If you're wondering why this is on the front page now, it's because of these exchanges with Elon Musk which went viral on Twitter
https://twitter.com/iamharaldur/status/1633082707835080705?t...
I’m just genuinely stunned that anyone would behave this way. I used to be such a big fan of the accomplishments of SpaceX (I still remember where I was when they successfully stuck the landing of the Falcon 9). Elon’s behavior just… gives it all such a sour note. It’s impossible for me to be an unabashed cheerleader for SpaceX anymore. I will certainly never be giving any of his companies a penny of my money, though.
Guy wasn't random, he critically put his life on the line to save 13 teenagers.
Up until then I could've built stories to defend him. He's shit to his employees buuuuuuut he built successful companies, so maybe the two are connected? But the pedo story was indefensible. There's no explanation other than his bad character.
But holy moly the horrific way Elon/NewTwitter went about the whole thing.
Question: if every US citizen/permanent resident refuses to work for Twitter because of how horrific it is and the pay isn't worth it, is that sufficient basis to get approval to hire H1Bs with lower standards?
1. Appeal broadly to as many people as possible.
2. Appeal strongly to a subset of people.
#1 is more principled and idealistic, and produces more stable results, but it's more difficult.
#2 is easier - it also allows greater focus and frankness - but it increases conflict and instability, since to be effective it usually involves not just ignoring, but explicitly antagonizing those outside or opposed to the chosen subset.
Typically option #1 is the safer bet, but the more divided your audience becomes, the greater the effectiveness of option #2. Also, #2 is just more appealing if you, personally, already have an affinity for the chosen subset. Musk is taking option #2, and his chosen subset are "trolls", for lack of a more specific word. Obviously you could reasonably call tons of people on all sides of all issues "trolls", because there's no shortage of petty people for any given disagreement. I'm referring to a specific subset of people who jump quickly to hatred and mocking others, and do so to their face, or in public, or on social media. People who don't simply act shitty when an argument breaks out, but rather who make "asshole" a part of their overall personality (take a look at the Musk-supportive Tweets for prime examples). Normally this is a small group, but the more divided people become, the more individuals fall into this group.
In other words, imagine person A says to person B, "I'm so sorry you weren't notified," and then privately explains the decision to fire them. That's generic option #1 stuff. Now let's say person A laughs and antagonizes person B. There is a default social contract that basically says, "if you antagonize somebody in a way that maximizes pettiness/obnoxiousness, you will repel almost everybody, because even the people who agree abstractly with you won't want to be associated with such childish, revolting behavior." However, the more division increases in your audience, then if persons A and B are perceived to be in different "groups", the more people in the same perceived group as person A will be willing to explicitly stand with them in that pettiness/obnoxiousness. That's how option #2 becomes more viable.
Now, Elon Musk won that legal case, but perhaps he wouldn't win a case where he challenges Hari's legitimacy.
However, I seem to remember that Musk followed up the insult with some insinuation that he might know something about the guy which makes it worse. But I don't care to read up on the details at the moment.
I’d be surprised if the hit to his net worth from the purchase as less than $80B
He gets to be in the public eye and news all the time. Gets to be defended by fanboys while making fun of disabled people and laughing at design people who work with Figma. He gets to delist anyone he dislikes. This role gives him power and attention on a global scale.
Seems like a great investment of $80B if that floats his boat, which it seems to.
More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35060935.
I wonder if he also has voclaization difficulties that interfere with voice typing, and/or if he was socialized against "talking to himself" like I was.
(Or if Twitter has the same problem as HN+Android+Firefox+? where the keyboard microphone and swipe goes inexplicably missing sometimes, like now for me.)