This is a pretty good take! It's because you could verbally attack and fight the 4chan idiots with a swarm of common sense and be lauded for doing that job.
Doing the same on X will just get you banned for whatever reason Elon feels is best 'for the community'.
> This is a pretty good take! It's because you could verbally attack and fight the 4chan idiots with a swarm of common sense and be lauded for doing that job.
This is actually a big reason why 4chan never messed with my sanity and blood pressure opposed to say Reddit or Twitter. It feels like on 4chan there are some people who are completely off the rails, but they can be insulted and called out. On Reddit or Twitter, it feels like almost everyone is “somewhat of the rails” and they all concentrate among each other, as in almost every Subreddit has some collectively held belief that simply appears as nonsensical to people outside of it, but as much as politely disagreeing will get one blocked by that specific user in many cases, or just banned from the subreddit so it's far more obnoxious. Also, it feels like arguing against an endless current whereas at best on 4chan it's two waves that clash into each other of even size.
4chan is “arguing against an idiot”, Reddit and Twitter becomes “arguing against idiots, being surrounded by them, and very often not even really being allowed to argue lest one be banned”. It's a very frustrating experience that makes one's blood boil.
The pompous tone of your comment exemplifies what actually makes most social media platforms awful, which is how people act on them. Inconsistent moderation is everywhere, and most people getting banned from X absolutely deserve it. If you posted something like this on 4chan, people would quickly tell you to get off your high horse (in more vulgar terms). The nice thing about an anonymous message board is that without a name or upvote count attached to your name, you don't get positive reinforcement for putting on a show of moral superiority, and struggle sessions via petty call-outs or pile-ons are not a thing beyond the lifetime of a thread. And on the other side of the same coin, people are not afraid of damaging their reputation by being uncouth, which helps not take anything too seriously, and enables direct feedback instead of passive-aggressive behavior.
HN really corroborates the inverse principle here - giving everyone names and karma doesn't seem to generate consistent, thoughtful contributions. It rewards apologia, groupthink and complacency, oftentimes the only interesting or unique viewpoint in a thread is flagged or karma-bombed to the bottom because it's a green username. The big HN "experiment" feels like it's stalled out, we've been getting the same results for years now. This website garners the reputation it has because everyone with power is out for themselves. There is no desire to accept change that threatens the collective interests of the tech industry, look at how HN reacts to regulations and war crimes and misinformation that technology inherently necessitates. It's thread after thread of hand-wringing, "it's not your fault" and then everyone is off to nerd-snipe each other over the semantic definition of a sorting algorithm.
Let HN, Reddit and X (or whatever it's called now) be a lesson to everyone - privately owned platforms are all just different brands of echo chamber. There is no obligation to change an echo chamber that makes you money or repeats what you want to hear.
I dont understand why twitter is so prevalent in the tech community; and it's not like you can just 'not use it' - you are at a true disadvantage if you aren't on twitter because of how much discourse around new tech, private equity, etc transpires on it.
I'm surprised a literal echo-chamber in which free speech is suppressed for disagreeing with the party line is responsible for so much productivity because of how many techbros are active on it. What happened to the time where being a techbro meant you were an open source libertarian like Stallman?
The feedback mechanism on Twitter allows you to find useful discussions of current affairs in less popular topics. Can you find a good discussion of current events in agribusiness on Reddit? No. On Facebook? No. But if you open up Twitter and search for Arthur Daniels and you'll find something useful.
So, when the manager at a company wants to publicize, he has nowhere else to go.
> I'm surprised a literal echo-chamber in which free speech is suppressed for disagreeing with the party line is responsible for so much productivity because of how many techbros are active on it.
Reddit is worse. Facebook is worse. Bluesky is a community that couldn't stand Twitter changing it's party line, so it's worse. Mastodon is complex and suffers from the same problems as Bluesky.
Like it or not, Musk did choose his acquisition well.
Let me make it clear because I don't want to come across as biased - Reddit, Facebook and platforms like it are 1000% worse and or just as bad, no contest from me on that part; the dialogue just skews a different way depending on the platform.
To the first point though, I guess I just don't understand how such niche and useful discussion ended up on twitter and remains there out of all places. It seems strange to find someone pushing moon-landing-is-fake conspiracies on the same site nuanced discussion occurs on some hyperfocused topic
It's all about the technical features of the platform. Twitter's design is less likely to encourage conformity, so you can find far more insane content in it, but it's also less likely to encourage people to pointlessly discuss popular topics over and over.
Twitter allows for the existence of small ad-hoc communities numbering a dozen people at most, without a designated leader. Facebook groups, subreddits and mastodon instances require that a community has a designated dictatorial leader, be it an admin, a moderator or an instance owner.
The most powerful method of expressing approval - the re-tweet is likely to be used to promote interesting statements. Blind adherence to conformity isn't interesting. Crazy conspiracy theories are interesting, but so is specialized knowledge. All you have to do is ignore the former, (unless conspiracy theories amuse you).
I think that’s just an artifact of twitter’s history. It was “normal” (increasingly algorithm slop driven) website until roughly 1-2 years ago when it was bought out and became maga slop.
Remember twitter came out in like 2007 when only tech people were on the internet.
I received really heartfelt (to me) and sincere life advice on 4chan. I think the fact that it's anonymous without a real karma/voting system means there's a lot less ego-driven, self-centered posting. People don't try to attack as much or have bitter back-and-forths as much as twitter, reddit. They might argue for a bit and then just say f it and move on. But there's no motivation for ragebait, karma farming like there is on twitter.
It's not just that there's no voting system it's that there's no names. It's pointless to argue on a site like Reddit, but it's ridiculous to argue back and forth on a site like 4chan where you can't even know if you're arguing with the same person from post to post.
Likewise an outside observer can't assign any identity to a series of posts in an argument, so you really have to take every post at face value.
Browsing different forums helps you recognize how discourse is shaped by different feedback loops, how people troll on 4chan or conform on reddit, rather then assuming that twitter is real life.
The names are arbitrary but the underlying color theory is not. Colors are different wavelengths of light and our eyes have sensors that are sensitive to specific wavelengths.
Most colors are mixtures of wavelengths of light. Our eyes have sensors that are sensitive to specific ranges of wavelengths, with relatively broad overlapping response curves. Orange can refer to a spectral color, but (as you say) the arbitrary nature of the names means it also refers to several mixtures of spectral colors of varying wavelength and intensity. "Brown" doesn't refer to any spectral color, it's always a mixture which could be referred to as a "dark orange".
Contacts aren't stored on the phone, messages act as contacts. Phone and video calls also on WhatsApp. Photos are shared via WhatsApp so that's where the gallery is. It even functions as a calendar of sorts – events are organised in WhatsApp groups so there you have directions and dates and who brings what. More and more businesses use WhatsApp to communicate with customers.
Why people like this, I do not know. But this is what I observe. Maybe software in general is too shit to use so people prefer to take a sub-optimal WhatsApp-based life over fighting their phones at every step. And I can't blame them.
In 28 Days Later the infected starve to death, I can't remember them being overly supernatural.
It is The Walking Dead in which the zombies are basically immortal but useless. Unless the plot requires otherwise. After Season 1 it is a terribly written show. Don't get me started.
A dev culture that produces nothing but wip and fix bug commits (frequently adding unrelated refactors) will continue to produce noise but prefixed with chore(code): fix bug. I fail to see the benefit behind this and conventional commits.
I do not understand why people insist on trowing inane technical solutions at social problems. It doesn't work.
`chore(code): fix bug` doesn't follow conventional commits, so it's not at great example for this point.
In my experience conventional commits tend to lower character counts and improve the readability of messages. `bug(auth): adjust XYZ` is shorter than `fix auth bug by adjusting XYZ`.
There are more Trump supporters here than you probably realize. They just aren’t ones to wear their political affiliation as a badge for approval, and aren’t as loud, generally.
NIH cuts, US withdrawal from Climate Agreement, vaccine sceptic being made secretary of health, US alienating Europe, proposed ethnic cleansing of Gaza, lying about who started the Ukraine war. Cutting funds to USAID. Threatening to take Greenland by force. Threatening to annex Canada. Proclaiming himself to be King. Constantly "joking" about third term.
> I’m going to create these wellness farms where they can go to get off of illegal drugs, off of opiates, but also illegal drugs, other psychiatric drugs, if they want to, to get off of SSRIs, to get off of benzos, to get off of Adderall, and to spend time as much time as they need — three or four years if they need it — to learn to get reparented, to reconnect with communities,
I am not going to skim through 1.5h of deranged ramblings in a raspy voice to find him saying this though.
Are you trying to claim that because he didn't specifically mention ADHD, despite mentioning the drug used to treat ADHD, that he's not talking about ADHD despite him holding views about neurodiversity that are at odds with the published literature on their treatment?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Are you trying to claim that all users of Adderall have ADHD? Because that is the only way you can say "well he is effectively talking about ADHD if he is talking about adderall", but that conflation is objectively untrue. Countless people without ADHD abuse adderall / ritalin / etc.
In fact, people without ADHD are much more in need of an intervention if they are abusing adderall than someone who has ADHD, wouldn't you say? So the much more reasonable interpretation is that he is talking about those people, not people with ADHD.
> Because that is the only way you can say "well he is effectively talking about ADHD if he is talking about adderall",
No it's not the only way, because he's also talking about SSRIs, which have only medical uses (no abuse potential really). Therefore it is reasonable to argue he is also talking about Adderall's intended medical use against ADHD rather than its abuse.
No, you can't put words in his mouth. He said Adderall, not ADHD.
Yes he said SSRIs, but SSRIs are not for ADHD, so that has no bearing on whether or not he said "people with ADHD should be sent to camps", which he just... did not say.
This shouldn't need to be stated, but I personally think RFK Jr. is a nutter. That doesn't mean you can stick words in his mouth or imply things he didn't actually say.
That's all nice and well, but he also did say "psychiatric drugs", as if those were somehow generally bad and appropriate to reference in the same breath as illegal drugs.
Maybe, had he not said that bit as well, I'd agree with you. He could be talking about Adderall purely in a sense of misuse.
But he included psychiatric drugs, and that (and the SSRIs) makes his statement ambiguous enough that I'm comfortable interpreting it as including ADHD patients.
(And, just purely for vilifying psychiatric drugs, the threshold for intolerance [which must not be tolerated in order to achieve a tolerant society] is crossed. Lots of people have mental health issues and need treatment, including with drugs.)
I think you and plenty of other people on this thread are missing the point. As I understand it, it's not "round up people with certain conditions and stick them in camps" (is this not obvious?)
It's to provide people a path for getting off of all manner of drugs that are difficult to get off of. That could be heroin, or it could be Ritalin or some SSRI. It's basically socialized rehab based on some model that RFK seems to favor.
From what I've read (and seen in friends and family), the system is really good at getting people on pharmaceuticals. It doesn't seem to give much of a shit about helping them get off when they choose to do so.
I'm not sure why, but there seems to be a focus on misuse or abuse. Someone could have used the drugs exactly as directed and now doesn't want to use them anymore, and is running into an inability to do so on their own.
You could make the exact same argument about his mention of SSRIs. "Oh, he just means all the people without depression, who are abusing SSRIs."
No, you're being intentionally disingenuous here. Obviously, he dislikes the fact that these drugs are being prescribed to patients, and he would prefer it if they were not. I'm sure he imagines that these "farms" would be a better treatment for depression than SSRIs are, and likewise for the other drugs and conditions.
The idea is a place for anyone to get off any kind of drug they want to get off of. Note the "they want" part. Who are you to fault someone for deciding they no longer want to take a substance but need help doing so? Or someone trying to help that person?
