> Fasting every single day for the rest of your life is not realistic and probably does more harm than good.
What evidence is there for this statement? What is considered "fasting?" I can't see how a 12-hour feeding window would be problematic. I could understand some people might develop "disordered eating" if their approach is unsustainable, but "more harm than good" isn't true for those that can do it.
One reason for fasting is that it improves insulin sensitivity.
"Based on this, researchers from the University of Alabama conducted a study with a small group of obese men with prediabetes. They compared a form of intermittent fasting called "early time-restricted feeding," where all meals were fit into an early eight-hour period of the day (7 am to 3 pm), or spread out over 12 hours (between 7 am and 7 pm). Both groups maintained their weight (did not gain or lose) but after five weeks, the eight-hours group had dramatically lower insulin levels and significantly improved insulin sensitivity, as well as significantly lower blood pressure. The best part? The eight-hours group also had significantly decreased appetite. They weren’t starving."
> I wonder how Tether getting broadly delisted would impact crypto prices.
No reason to think it affects prices at all. The exchange would offer a cash pair or other stablecoin pair. Most centralized exchanges are combining stablecoin pairs anyway to transparently offer one USD pair.
Tether is most often used as a pair on derivatives (ie perpetual futures). An exchange won't delist tether without having an alternative for perps.
The only reason anybody brings up this stuff is because of all the narratives people spin about tether.
> So the argument here is that if you have few followers or loads of followers then the ratio of views to likes don't matter
Ratio between 0.05% - 1% shows good engagement. I rarely see it above 1%. Those are 'viral' tweets. I've never seen 2% or more.
Ratio regularly dropping below 0.05% without lots of replies/retweets is bad. A low ratio could mean high views from bots (e.g. Musk) or other non-follower sources, so replies/retweets help to indicate there is healthy engagement. Cory doesn't have that.
> if you're in the middle with 480k it's very important and shows that you're out of touch if you only get 1%?
The 480k is his _potential_ reach.
You aren't entitled to reaching all 480k of your followers. They follow other people. Their feed has limited space.
Similar to how Youtubers tell people to subscribe AND enable notifications. Doing so shortcuts the algo. You can do the same on Twitter. If the small % of followers that see your tweets don't engage, the feedback loop of getting to more of your followers never kicks off.
This is obvious with well-liked accounts. More obvious when these types of accounts are private because the like/view ratio is a higher signal (ie no fly-by views).
> If only 1% of users at any level are really engaging with the platform then its fair to say the platform has a problem.
Not a problem. It's the nature of the beast. Only a small % engage. The likes create a feedback loop that gets more views, but rarely breaks above 1% likes/views ratio. You see the same limits to conversion rates in other areas (e.g. advertising or eCommerce sales).
> I'm pretty sure you could pick literally any account...
> All twitter users are like this.
That's the point. Cory isn't like all users. He has 480k followers.
The reality is very few of his followers engage with the tweets. He previously had engagement, he no longer has that engagement, and thinks Twitter is dying. It didn't help that he told his followers to go to mastodon.
I really think he doesn't play to the platform's strengths: succinct commentary. His whole career has been about long-form writing.
You picked the most extreme example of any account. I'd bet Elon gets a lot of hate-follows. They won't like his tweets. You can see many real people replying to his tweets, so you can tell he gets plenty of engagement.
For others without much engagement (retweets/replies), like Cory, all we have to go off of is likes, views, followers. I don't disagree that we can come up with a more accurate formula.
Click the three dots to modify or save the Advanced Search. The saved search stays in your search field for easy access.
You still get some of the good parts of the algo in the 'Top' section of the search results.
Lists are a really nice way to dampen the more noisey accounts. I haven't found a way to specify a list in the search results.
Also, you can follow a lot of relevant people, and then specify 'people you follow' in the search. Then if you search for a current event, you can get info from people you trust more.
I wouldn't trust Cory Doctorow's anecdotal evidence on Twitter usage. His Like/View ratio is very low, and overall engagement for someone with 486k followers is some of the worst I've seen.
Part of the issue is he spams his followers with retweets constantly, all day. People may not know they can turn off retweets for someone. They may just mute them, and continue to follow.
It's very much like Cory to write a long article about this when really what's happening is him and the people he follows are becoming more irrelevant.
In an attempt to make this a more productive comment, can you elaborate on what is an "honest way" to make a living in a way that is not "environmentally destructive?" I assume the "other people with 8 kids" are not Amish people selling produce at a farmer's market. Someone providing for 8 kids would likely have a car (maybe two), and go to a job in a building that uses electricity, right?
What about your leisure time? Xbox/Playstation? TV? PC/smartphone? Or are you somehow posting your comment via smoke signal or semaphore?
A Bitcoin dev has a higher threat profile than the average person. if only because it would be assumed he had many bitcoin in self-custody. Many things we do as a 'nobody' would get us compromised if our threat profile were a littler higher.
He made it worse by being so public, and hosting his own (publicly known) servers.
It doesn't seem like you've said anything backed by facts.
The number of employees in hospitals dropping at the start of the pandemic supports that hospitals were under extra stress.
Also, it's logical to assume that a crowded and understaffed hospital is a bad place to be when there's an airborne disease spreading. Hard to argue against suggesting people do everything can to stay home for two weeks to not get a new under-researched disease in those conditions.