles work, why would you assume that their strategic nukes are significantly worse?

All of which isnt to say we should cower before Putin's obviously empty nuclear threat, let Ukraine release the storm shadows! But to go from there to lol dumb Russians cant fire a single ICBM is just not credible.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

There is no reason to think Russia's entire strategic nuclear arsenal is unusable. It's entirely possible a decent chunk of it is due to corruption and neglect, but even if 10% work that's still 160 city destroying nukes being detonated across Europe and North America if the world goes full MAD. That probably wouldn't wipe out humanity but it would lead to hundreds of millions of people dying. Not something to be taken lightly.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (3 children)

woah woah woah, lets have less of this looking at reality here. We all know generative AI is a fad that never works for anything and anyone using it is an idiot, we don't need to have our prejudices challenged

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

They might not make a profit, but Altman will be able to extract a lot of wealth by using 7% of a billions of dollars valuation. Even if he doesn't sell any he can use it as collateral against loans to effectively turn them into cash.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But there's nothing to stop a stalker just making another account to follow you if they really want to. I dont see blocking doing much good there as there is no such thing as being able to stop your public posts being viewed, because they're public.

I still think its a bad idea to remove blocking just becuase people want to remove things they dont want to see (like right wing billionaire arseholes) but I dont think giving people a false sense of security is a good reason against it.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

Feel free to enlighten me (and others who've said the same) with your superior knowledge of how timestamps of ads stay constant when they are of different lengths.

 

I considered leaving Twitter as soon as Elon Musk acquired it in 2022, just not wanting to be part of a community that could be bought, least of all by a man like him – the obnoxious “long hours at a high intensity” bullying of his staff began immediately. But I’ve had some of the most interesting conversations of my life on there, both randomly, ambling about, and solicited, for stories: “Anyone got catastrophically lonely during Covid?”; “Anyone hooked up with their secondary school boy/girlfriend?” We used to call it the place where you told the truth to strangers (Facebook was where you lied to your friends), and that wide-openness was reciprocal and gorgeous.

“Twitter has broken the mould,” Mulhall says. “It’s ostensibly a mainstream platform which now has bespoke moderation policies. Elon Musk is himself inculcated with radical right politics. So it’s behaving much more like a bespoke platform, created by the far right. This marks it out significantly from any other platform. And it’s extremely toxic, an order of magnitude worse, not least because, while it still has terms of service, they’re not necessarily implementing them.”

Global civil society, though, finds it incredibly difficult to reject the free speech argument out of hand, because the alternative is so dark: that a number of billionaires – not just Musk but also Thiel with Rumble, Parler’s original backer, Rebekah Mercer (daughter of Robert Mercer, funder of Breitbart), and, indirectly, billionaire sovereign actors such as Putin – are successfully changing society, destroying the trust we have in each other and in institutions. It’s much more comfortable to think they’re doing that by accident, because they just love “free speech”, than that they’re doing that on purpose. “Part of understanding the neo-reactionary and ‘dark enlightenment’ movements, is that these individuals don’t have any interest in the continuation of the status quo,”

 

Earlier this year, a Boeing aircraft's door plug fell out in flight – all because crucial bolts were missing. The incident shows why simple failures like this are often a sign of larger problems, says John Downer.

 

In a 1938 article, MIT’s president argued that technical progress didn’t mean fewer jobs. He’s still right.

Compton drew a sharp distinction between the consequences of technological progress on “industry as a whole” and the effects, often painful, on individuals.

For “industry as a whole,” he concluded, “technological unemployment is a myth.” That’s because, he argued, technology "has created so many new industries” and has expanded the market for many items by “lowering the cost of production to make a price within reach of large masses of purchasers.” In short, technological advances had created more jobs overall. The argument—and the question of whether it is still true—remains pertinent in the age of AI.

Then Compton abruptly switched perspectives, acknowledging that for some workers and communities, “technological unemployment may be a very serious social problem, as in a town whose mill has had to shut down, or in a craft which has been superseded by a new art.”

 

Because Boeing were on such a good streak already...

view more: next ›