valar_m

I'm fascinated by some of the comments in here, that the videos are "awful," "far from good," "embarrassing," etc.

This is technology that was unthinkable before just a couple of years ago. Photorealistic video generated by typing out a description of what you want to see is something from a sci-fi movie. I must be dreaming, this can't be real.

I took a screenshot in the middle of a video, and it's indistinguishable from a photograph: https://imgur.com/a/TyNbd7E

I don't know, maybe I'm just old. I remember hacking the hidden iframe trick to make ajax-style file uploads work in IE7. The advancements I've watched unfold in the past couple of years are still hard to wrap my head around.

I'm guessing you've never experienced the enormous pressure of needing to find a job to buy food and clothes for your family. That's good, I'm glad that you don't know that feeling. But if you did, you'd know how easy it could be for a person to start feeling more and more desperate for any kind of lifeline.

The goal should be to reach as many people, of course, but also to ensure that the method and medium of communication is in the interest of the public at large.

Who decides what communication is in the interest of the public at large? The Trump administration?

The positives you experienced are very possible for a homeschooled student as well, and this seems to be a common boogieman.

How do you do that? Seems like it would be impossible to replicate the experience of learning to navigate daily social interactions in a mixed group of people, especially when it comes to dealing with conflict.

But users like me who hate shorts so much that they want to disable them in the app aren't addicted to shorts because we refuse to open them. And there's no risk of me going to Tiktok or reels because I hate short-form video.

Why would a user who hates shorts so much that they want to disable them in the app be sharing links to shorts with their friends?

If a paying user want to disable shorts, wouldn't allowing that ability make it more likely they will continue to pay?

The reason I started paying for Youtube premium was to turn off the ads. I hate YT shorts and I get annoyed when I accidentally open one. If YT continues to shove shorts down our throats, I'll probably cancel my subscription because I hate shorts that much.

That seems extremely unlikely given the significant global economic impact of tariffs, and the comparatively microscopic effect of transgender athletic participation in the United States.

For example, when Kentucky passed their trans sports ban in 2022, there was a grand total of one (1) transgender high school athlete in the state[0].

I mean, it's almost laughable to suggest that any of those things are even near comparable to the potential long-term impact of historically unprecedented tariffs being thoughtlessly tossed around on a whim.

[0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trans-athlete-bans-fischer-we...

None of this changes the fact that mail-in voting in the United States is objectively and measurably secure, and that instances of fraud are so miniscule that claims of it having an impact on election outcomes are provably false.

Those are simply the facts.

Direct quote from the source you linked:

>It is unlikely that there has been a significant increase in electoral malpractice since the introduction of postal voting on demand in 2000; available figures suggest that 32 convictions were made from 1994–99. In both periods, the offences arose almost exclusively from local elections, and related to a tiny proportion of all elections contested.

Again, the facts are clear, but that doesn't stop the baseless fearmongering. A direct quote from your source:

>There is no evidence to date suggesting that electoral malpractice has occurred as a result of pilots of various forms of electronic voting. However, serious questions about the security of electronic voting from organised fraud remain unanswered.

It flatly concedes that no evidence of voter fraud from electronic voting exists, but then somehow concludes that serious questions remain unanswered. Simply absurd.

What do you mean? There is no evidence at all that Trump won by voter fraud.

This is an extremely poor analogy, and it doesn't change the objective fact that mail-in voting is provably, measurably secure.

What would your response be to someone who, hypothetically, might view this sentiment as some unsettling combination of elitist and vaguely authoritarian and then decides that maybe you shouldn't be voting? Would you be bothered by that?

Yes, I very obviously did because I explicitly referred to it in my comment.

Nothing in your comment changes the fact that you linked to an anonymously written article full of baseless speculation that relies on an anonymous Tumblr post that is also full of baseless speculation.

Not a single credible source in the entire mess of nonsense that you linked to. You should be embarrassed.

You believe that an anonymously written article full of baseless speculation that relies on an anonymous Tumblr post as its source is credible?

It would benefit you to educate yourself on how to evaluate the reliability of claims you read online. Here's a tip to help you get started: anonymously written online posts that rely on other anonymous posts should be considered with a very high degree of scrutiny.

Excel users can make mistakes, therefore Excel spreadsheets can't be audited? Is that your point?

Except that's not at all what the article is talking about:

But the tightwads I spoke with have very real agita—panic, guilt, stress—over their financial situation, even though there’s no real reason for them to worry. They drag around a phantom limb of poverty, burdened with the sneaking sense that something isn’t right, no matter what their bank account says.

Do you mind explaining what your comment means in layman's terms?

This is a textbook example of the typical response when someone gets their dog whistles called out. Plausible deniability is a key characteristic of dog whistles[0]. The first sentence is as predictable as the sun coming up tomorrow:

You are reading way too much into what I was saying.

Note also that he ignores every single point that I made in the post he is responding to. Not a single one is addressed. You see, he is nervous because he has been caught, and he is hoping to distance himself from the anti-Semitic venom he was previously so eager to spew.

My friend, since you did indeed ignore every point I made, why don't you take a shot at addressing some of them now?

Also, you never responded to my questions about the comment you made referencing some group of mysterious, powerful people that you seem to think are working in the shadows to attack Musk:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38440280

Btw, feel free to skip the part of your essay where you argue that AI is going to cause white people to lose their jobs to non-whites because it will soon allow them to perform jobs they were previously intellectually incapable of performing. I think we all get the gist, no need to go into it further:

The cognitively gifted have suddenly found their opportunities more limited if they are White or Asian

What will the world look like when all the unwashed masses each have their own 130+ IQ assistant in their pocket to help them with daily tasks?

(He really did say that: https://systemstops.substack.com/p/the-smart-apocalypse)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

When he talked about Stephen Gould, a widely read pop-sci academic, you zeroed in on his last name's "Jewish-ness".

Replying to this separately because I feel like you mischaracterized my point about Stephen Gould, and I think you're aware of that.

I did not simply zero in on his last name, as your comment says. I pointed out that the author directly links a Jewish person to having secret evil intentions and hidden political power:

These explanations have their merit, but I think they are too kind for assuming good intentions. Throughout human history, the powerful have sought to mystify the source of their power, whether it be through religion, divine mandate or royal inheritance.

By the way, did you notice that "divine mandate" line? Why don't you take a guess on that one, too.

What do you mean it didn't work on you? You're defending an article written by someone who promotes indisputably anti-Semitic conspiracy theories[0].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38439602

The account that posted the article also posted an explicitly anti-Semitic comment that promotes the conspiracy theory that Jews are secretly in control of the media[0]:

Uh, yes. Elon does not follow the program, and doesn't have the kind of pull Gates has, even though he's richer. Gates is the poster child for state initiatives. Elon is out on his own agenda.

Edit: Using Gates as an example. Check Media Matters' donors and get back to me. (Spoiler alert, tons of huge Jewish NGOs. Who did Elon piss off by correctly claiming had outsized influence, again?)

Does knowing that the author explicitly promotes anti-Semitism change your opinion? I'm also curious if this information changes your opinion that I'm reading too much into the article.

Edit: I linked the wrong one, there were two anti-Semites in the same thread. Here is the correct comment that was removed for violating HN policies:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38438884#38439602

Here is what it said (I had it open in another window before it was removed):

I wish people were a little more skeptical about the negative claims about Twitter/X in the press the last few days, knowing that Elon Musk has pissed off some very powerful people with his recent comments.

Different person, same anti-Semitism, same conspiracy theories being promoted.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38441058

As an aside: If someone reaches the correct answer for the wrong reasons, are they wrong? Personally, I'm pragmatic, and don't care how people reach my ideals on the proper treatment of people.

Forgot to respond to this part in my other reply so I'll just create a new one.

The entire purpose of the article is to promote anti-Semitic and racist ideas with thinly veiled dog whistles. The author isn't reaching the same conclusion as you at all - their intention is to promote hatred.

That's the whole point of a dog whistle - to promote hate and discrimination to those who would be receptive while maintaining some sliver of deniability.

It's frustrating to see that it worked so well on you in this particular case, but it's a good reminder of how effective dog whistling can be.

I'm going to operate under the assumption that you're replying in good faith and truly don't recognize the racist and anti-Semitic dog whistles all throughout the article. I'll highlight some of them for you.

Btw, if you aren't familiar with dog whistles, read this first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

Here is an anti-Semitic dog whistle that promotes the conspiracy theory that Jews control the media:

Working with journalists was an enlightening experience. There were some amazing people, but I found many to be arrogant and self-centered. It was frustrating to me that such people were the gatekeepers that millions of people got their news on the world through.

The uses of "arrogant" and "self-centered" are dog whistles for anti-Semitic tropes about Jews being elitists and selfish, respectively, and the part about them being gatekeepers of the news refers to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Jews control the media.

Here we have two dog whistles in one sentence:

I had gotten used to the fake politeness and backstabbing at the newspaper.

The "fake politeness" line is an anti-Semitic dog whistle intended to promote the idea of Jews being sneaky and untrustworthy. The word "backstabbing" is a dog whistle for the anti-Semitic Stab-in-the-back myth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth

Here is the author getting a little more explicit about what they're talking about:

After the 2020 “racial reckoning” we saw the rapid increase in new social policies based on this logic.

Here is another dog whistle where the author refers to a person with a traditionally Jewish last name, which they directly associate with having secret evil intentions and hidden political power:

In additional, activist public intellectuals such as Stephen J Gould sold a willing public on beliefs that were based less on science than egalitarian hopes and dreams.

These explanations have their merit, but I think they are too kind for assuming good intentions. Throughout human history, the powerful have sought to mystify the source of their power, whether it be through religion, divine mandate or royal inheritance.

I could go on, the article is absolutely full of racist and anti-Semitic dog whistles. Do you really not see them?

What's funny is that the line you thought you cherry-picked as a gotcha actually tells the story:

abandon the idea that the value of people lies in their attributes

For anyone reading, the "attribute" that the racist author is referring to is the intelligence of non-white people, which the racist author says is inferior to whites.

I can answer what they meant with "does not follow the program."

The person you replied to is an overt racist who promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Jewish people.[0]

The line "does not follow the program" is an anti-Semitic dog whistle. You should feel really good about yourself that you completely missed the hidden meaning and thought they were referring to billionaires.

Background on dog whistles if you're unfamiliar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38441058

Fyi everyone, this account promotes overtly racist[0] and anti-Semitic[1] content.

[0] https://systemstops.substack.com/p/the-smart-apocalypse

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=systemstops#38439602

When I say that they can't file a suit without making actual legal claims, I obviously meant that the suit would be dismissed. Anyone can go down to the court clerk's office and pay the fee to submit a court filing. There is no mechanism to review whether a filing is frivolous before it gets filed with the clerk.

So yes, my statement was correct, you just aren't familiar with how it works.

which you can do in courts that do not have anti-SLAPP rules in place.

No, this is incorrect. I believe you're unintentionally conflating two things. Not having an anti-SLAPP law just means that Media Matters won't have the luxury of quickly striking the complaint before having to respond to it.

It does not mean that vexatious litigants are free to file a lawsuit without making actual legal claims recognized by the courts.

Media Matters can (and will) still file a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, and will almost certainly prevail based on the clear deficiency of the complaint which doesn't even bother to cite the legal elements of the three claims it lists.

The lawsuit doesn't allege that Media Matters lied.

Incorrect. For example, from the complaint[0]:

As extensively explained above, these statements made by Defendant Media Matters were false.

Though to be fair, the lawsuit never bothers to explain how they're false or offer any actual evidence to that effect. It doesn't even attempt to cite the legal elements of any of the claims that are listed, nor does it establish any facts that one could even tangentially connect to the claims asserted.

I have a law degree (though I don't currently practice law). I doubt this lawsuit will survive a motion for summary judgment. I would even go so far as to expect that Elon/Twitter will probably be paying for Media Matters' attorney's fees for the utterly frivolous nature of the complaint.

[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.38...

The lawsuit doesn’t contend that the reporting is inaccurate, the complaint hinges on it being correct.

This seems contradictory. You're saying that the lawsuit doesn't say the report is inaccurate, but rather that it's not correct?

Is your comment based on a distinction between the words accurate/inaccurate and correct/incorrect?

Twitter is suing under the “who cares” and “shut up” doctrine.

You're saying that the lawsuit is meritorious, while conceding that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit? Am I missing something?