ridaj

Then more bots come in undetected and you have to rebase again when you find them. It's a continuous process. You need very understanding investors to pull this off. At the same time there's only so long you can sweep inauthentic engagement under the rug until someone calls you out for it.

As a tentatively more minimalistic explanation, the musical ear perceives specific geometric relationships between frequencies as strong stimuli, and a major chord consists of simultaneously striking frequencies x, x times the cube root of 2, and x times 3/2.

Why should we believe that the author's perceived value signaling by some class of society (which is debatable already in a somewhat puritanical society) is the primary responsible for other adults' behavior? This seems so infantilizing. The poor do have agency too.

A nudging system like this better have a much higher signal to noise ratio otherwise it really amps up the clippy-like annoyance. Keep in mind this isn't something you have to go turn on in a menu for "help me write inclusively", it's enabled by default for all; and while I might personally appreciate the reminders when they do work, I'm not sure as many users of the software think playing word police should be a priority.

What about when the landlord is a company? Or an actual man in fact? We're going from unnecessarily gendered to unnecessarily neutered word.

Human bladder range can already be extended 10x by the use of Gatorade bottle technology.

And revenue will shrink accordingly. If that's his plan, he's right that it can only happen in a private company. Otherwise the resulting revenue deceleration will send Twitter into a stock price self-fulfilling tailspin as stockholders start seeing it as a doomed platform.

The cost of actually administering fairness in elections (maintaining voter rosters, verifying identities, preventing double-voting and providing public auditability while ensuring voter anonymity, prosecuting fraudsters...) is quite high compared with what an ad-supported global platform can afford. Just look at how tough it's been for Twitter to kick out inauthentic actors, eg Russian troll farms or spam bots. Spending more resources on botfighting is difficult from Twitter's standpoint since it doesn't by itself drive revenue or engagement, and they are fighting determined permanent attackers, some even state-funded.

Speaking of, the primary revenue feed for Twitter is advertising, which directly competes with fairness and transparency goals: ad business is predicated on the idea that more $ = more speech, regardless of the intrinsic value of the speech; and since there is no practical way to know where the $ came from, it does an end run around transparency goals.

That would also get rid of users. It's pretty clear that chronological ordering is non-optimal for engagement in a feed system.

You can put Gboard on your iPad

Well, open source volunteering is a form of anti-capitalistic political activism to begin with. This is just adding a geopolitical angle to it, but all FOSS is political already. When you depend on an open source project, you depend on the politics of that project as well.

The more I hear about Stephen Wolfram's schemes to name things after Stephen Wolfram, the more admirative I grow of Nicolas Bourbaki and wished he were publishing amazing math software these days.

Yes this is a more plausible example of needed regulation to align capitalistic incentives on societally beneficial outcomes (vs cat UTI research)

> Putting aside cats, there are plenty of diseases that impact humans which don’t get researched enough due to very rare, e.g. <1 in 100 million people.

Sure, and is that a problem? Should we as a society not apportion medical research spend to the most impactful areas? I'm curious to what extent the misalignment of incentives is due to capitalism as opposed to the actual need being lopsided

> It’s certainly a very big need to the people who suffer from or are dying from rare problems.

I totally agree. At the same time society cannot put all of its resources in support of very rare cases at the expense of common issues of similar seriousness