HN user
Let's say you managed this. Say you designed trains and safety protocols for coupling/decoupling at 100mph, completely reconfigure the signalling system, solve the inevitable accessibility issues for embarking the fast train... You still have 100 tonne vehicles that need conflict management between different finite sets of steel rails. And all of those other things would need physical reconfiguration as well.
I find that when selling people on the idea of network upgrades, people find the solutions unintuitive because issues in one place are often caused by bottlenecks very far away. Half the North West and services as far as Scotland, Wales and East Anglia are stuffed because of a single mile of rail in central Manchester, so you have tell people in rural Derbyshire, "hey, Manchester needs more rail funding, it'll help you, promise". It will, but you have to know a bit about the whole network to understand why.
I was discussing railways to somebody and noting how at-capacity the British network is. He was adamant that we just hadn't optimised the system enough and that more maths and more software was needed. I tried my best to explain that we had in fact done that, and that in the end, there's no getting around the bottleneck of moving 100 tonne vehicles along a finite set of steel rails.
And like cookie clicker, once you're watching the number going up long term, it's hard for your mind to accept a point at which you have "enough".
It's why I prefer not to get bogged down in litigation over what counts as social media. It's far more productive to look at the individual mechanisms that make web platforms bad for socialising.
One of the most insidious aspects of social media is how the reward and discoverability mechanisms train users to become their own marketing department. It's most obvious on LinkedIn, where your presence is materially tied to career growth, but each platform does it in its own way.
So if they stumble into random niche subreddit because the algorithm suggested it or someone linked to it or it popped up in a search result, in two clicks they can be posting their own new posts or replies in that very niche community
I occasionally post on a regional cycling subreddit. It's the kind of sub where the average post gets maybe 5-10 comments and maybe 100 upvotes if it's popular, mostly people discussing commute routes, laughing about bad infrastructure, highlighting community events and so on. Sometimes a post makes it to the front page, and inevitably, this brings a lot of anger and direct, uninformed takes. It's usually because it's some dashcam of somebody doing something stupid, and that makes it very clickable.
Most importantly, modern platforms are optimised to maximise your attention and engagement, and nothing's more engaging than fear, anger and superiority. Your comment sorting algorithms find that the statements most reacted to are the most outlandish and direct.
This is quite a common linguistic phonomenon, where a word is rebracketed to form a new suffix, even if it doesn't make sense with the original etymology. See also -holic (alcoholic -> workaholic), -thon (marathon -> danceathon) or -gate (Watergate -> partygate). Termed a "libfix" from liberated affix
But I actually think the majority of the backlash has nothing to do with stock valuations.
I think it exacerbates the points you make. "You mean, you want to take all the IP, immediately force the tech on us, maybe make my job redundant, and you want billions in funding for it!?"
Somebody already linked 1053, but https://xkcd.com/2501/ also applies. When you're wrapped in an information bubble, it's easy to forget that this could be new, exciting/important information to people outside the bubble.
I really enjoyed her talk "Making Difficult Things Easy"[1]. She's got a real talent for taking complex technical subjects, recognising the difficulties in understanding them, and explaining them back in a friendly way that doesn't mystify them. Almost the opposite of the modern IT industry.
[1] https://jvns.ca/blog/2023/10/06/new-talk--making-hard-things...
In software too, it feels like there's been a shift to a more individualistic "learn-on-the-job" attitude in companies. If you're not the kind of person who knows how to structure learning a new field, it's easy to end up with big gaps when you don't know what you're looking for.
Another reason is that these routes operate an airfare model where all tickets are for a specific seat on a specific service, with increasing prices as the seats sell out. It allows for more efficient train loading, with the downside that you can't turn up to the station and assume you can take the next train.
AI is better at this than you
Software is better than me at crossword puzzles but that doesn't mean I'm going to optimise my time solving the weekly cryptic
Given all the arguments above this post, I don't think there's a lot of value in trying to categorise any particular website as a yes/no to "is this social media". All that achieves is people trying to litigate whether a site fits a definition nobody can agree on.
Much more effective is trying to identify the mechanisms by which a communication platform breaks social interactions. Is the feed sorted by engagement or chronologically? Does the platform encourage you to chase metrics? Does the default feed include content you didn't subscribe to? Are comment threads difficult to trace through?
For those who don't have the time to watch, the biggest point he hammers home: fossil fuels are a single use energy source; renewables keep producing energy.
So long as you've built the infrastructure and kept it maintained, the energy continues to come. With fossil fuels, you have to build turbines, then you have to remove it from the earth, then you have to ship it to said turbines, then you burn it and it's gone.
It's a challenge, but remember that there is a lot of money in trying to convince people about the status quo. I'd keep in mind the kind of tactics that fossil fuel companies will be using to convince people otherwise:
- Using old data - the price of renewables and storage technology have fallen through the floor but bad actors are quite happy to use outdated numbers to convince you that they're not cheap
- Ignoring existing downsides - renewables have issues and we shouldn't forget that, but it's easy to forget what we're replacing. e.g. Lithium mines are environmentally unfriendly, but you dig it out of the ground and turn it into a battery once (and bonus - it's recyclable). Oil and gas must be continually dug out of the ground and burned
- But China... - I don't think most people realise quite how quickly the rest of the world is pushing on with renewables
I've become a big fan of Simon lately. It's difficult to make videos about such a serious and all-encompassing topic without either falling into some combination of doomerism, misinformation, or apathy. He's got a real talent for bringing his expertise to a general audience, and I always come away from a video being clear about what the problem is he's talking about, why it matters but importantly how we deal with it (and how I can deal with it personally, without falling into the "only individual actions matter" trap)
I've read enough comments* on HN to know that there are different camps. Some people don't really enjoy the process of development and just want results. Meanwhile, telling me to automate away the problem solving aspect of software dev is like saying "you know you can just copy the answers to the crossword from the back of the book?"
*speaking of things I should be doing less of...
Regrettably, Linkedin doesn't let you begin your display name with an emoji any more. I always enjoyed/despaired at the many cold call recruitment messages coming in from obvious bots reading "Hi :beer:!"
Cars are a great example, because some parts of the world were so excited by the prospect of the automotive age that they bulldozed entire parts of their cities to make way for huge arterials and parking lots without looking closer at what they were throwing away.
"innovating misinformation vectors" and "might doom humanity" are far better descriptors for about every social network out there, or even the internet
I agree. And now I'm to trust the same people with even more money and control over global data dissemination? No thanks
To some extent, I also think the global mood around Silicon Valley has soured. I remember just starting university when Facebook was taking off in the UK, and there was genuine buzz and excitement around being able to keep up with all your old friends. Years marched on and we started to uncover all the problems with social media, and their carelessness around their own impacts to society, so most people I know who were excited in 2010 were desperately finding ways not to be there.
Now, a different handful of San Francisco companies are asking for lots of money to disrupt society, and I'm just not interested.
I see a few comments on here that read "why is everyone so ungrateful and hysterical about this exciting new technology?" And I don't understand why people are surprised by this. All a young person is going to hear is "We're disrupting the world, automating employment opportunities, automating art and other leisure, innovating misinformation vectors, and also we think this technology might doom humanity. I know we're from the same kinds of companies as the social media giants you already distrust, but still pls give billions of dollars thank"
The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) that organises Eurovision covers a larger range than just Europe. In theory, there's a bunch of Levantine and North African countries that could also take part (Morocco turned up in 1980, and Lebanon in 2005).
The more interesting question is why Australia is there, and that's because they were super fans who turned up as a one off in 2016. People liked having them around so they're permanent fixtures now
I'm in a similar place. The greatest luxury the money bought me was that last year, when my job was made redundant, I knew I had over a year before I had to start worrying financially (I found a new position shortly after my garden leave finished)
Most human brains just aren't very good at coping with abstract concepts. It reminds me of the Wason selection task[1]. You give participants a formal logic problem to solve, "how many cards do you have to turn over to show that the rules are being followed". If the rule is "a card with a vowel on one side _must_ have an even number on the other", people do very badly making illogical assumptions. If the rule is "one side has a bar order, and the other side has the age of the person making the order. The person must be above the legal age", it makes sense and people do well, because we understand bars, drinks and the laws thereof.
A timely recommendation, as the Mikkelsens were recently ordered to pay $1.5 million by the FTC for misleading customers
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/...
The point I was engaging with was how urban spaces can discourage certain kinds of transport users if their needs haven't been considered. If you get to your destination and have to hunt for a nearby fence post to lock your bike to, that's a bit of friction that makes me less willing to cycle. If I know there's a nice safe, quiet route for me to take, and a sturdy rack at my favourite cafe, it's a much easier decision.