• 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle






  • It came from a long time ago. See the power of people like Elon was being rich enough they could throw money at shit with little risk and also be rich enough to get smart people to do all the good shit.

    But he was the face of it all for a long time, people legit saw him as the person who brought in electric cars (yeah i know he wasnt) and thinking space x is the rival to NASA.

    Many people idolized him as a genius.

    Then he ruined it, and you know why? Because he opend his fucking mouth just like the podcast you’re talking about and many people saw him for the idiot he was.

    The problem? Elon himself believed the bullshit, he hinself thought he was a genius. And now hes trying to “run” things and its all falling to the ground. Because he never realized the only reason he had anything good was because of the actual smart people employed there.



  • he sold out too early

    I’m actually kind of interested in this point. Going public for many people is about the growth in the company. No one wants to put money in apple because its stocks are expensive. Its because they forsee it going up.

    But i thibk youre right he sold out too early. Peope are willing to invest because of the potential outcome of selling api data to ai companies. People are interested to hear the potential financial increase of api prices making more profit. People may be interested of the potential change of nfts or whatever to drive more money.

    But all of that has already happened, hes sold out all those items before the ipo. So i feel like a lot of people are like “what growth left is there?” And infact “is that growth negative going forward as users turn away or are hungry to jump ship if possible”

    Who knows though what will happen, maybe im entirely wrong.


  • What pisses me off even more is if you start saving too much stuff in your documents/desktop etc you start getting emails from microsoft that your drive is full and you have to purchase more storage (because your harddrive is likely much bigger then your free drive account).

    So I know quite a few elderly people who think they now need to pay money to unlock more memory on their computer to save more stuff.



  • It’s up to you, I haven’t touched the Linux community for a long time (only came back last week to fedora) so it may just be that I’m out of touch.

    When I was younger though, the biggest reason to change was because I wanted something different. If I was purely looking for playing games and homework I’d stay with Windows because it does work great for that and there would be no point to change.

    So the question is, what is it that grabs me onto Linux, and part of that is implied in your your graph, but part could be seen as these aspects.

    In saying that, I do get your point too, and for beginners it may be the better recommendation. In fact I may just be the outliner now that I think about it lol and maybe people don’t try to set up Gentoo “just coz the community said it’s hard and I took that personally” lol so an honorable mention may be better.








  • There’s a lot of different views, many with some truths to it. I’ll try to give an answer but please take into account my answer is quite bias too.

    The question, unlike the title of the article, the actual vote is on

    whether the Constitution should be changed to include a recognition of the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

    The problem is, how exactly or what exactly is an Aboriginal/Torres strait Islander voice. It’s not like Australia is voting to not give these groups voting rights like many articles seem to suggest.

    It’s about what does this voice mean, do they have the power over government, can they stop laws, does it even help, whose even in it?

    And there is no answer real answer, most answers I see are “it’s about creating a voice” or “we want to see Aus support before putting into action” etc (this may have changed later but that was the initial info I was getting), so you basically asked the Australian people to vote into changing the consitution on a potential something? Which for many feels like a permanent change or an unknown thing.

    So all the no side had to do was be like “oh if you don’t know, then best to err on the safe side and vote no”. “Who knows what this could do”. “You can always wait and change it later”.

    Imo the votes would have been very different if it instead just asked “would you like to see an Aboriginal / Torres strait Islander voice in government” and not touched the constitution. Or if they just made the voice/team/group and showed Aus how helpful it was before asking them to change the consitution.

    And (I’m prob showing more bias here) if the yes side didn’t just call everyone racist who looked at the no vote (which I believe many are swing voters), it couldve provided enough time/listening to make changes to the argument that would change the voters. For example if they made it clear that it would just be used to support better decision making and help understanding etc. Though I can’t be too harsh when many of the no side arguments felt objectively like lies.