If the reason for leaving X is a 97% drop in impressions, explain moving to Bluesky and Mastodon where you'll get even less. The numbers argument is a fig leaf. This is an ideological decision dressed up as strategy, and that's fine -- just say that instead of pretending it's about data. As for "ad hominem" -- pointing out that the person making the decision has an advocacy background, not a growth background, isn't an attack. I am providing context for why a "data-driven" post reads like a manifesto.
So given this context and assuming it is accurate, where do you think would be the most viable areas to live? If I were to consider for the US, I'd say inland northern states like Wisconsin and Michigan thanks to the Great Lakes...
I noticed some odd things while watching the press conference. Pat Ryder had a potential Freudian slip and said that it was taken down because it "posed a threat to civili..." and he enunciated the "li" as if he were going to say "civilization," but he then paused and corrected himself to say "civilian."
Another odd thing was when Pat Ryder answered a question about why the President's decision to take down the object was necessary. Pat mentioned something like, "Presidents usually make decisions when certain threats in our airspace pose a danger to civilians on the ground."
It's extremely odd to me that they were able to identify the object by sending our own airmen to visually confirm it, but if that's the case, wouldn't they be able to definitively conclude that it wasn't a balloon? Pat kept it ambiguous and kept insisting that it was some sort of object.