Readers may recall Adam Conover as the genial host of the TV series Adam Ruins Everything where in each episode he debunks popular myths and misconceptions. In one episode on the myths about the Copernican revolution, he used my research into that topic to make his case.
In a new podcast, he channels Jonathan Pie to deliver a blistering attack on Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sam Bankman-Fried (the founder of the now bankrupt crypto exchange FTX). He discusses the failures of these so-called geniuses and says that they represent much that is wrong with our society, that we tend to uncritically accept the grandiose claims of people with ordinary abilities. He says that there are many people who are frauds like these three, privileged and incompetent, children of wealthy parents who attended Ivy league schools and claim to be able to change the world, when they are merely people who just got lucky at one point in their lives and then were able to fool enough people to buy their bullshit and get fawning coverage from the media and the moneyed classes.
I see that people can “Share this:” via the Twitter or the Facebook buttons at the bottom of the post.
Incidentally, are people not aware of Pie’s stance on what he terms ‘woke’ and ‘cancel culture’ and ‘identity politics’?
Yes, you said the same thing a few posts ago and it was pointed out to you that that is because they are still useful ways of sharing posts, despite Musk’s impressive faceplant.
Well, yes, Holms.
Run by alleged ‘idiots’, but not exactly spurned by FTB. Because, useful.
As spot-on as that video was, it’s very quickly become out of date, as Husk piles even more dumbassery on top of each previous day’s layer of dumbassery. Case in point: yesterday I read that the Twitter team responsible for keeping child sexual predators off of their platform now consists of ONE person (subject to change without notice). Love that “hardcore” work ethic…
It’s hypocritical to criticize a thing one uses, says very smart person Morales criticizing a blog he uses. X-D
I’m so conflicted finding myself in a thread where bigot Holms is the smart one. X-D
What made you imagine that I
(a) called it hypocritical; and
(b) criticised this blog?
(Just curious, I know you fear to engage me)
SilentBob, come on. Care to try to sustain your claims?
Do you think that “they are still useful ways of sharing posts, despite Musk’s impressive faceplant” somehow contradicts or even disputes what I wrote?
(You thought that was smart? Heh)
#3 John
Yes, and? The fact it is still useful does not undercut the point that its new owner is mismanaging it, and criticising the new owner does not preclude using it.
I think its undeniable that Facebook, Crypto and Tesla did change the world. In the case of Facebook and Crypto it was in decidedly bad ways.
Its amusing to me , to see some of the claims of mismanagement -- Im guessing the people here have a better plan to rescue twitter :).
Twitter is a loss making site, and it certainly from the outside looking in feels bloated -- a site of that size should not need that many people. You can complain about the tactics involved but layoffs were inevitable. Till someone solves the moderation problem social media sites with the volume of Twitter will either be a cesspool or annoy everyone (See Patheos, nanny filter)
Holms:
…
I know it’s not that overt, but did you notice what I didn’t write?
I doubt you did.
And the OP refers to an OP in a video which is “a blistering attack on Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sam Bankman-Fried”.
I mentioned those two buttons (which are useful, by your very own claim).
There is no button for FTX.
(Or: One of those three is not like the others)
I suppose they are all now blistered, because of the blistering attack — I mean, if they’re not blistered, it can’t have actually been a blistering attack, can it?
Yes, three sites suffering from bad decision making at the top. Of course there are differences, pointing out the similarities between things implicitly accepts that other than the similarities, there are differences. FTX never offered a service that was useful for sharing blog posts even before it crashed, it follows that there would not be any such button.
Well, there you are, Holms. One aspect of the “and” is now evident to you.
(Well done!)
Was already, as was evident in my first comment. What you still have not done is make a point.
No, Holms.
What I have not done is made a point you either apprehend or acknowledge.
(But hey, at least you’re feisty, unlike the now-Silent Bob)
Or even a point at all. But if you think otherwise, you could always stop being coy about it.
Get ready, Holms.
Ready?
“I see that people can “Share this:” via the Twitter or the Facebook buttons at the bottom of the post.”
So. Neither Facebook or Twitter are yet dead, despite those alleged idiots running them.
Because, as you noticed, they are still useful to people.
(How very coy of me! How smart of you! How idiotic of them!)
No one claimed they were dead, and everyone can see they retain usefulness for blog sharing. I reiterated that second point as early as comment #2, and yet in #13 you imply there is an ‘and’ still awaiting discovery, and in #15 you flat out state this. So. What is this point that I have yet to grasp? Obviously this excludes that they retain usefulness and are not dead, as that was covered in #2.
Dear Holms, haven’t we been here before? You know, the endless blathering?
Ahem: “What you still have not done is make a point.”
Versus: “I reiterated that second point as early as comment #2”
So I did not make a point, according to you, but also according to you, you reiterated the second point I made.
Not the point, the second point.
Apparently, the third one. 😉
You said there was a point that I had yet to grasp or mention (“did you notice what I didn’t write?
I doubt you did” and “What I have not done is made a point you either apprehend or acknowledge”). This excludes “Neither Facebook or Twitter are yet dead” -- something no one claimed in the first place; it excludes that two of the companies offered something relevant to sharing blog posts and the third did not, as that was obviously noticed, apprehended, acknowledged in comment #2.
What is this mystery point, and why are you being coy about it?
#11, Holms. Hardly coy. A mystery only to you.
^ An example of being coy.
More like an example of you being doltish.
Here, with added emphasis:
“And the OP refers to an OP in a video which is “a blistering attack on Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sam Bankman-Fried”.
I mentioned those two buttons (which are useful, by your very own claim).
There is no button for FTX.
(Or: One of those three is not like the others)”
(Or: about the people, not about the companies)
Yes, but that was covered in #2. Again: you said there was a point I had not mentioned yet, so obviously this does not refer to points already mentioned. This claim was made at #15, so, what was the elusive point that had not yet been unearthed?
Heh. Querulousness becomes you, Holms.
No point repeating myself ad nauseam, if you don’t get it, you don’t get it.
(People, companies… just the same thing — metonymy FTW, right?)
The bosses were called fools, not the companies. No one said they’re the same, John.
Back to being coy.
🙂
😉
I come back after a while and I read some of the comments, and the first thing I see that John Morales is being as much of an insufferable asshole as always. Glad to see nothing changes.
PS Fuck you John for being a lying asshole. Die in a fire. Still waiting for you to admit that I was right about Hornsdale and that you attempted to rent me by citing source which actually agreed with me. Still waiting for an admission of error and an apology.
^ Wait. What? YOU of all people are waiting for an apology?
Hahahha, that is the funniest thing I have heard so far today. And to think today was looking like just another day of dealing with ignorant arseholes in person!