Yes, that’s my point. Losing money didn’t “influence” him.
No, I don’t think they’re going to bother finding the receivers, which is what I said?
Reading comprehension: it’s not for everybody.
Musk has lost a tremendous amount of money between X and his negative effect on Tesla sales. Do you feel this has “manipulated” him into being a better person? 🤣
His shit is also on the ground. Do you think the satellites beam an internet connection directly into a laptop or something? That said, finding and seizing the individual receivers seems unlikely. They’ve already instituted a hefty fine (equivalent to more a year’s average salary) for even using a VPN to little effect.
Beyond that, they’ve also threatened to seize all local assets/offices and emplacements if Starlink doesn’t comply. There’s several dozen as I recall.
Should we?
This is a hyperbolic article to be sure. But many in this thread are missing the point. It’s not that photo manipulation is new.
It’s the volume and quality of photo manipulation that’s new. “Flooding the zone with bullshit,” i.e. decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio, can have a demonstrable social effect.
Please leave anywhere near the airlock. Pls don’t ring or knock, dogs bark.
Fr. Imagine the expected tip.
You can practically hear him flop sweating and hyperventilating.
They just send up more food.
Yes, there is an irony that it’s typically the anti-capitalist left and the hyper-capitalist corporate right that are most supportive of open-border policies.
I’ve heard long climb for a short slide.
A mountain giving birth to a mouse? Is that a translation from another language? I’m not being critical, it’s just oddly specific and bizarre.
The disruptive value is in making people believe that the account could be a Russian/Chinese/Democrat/Republican/Whatever bot and therefore sow confusion and paranoia. The account is doing exactly what it is intended to do.
The only good response! 😄
Font of all knowledge sounds like an excellent font. I assume it’s serifed?
Read the development notes from the first years of any technology you use. The research you’re “referencing” is six years old at this point.
What’s next? You going to criticize an iPod Nano to make a point about the broken screen on your iPhone 8? Criticize Google assistant from 2019 to harangue OpenAI?
Look at what six years of development means: https://youtu.be/qTDlRLeDxxM?si=dFZzLcO_a8wfy2QS
This is an article from 2021 about a book researched in 2019.
🙄