However, this gives roughly zero insight into how Twitter's feed behaves.
However, this gives roughly zero insight into how Twitter's feed behaves.
[1] https://github.com/twitter/the-algorithm/blob/main/trust_and...
Why you take this so serious? The world is moving on. Nobody will trust anyone with their freedom of speech, ever. Is this so hard to see?
Any centralized solution qucikly implements censoring, starts banning users.
Ars Technica’s space editor, Eric Berger, interviewed Musk only a few months back: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/05/elon-musk-turns-his-fo...
Despite not containing more than a few random files, there were headlines everywhere about the "Open Source Tesla Roadster". There were countless comments, Tweets, and posts about how amazing it was that the Roadster was now open source.
None of the people reporting on it or praising it actually looked at the files and realized you couldn't actually build anything other than the HVAC control board for the car.
/s
wandb_key = ...
wandb.login(...)
It's rather weird that they would add keys to the source code like this, rather than reading from the environment or some secrets service. Rather than redacting the source, they should refactor to remove the keys from the source train_query = f"""
SELECT
{{feature_names}},
{",".join(labels)},
...
"""
and right at the top: cat_names = [
...
]I also think Twitter under Musk is much better, way much more functionality in it.
They did. Community notes are just the rebranded "Birdwatch" program that predates Musk.
and replaced with something worse.
Making everyone 'equal' is a political heuristic that IMO presupposes that journalists can't be trusted and are as useful as a random person paying $20/mo.
FWIW, they see it - but interpret it as "Twitter being less biased" now, because from their POV, Twitter had a pro-liberal bias before Musk, and is now trending towards what they consider neutral.
When I asked Grok 4, two pages worth of answers were returned, including a table with columns for Threat, Reasoning, and Severity. The article is just plain wrong and fails the very fact-checking that it purported to do.