> It’s becoming increasingly obvious that Twitter isn’t going to be that place with each new chaos monkey attack from Musk
Is this hyperbole? Twitter will be fine, Musk isn't going to train-wreck 10s of billions. Twitter today isn't even that fundamentally different from pre-Musk. The biggest change has been perception from ideological extremes. I'm sure Twitter will evolve but evolution is for growth, not death.
You use Twitter for exposure to writers, wouldn't the proposed lifting of the character limit be a net positive for writers? Wouldn't writers use Twitter more if writing on Twitter was a source of income?
It's big enough and established enough that it's not going to disappear overnight, but so far the results are pretty underwhelming.
I, for the life of me, can't figure out why someone who has been successful and earned a decent amount of goodwill in other ventures, would start burning through all that to deal with social media which is just super difficult to manage even in the best of cases.
Based on the most recent estimates of Twitter's value, Musk has already train wrecked 10s of billions of dollars.
You mention that Twitter isn't that fundamentally different and from a product perspective, and I would mostly agree, but their finances are WAY worse than they were pre-Musk. The company has lost something like 50% of ad revenue, they've saddled themselves with something like an extra $1B dollars a year in debt payments from the buyout, and they're facing a number of large lawsuits based on how they handled layoffs.
I never made the claim that a user should. The guy I was replying to said "Musk isn't going to train-wreck 10s of billions" and I was responding to that.
It doesn’t usually matter to the user “why” a product is no longer appealing.
Financial woes though will usually produce change that impacts the user, for better or worse (a good kick in the ass, or craven desperation may follow).
It couldn’t be more fundamentally different for people who just want to read content without an account. Previously, Twitter was a thing that existed, now it’s not a thing that exists.
99.9% of people will just click the google login button and continue on as if nothing had happened. i sympathize with you. i had to make a throwaway google account. but it's not even close to relevant to the vast majority of users. not saying that's a good thing but it's reality.
And if you don't pay for twitter blue you can't DM people anymore unless they know to explicitly turn off that new filter. You also are limited in how many tweets you can view in a day, and without paying your reach is also shortened.
At the same time a lot of people I never would have wanted in my feed are now showing up all the time.
If you're using twitter web, the Control Panel for Twitter browser extension takes the 'for you' abomination behind the back of the barn and gives it both barrels.
The network Twitter has will be hard to break for sure. But I think it's already worth much less than what he paid. Musk needs to be careful here, it is possible to lose.
I had hit the rate limit a few trimes when it was new, but never since then. I think the limit has been either removed or vastly reduced from that experience. I don't see any of the people I follow complaining about it either.
I'm pretty sure the limit was one of his experiments that he's since rolled back on. It may even have been an emergency measure to mitigate the worst effects of another bug, but I'm not sure if he's ever been openly honest about any of this. There was certainly a weekend where the limit was imposed, then raised, then—I think—raised again... and I don't think we've really heard anything about it since.
That's innovation in my book. Nothing wrong with trying to reduce your costs while improving emissions, especially when we're talking about 30+ year old technology.
Dagger is already a popular dependency injection framework, so why choose a name that will be confusing to people who will likely use both of these frameworks in their projects?
And the reason they're both called Dagger is as a play on using a DAG, directed acyclic graph, to model dependencies. Stealing that wittiness and pretending it's their own is pathetic.
So how does this work if you live in a hot part of the world, and say, you leave your notebook in your car for the day.... does all your work simply vanish?
I'd definitely be interested in real-world testimony but the linked article says that the "erasure temp" is 60C/140F. Your work would hopefully not be lost forever, though, because it should reappear under -10C/14F. (Along with all the mistakes you erased, I suppose)
I've lived between Costa Rica and California with these pens as my primary note takers and nothing like that's happened yet. Surprised to hear so many horror stories actually, maybe I should be more careful haha
The single quotes probably need to be double ones in the last argument to permit parameter expansion, and the $@ (separately quote every argument if quoted) probably wants to be a $* (quote the entire space-separated argument array if quoted)? There’s also the grammar quirk where the last command inside braces (but not parens) needs a semicolon or newline to separate it from the brace itself. Thus:
I still support the point that there is no reason for this to be a (grammar-defying) alias rather than a (tame) shell function or even a separate script.
Does that "savings" outweigh the increased cost from the tax? Because it's less important how much that value is and more important that overall cost and burden will increase.
Will California outlaw company provided health plans? If the company option is better, why would an employee want a worse Government solution?
In other, completely unrelated news, Meta just leased out the tallest building in Austin, Tx.
>Does that "savings" outweigh the increased cost from the tax?
That would be a great topic for an article. It would also be a lot more work than just blustering about high taxes, so "Reason" took the easy way out. Complaining is a lot easier than reasoning, it turns out.
How does this contend with other optimal stopping problems? I just started reading 'Algorithms to Live By' and the very first chapter talks about the 37% rule [1], which feels similar. According to The Dating Problem [2] I should reject the first 37 candidates (when N=100 like in OP's example)
Reject 33 candidates if you want to maximize your likelihood of getting the best candidate out of 100, and 9 if you want to maximize how good the candidate you get is.
