Under your logic, the internet never should have existed. In the video, bill gates says you can watch sports. Letterman says you can do that with television. Bill gates says you can watch it on demand. Letterman says you can do that with a tape recorder. And there isn’t really anything bill could say in that moment that letterman couldn’t have retorted. And you’re letterman and I’m bill. The answer is in the nuances and unfortunately it doesn’t sound very convincing. If Facebook offers longform video, why does everyone use YouTube? If they offer longform text then why does everyone use sub stack? The difference between Facebook and twitter is that Facebook sucks. Twitter has unfragmented leadership, bureaucratic agility, and a cleaner and more straightforward monetization scheme which will lead to vastly fewer bots and spam. It also doesn’t censor people for trivial bullshit. Overall it’s much more fit and will threaten not only Facebook but YouTube, substack and others.
Tell me how David letterman was wrong and I’ll tell you how you’re wrong. You got triggered by my comment and went through my post history. That’s pathetic
Steam killed big half-life mods. Essentially, by keeping all the clients up-to-date (by force) with no way to go back, they forced all the clients past where they'd released the SDKs for...
I remember when steam came out people absolutely lost their shit. They rallied against it hardcore because they wanted complete control and ownership of their games. The single image that sticks in my mind is an animated gif someone made of the steam logo, two connecting rods, cycling back and forth like one of those mechanical fucking machines, fucking a guy in the ass. It was the same kind of juvenile vitriol that is currently on display. Imagine those people had been successful, and they might have been. Steam is beloved by everyone and is a huge and important part of gaming today. And why couldn’t those people just have an open mind about it? Why couldn’t they see past their own noses?
Bordering on dysfunctional internally? Do you have any evidence to support that? Real evidence, so that we aren’t thrashing in a sea of conjecture, speculation and politics. People confidently predicted that twitter would grind to a halt a month or two ago… the rumor gained momentum and everyone was saying it. And it turned out to be nonsense. If people actually required a little evidence before believing things instead of playing make-believe like you then it would save people from looking really stupid and wasting their time with vapid rumors.
You believe that there will never be embedded tweets again because twitter is going to charge an unknown amount of money for their API? You have musk derangement syndrome dude
This actually holds true. Email as a way to keep in touch is def not mainstream. Everyone uses Facebook, WhatsApp. Services that are much more streamlined and consumer oriented. And centralized… I think it demonstrates my point.
I’m looking forward to twitter. When they start hosting video in a serious way and also long documents that will be very interesting. I think it’s ironic because all the people defiantly switching to a decentralized platform are just making twitters success more inevitable by drawing attention to platforms that will fail regardless rather than one of twitters serious competitors. The real decentralized system has been in front of us the whole time: the market. Only nerds will ever use federated, decentralized systems, only nerds will ever accept the trade offs that come with them. Regular people don’t act on principle, especially on things they don’t know anything about. Centralized platforms like twitter will continue to dominate because huge numbers of people will use them and feed them with the breath of life.
I’ve been a google maps user for ten years and I tried Apple Maps recently and it’s way, way better. Google maps has always had a million little problems that annoy the shit out of me. It will take you down a road that is totally inappropriate, one lane and hasn’t been maintained for decades.
Because they haven’t reversed aging in this experiment and the partial reversal they did achieve was using tools that already exist. The point of the experiment was to prove that epigenetic information loss is the cause of aging. The next step is to figure out how to completely reverse epigenetic information loss.
I’ve been looking at these headlines for 13 years with science literacy. I’ve become jaded as well. But this is the real deal. The idea that epigenetic model of aging is different in mice than any other mammal is so off base that it’s not even worth considering. This is nothing like those experiments that show apricots reduce cancer by 2% in mice — highly subject to mouse physiology with negligible results. Whatever animal they apply this cleaving to will display the same results, namely accelerated aging by every metric… this is massive and groundbreaking. Anyone who has any biochemistry literacy should know that
They did an experiment that makes mice appear old and be old by every metric we know of. Frailty, organ degradation, everything. And they did this with a specific mechanism. This is literally the most important step in solving aging that has ever happened. There is a high probability that we have discovered the cause of aging. Nobody gives a shit? Was it even in the news? A post on the front page about teslas crashing has 2000 comments and there’s a few people in here and only to move the goalposts? What the hell is going on?
I don’t buy it. Cancer that is screened eventually will present. It doesn’t change the amount of cancer that presents. Again, this changes survival but not diagnoses. People who abstain from living in the modern way almost never get cancer or diabetes. Is this because they aren’t being screened? The explosion doesn’t correlate to change in screening methodology. Yes, people who ignore the simple facts are parasites. Like with the recent breakthrough in epigenetic aging, for decades the theory of mutation based aging dominated despite the clear and simple fact that there was contradictory evidence. For decades we had to put up with the amyloid theory of Alzheimer’s even though the plain and simple fact was that there were people without Alzheimer’s who had plaques and there were people with Alzheimer’s who didn’t have plaques. The reason why billions of dollars were spent on the wrong solutions and the reason why millions of people have suffered and died prematurely for no good reason is people like you who glom onto whatever is the least painful thing to believe. Whatever liberates you the most from accountability. No, it’s not anything we are doing, it’s just data anomalies and we are totally helpless. The same doom worship that is responsible for every global warming advocate getting really glassy eyed and avoidant whenever you start to discuss actual solutions rather than just rave about how utterly screwed we are. People don’t want solutions they want to resign to their helplessness. So yeah you are part of the problem in my opinion. You just want to resign to the fact that cancer is totally beyond our ability to comprehend or do anything about it. And you ignore these insane data points that demand to be scrutinized and made sense of because it would interrupt your world view.
Cancer rates for each age have exploded, not just total cancer rates. Cancer rates for cancers that were known and diagnosed well before 1970 have exploded.