Replying to @⁨bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works⁩

Edit: See comments below

You know, I 100% agree with your assessment of Musk. It’s just that you’re saying this about something that Musk has nothing to do with except actively opposing it. The subheader:

Judge hasn’t ruled on X Corp’s preliminary injunction, but Operation Bluebird plows ahead

It’s such trivial, basic etiquette to read beyond the headline before commenting on the article you’re supposed to be discussing. I’m really sick of wading through comments by lazy assholes who’ve spent more time vomiting out their gut reaction to the headline than just sitting down and reading for 30 seconds.

Reddit was bad about this, but Lemmy is somehow fucking next-level.

  • The headline itself is already clear this isn’t Musk’s. Why would the new Twitter be saying Musk gave up the name if it were run by Musk?
  • Even if it wasn’t (it is), the subheader is abundantly clear.
  • Ars is a solid, well-written source with a good reputation for not wasting waste your time with churnalism or clickbait.

Just running through some common excuses people who refuse to read use to shift their profound, utter laziness onto anyone but themselves.

Replying to @⁨bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works⁩

I was referring to how stupid he was for changing the name of an insanely popular household term.

Okay. I un-downvoted, but I think you should consider rewriting, because right now, it reads like you’re calling the new Twitter a Musk grift. That’s not just me; the second-top comment seems to be referring to your comment but politely not mentioning it by name.

As for the grift part, it’s complicated, because on the one hand, it was a bald-faced grift going in where he meant to manipulate the stock market (his repeated attempts to back out prove that). But on the other, having to complete that deal meant he gained control of one of the largest social media networks in the world. And he’s clearly been using that to political ends that are hard to qualify but probably – given the extreme worldwide rise in right-wing authoritarianism – fairly successful.

(Assuming it made a difference getting Trump into office, that $44 billion is probably well paid off through political corruption alone.)

For context for future readers, current comment is just:

“Genius businessman” mmhm. Total grift. Idiot. In any other world he’d be living in a trailer park with trump flags all over his truck, working at Walmart yelling at brown people.

Replying to @⁨n4ch1sm0@piefed.social⁩

yea… that’s pretty much all Thunderfoot posts about nowadays… he hella fell off, for multiple reasons. But like, a decade ago he used to talk about scam kickstarters, atheism, interesting science topics, etc. And then in those debunking science videos he would bring the math and receipts that made it fun to watch… But then in the past 5 years it’s just been Elon… nearly every video is about Elon. It’s obsessive.

And tbf, that’s not the only ick around Thunderfoot. I mean, he did kinda get his start during the Anti-SJW culture war shit doing anti-femisist ragebait videos. Basically occupied the same spaces as Sargon, Bearing and GradeAunderA… and he’s never really “grown” out of that, or addressed it, let alone apologized for it. He harps on Elon, and sometimes Trump/AlexJones/StevenCrowder but he’s never really talked about how he and his ilk helped bring them about.

Replying to @⁨SailorFuzz@lemmy.world⁩

His latest video was exploring ‘anti-baking soda’ as a potential novel way to do CO2 capture at scale.

youtube.com/watch?v=fvxNmStSC3M

He also ‘got his start’ before Anti-SJW youtube was a thing. His first series that popped off, back in the day, the day being 2008ish, was "Why do People Laugh at Creationists?'.

I don’t know that he ever … explicitly collabed with Sargon or any of those guys, but yeah he did exist in roughly the same genre-space, around the GamerGate era of i dunno, 2013 to 2015, ish?

While he has covered Elon a lot, thats because he started calling bullshit on Elon’s nonsense since way, way before that was common… he’s been tooting his own horn a bit, following around 10 years of Elon’s trolls telling him he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and well, it turned out he did.

He literally has a personal grudge against Elon Musk.

For all his faults, he is one of the oldest, OG youtubers, since damn near day 1, who is also still around, and hasn’t imploded.

His first vid is 19+ years old, so, 2007ish, and its calling out GWB as a war mongering liar.

All that being said, if you want a more recent youtube channel thats basically just mostly been tearing Musk to shreds, with science: Common Sense Skeptic.

By ‘more recent’ I mean they’ve only been around for 5 or 6 years, I think.

YouTubeHow "Anti-Baking Soda" Might Stop Climate Changeby Thunderf00t

Replying to @⁨SailorFuzz@lemmy.world⁩

A surprising number of people do not understand how getting rich works. Literally anyone can do it. You simply need to do whatever everyone else refuses to do.

You take on the risks. You debase yourself you compromise any and all ethics. You whore out for shareholders who will give you endless money to shield them from consequences they directly funded.

It’s profitable because there is always demand for a new villain and damn near nobody wants to do it. For a good fucking reason.

Replying to @⁨muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works⁩

You seem to be mistakenly conflating getting rich with increasing wealth. Just about nobody gets rich. Many people leverage their existing wealth to gain more. Frequently, that exchange is the start of what is now defined as enshitification.

Everyone cannot do it. Fundamentally its easy: Have money and pick something to middleman. Waste capital until you ‘disrupt’ that flow. ???. Maybe profit. Who the fuck cares? You got yours. Repeat.

Simple: have wealth. Easy.

Step one is have money to make money. Aside from being the result of two wealthy people fucking… care to detail how so many people are checking that box?

Certainly - there ARE paths to wealth… but they are rare, risk heavy, and frequently are destined to be prey to a resource rich competitor.

Replying to @⁨NaibofTabr@infosec.pub⁩

I’m hearing ‘once you have money do…’

Care to tell me where that gullible userbase is coming from? Pray, tell - what do they come for?

Before that is even a factor you must either be first - with research and development … and manufacturing… and distribution… or better. Or cheaper! Or able to undercut the competition.

Of the things mentioned… I seem to be struggling to find the element lacking a substantial financial investment.

Replying to @⁨yggstyle@lemmy.world⁩

Care to tell me where that gullible userbase is coming from?

They’re not all gullible. A lot of VC types are obsessive gamblers, they’ll throw money at anything that sounds like it might have a high return.

Pray, tell - what do they come for?

That’s where the marketing comes in. Elon is pretty good at selling these big ideas, making them sound futuristic and world-changing. He not only sells those ideas to VCs, but also to the government. A lot of his businesses have pulled in substantial government contract money. The public rarely gets any return from those tax dollars.

Replying to @⁨NaibofTabr@infosec.pub⁩

VC won’t give you the time of day if you lack a product or platform. This isnt go-fund-me or r/wsb. VC appear to bet big but are frequently pretty well informed and diversified. Their big bets aren’t much from their prospective… and frequently will be the first to squeeze “their due” from a failing venture.

I dont see how Elon makes a good example for this. If anything it supports what I said:

Elon is wealthy. He has a platform. He has shit he’s bought and is reselling snake oil from those things. He’s not poofing something from nothing.

Replying to an earlier post

Are we sure it’s not mostly still bots on Twitter? I deleted my account back then and have not been back.

At least, not willingly back, since some people still hyperlink to Twitter directly rather than just sharing screenshots of whatever the content was. So you click the text hyperlink thinking it’s to a web article, only for it to bring you to some random string of tweets visibly displayed in the least logical order.

Replying to @⁨mrmisses@lemmy.world⁩

Edit: it cost $20 to join?! I’m out

They probably need the money to pay for their AI-based “fact-checking”:

A new and notable feature is the automated fact-checking tool, a Gemini-based “veracity engine for real-time analysis” (“Vera” for short), which runs on every tweet.

Using a technology that’s known for making shit up, for fact-checking, is so dumb, but it will probably bring in investors because AI.

Replying to an earlier post

Priceless

However, in an April 2026 hearing, US District Court Judge Colm Connolly gave a tentative ruling from the bench that X seemed to have given up intellectual property claims over the word “tweet” and the Twitter bird logo—and possibly even on the word “Twitter” as well. The judge has yet to issue a written order.

For Coates, who serves as Twitter’s new general counsel and previously worked in the same role during the pre-Musk era, the judge’s words were enough to serve as a green light.

Replying to @⁨carotte@lemmy.blahaj.zone⁩

“Veracity engine for real-time analysis” (“Vera” for short)

Sounds like normal human speech

I can give a lot of benefit of doubt to independent open source projects feeling vibecoded or ai assisted, I’ve had to partly try and get into it myself because the job market currently just demands showcases for that in the portfolio.

But the moment they ask money and get corporate, all bets are off. Fuck that. When it becomes “serious” like that, it should also be serious in how it’s built and presented. And gating something built using a tool trained on public corpus and the shared knowledge of the humankind, in good and bad, behind closed source and payments is exactly the kind of shit that makes it feel wrong too, not just embarrassing or questionable.

At this point I’ve had to accept some ai use in development is unavoidable when looking at cool projects, I use a tui editor called fresh that smells absolutely vibecoded, but it actually is decent and in my experience best in class for non-modal. So I am starting to feel less and less embarrassed or suspicious as a gut reaction, when I see one, and more inquisitive if I am interested, otherwise just move on without extra feelings about it. Unless it’s obvious slop that is. There are tiers to that shit too.

But if it’s closed source and paid for, it just feels lazy, embarrassing and actively annoying to me…

Replying to @⁨mobyduck648@lemmy.world⁩

Yes, it’s relevant in this day and age, because it’s still incorrect to do it the other way (at least in English and with $£¥ and a couple others, as another commenter pointed out).

When I read “20$” my first thought is that the person writing it didn’t pay attention in elementary school.

And being lenient about it on the web leads to the behavior leaking into the real world on things like shop signs.

Don’t even get me started on people who (mostly IRL) write things like “0.99¢” which makes me want to give them a cent and tell them to keep the change.

Replying to @⁨some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org⁩

A new and notable feature is the automated fact-checking tool, a Gemini-based “veracity engine for real-time analysis” (“Vera” for short), which runs on every tweet.

Bwahahahaa

Really? The Gemini that got Google sued and found liable for the misinformation it spread? That’s who you wanna trust to check for “veracity”?

I’m not paying a $20 entry fee into a walled garden that wastes energy and water to have a text processor guess whether my arrangement of words resembles its training material closely enough.

WIREDA Court Has Ruled That Google Is Liable for False Statements Generated by AI OverviewsThe ruling holds that a company that designs, trains, operates, and manages an AI system must assume legal liability for any damages caused by the responses it generates.

Replying to @⁨luciferofastora@feddit.org⁩

I like using AI for coding (no, I don’t blindly commit massive features), but any time I ask it questions that don’t have super clear-cut answers obvious to the layman from a quick google search, it tends to give “good enough” answers which are actually “nowhere near”.

Go ask it (well, really, google search) something to do with tuning an Audi 3.0 tdi ASB or BMK engine and it’ll think you have a nice Garrett turbo that’s easy to build hybrids from and a weak CP4 pump that can implode on you and take out the entire fuel system… Whereas you actually have a weak ass BorgWarner turbo that can’t support bigger internals and a super strong CP3 pump because it was shamelessly using forum threads about the newer versions with the 4 digit codes (CDYA, CASA, etc) as the source.

These are the things you easily know when you’ve either read a lot of forum threads, or peeked under the hood of one of these engines. But most AI tools’ web search tends to just look at the first threads it finds and deem that good enough.

Replying to @⁨boonhet@sopuli.xyz⁩

It’s a text generator that strings together plausible word sequences. It doesn’t actually understand what an engine or a turbo is beyond the contexts and constellations in which those words frequently occur. It has no reliable way to tell which parts of the prompt are technically critical and need to match exactly.

In that way, it’s not too different from laypeople like me: I have no idea about turbos and pumps either. I still might figure out that I need to check for the specific model and engine, but without knowkng exactly what I’m dealing with, chances are I might end up trusting the same (wrong) results.

I would assume if you include the keywords BorgWarner and CP3 pump, the more specific context might bias the probability space of likely answers towards more relevant results. That makes it a potentially useful assistant for people who already have that level of expertise and are just looking for specific answers on particular cases… except you’d still have to read the actual sources to make sure.

Basically, it could serve as a more sophisticated search engine for natural language, an iteration on previous query processing and correlation technologies. If I don’t need to remember the exact wording or sender of a mail about a specific topic, a model trained on the terminology might pick out rough matches based on related words without needing to get the exact keywords right.

Frankly, I think that’s the most sensible application of LLMs: find sources, not facts. Using it for fact checking is like skating on a recently frozen lake where you can’t tell which parts are solid enough to carry you and which ones will suddenly break.

Replying to @⁨luciferofastora@feddit.org⁩

Ah but the thing is, the sources it finds are themselves wrong. They’re talking about different things. If it finds the right sources, the information is most likely pretty good.

It’s entirely possible that this could still be tuned somehow, but the way it is now, I wouldn’t trust anything that comes out of it unless I know enough to verify the output myself, meaning it’s pretty useless to laymen (which is whom a “veracity” bot would be for)

Replying to @⁨boonhet@sopuli.xyz⁩

Ah but the thing is, the sources it finds are themselves wrong. They’re talking about different things. If it finds the right sources, the information is most likely pretty good.

That’s what I was trying to get at, yeah: The word-correlator can’t tell the difference because it can’t tell which part of the prompt is critical for the difference. It also can’t judge whether the sources themselves are accurate about the things they’re actually talking about. It find sources that seem related, then aggregates some likely response from those sources and spits it out. By its own metrics and limitations, that has to be “good enough” (but as you say, may be wildly wrong).

My suspicion is that adding more specific terms to the prompt may increase the textual “distance” between the fitting results and the irrelevant ones, thus tilting the source selection towards the more accurate match, but that requires you to know those specific terms in the first place.

It’s entirely possible that this could still be tuned somehow

With a general model? I doubt it.

A subject-specific model could probably be tweaked to recognise particular tokens and assign them more weight. Depending on the subject, you might be able to add pre-processing logic to crossreference certain keywords (like model and engine type) with some objective database (like a table describing which pumps a given motor might have, if that makes sense?).

You could also pick the training material more diligently to ensure you only have qualified, reliable sources for that subject. That would require a lot of work, since you also need enough material for the model to be representative.

And you’d have to do that for every specialised field out there.

I wouldn’t trust anything that comes out of it unless I know enough to verify the output myself, meaning it’s pretty useless to laymen (which is whom a “veracity” bot would be for)

Hit the nail on the head there. For all we know, it’ll “correct” facts by doubling down on common misconceptions.

Replying to an earlier post

These guys are a bunch of morons. All of the comments here are proving as to why.

  • Associates with AI
  • Wants money to use it
  • Doesn’t factor that Twitter might not entirely be available after all
  • Uses Musk’s other imprints, like Grok, on it which may subject them to fail
  • More centralized social media is not what we need

I’ll give it a few months before they actually are sued into oblivion, to which they’ll have the biggest pikachu shocked faces possible.

Replying to @⁨brucethemoose@lemmy.world⁩

I’m not claiming Twitter is great.

But this is obviously going to fail, always was obviously going to fail. It’s a PR stunt, nothing more.

Twitter will sue them, they’ll settle for giving up the name and some token fine, and hopefully they’re on the map. Or, their hail mary long shot will pay off and they’ll get to call themselves twitter in which case holy shit they’re golden. That’s the strategy.

It’s stupid- they’ll lose in court and I doubt whatever they offer is more compelling than what’s already out there.

Replying to @⁨SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today⁩

This is more akin to Disney saying, “We hate mice! Disney is now a chain of casinos and we’re rebranding to 🅱️!”

Could almost be similar to the situation that forced Musk to buy Twitter in the first place, because he of course tweeted that Twitter would never be Twitter again and they were ‘getting rid of the bird’”.

There are more details in the article and older articles linked as well.

Replying to @⁨Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it⁩

The AT Protocol was open from the start. It’s not the issue and is actually rather clever in parts, in my limited understanding.

The issue has more been that there was no way to run another server than the main one at first, and then that you could but it couldn’t interoperate. I understand this is now something of the past, but I don’t think I’ve ever come across a link to a bluesky post that wasn’t on bsky.app.

Looking a bit into it, it looks like all you need to do is host a Personal Data Server (PDS): github.com/bluesky-social/pds?tab=readme-ov-file#…

Replying to @⁨axx@slrpnk.net⁩

PDS is just one part of the whole thing. It’s just the place where your data is stored. Almost all other parts of the network are dependent on Bluesky’s stack. Even the alternatives like Blacksky and Eurosky are still dependent of Bluesky’s implementations like the Appview. So if Bluesky goes down, it affects the other services (in some way) too. One can host a PDS for cheap, but if you want a proper social media service (with post history, search etc), it is kind of expensive. There are other appviews, but for some reason Bluesky going down causes issues in Blacksky, Eurosky etc

Replying to @⁨Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it⁩

Mastodon has a cultural problem… too woke, too many queers and freaky people, autistics, and activitists shilling for lame causes or selling (needless, silly) things. In the real world these people are 3-5% of the population. On the Fediverse, they are 75-90% of the population. Not a place that the other 95-98% of the population really wants to be. The mentally ill, each one given a bullhorn.

Replying to @⁨Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works⁩

Don’t just look at the company profits. After Musk bought Twitter, Trump won and Musk gained direct access to the government. I think, that’s a pretty good return on the investment.
But most importantly: Elon now has his own big media company. No longer are the other rich guys ridiculing him because he doesn’t have his own media empire. He’s now a real full member in the club.

Replying to @⁨Zedd_Prophecy@lemmy.world⁩

But spend more money? $8 on that piece of shit “X” site. Fucking joke show.

But you can pay $20 for the premium instantaneous social media aggregate algorithm site! You’ll get all the top paid for profit sponsored posts first before anyone else! Just imagine retweeting your friends minutes before they see this million dollar donated Pepsi ad that is collaborating with Oreo! Whooooaaaaaa! You’ll be the most popular person in your friend group for 15 seconds! But make sure you share first or else you’ll be ostracized by everyone because you didn’t pay an extra $9.99 for ultra fast retweet privilege!

Replying to @⁨some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org⁩

The site looks vibe coded. It’s possible they just bought the trademark, quickly set up a site and hope to capitalize on the reputation of former Twitter.
The $20 and $40 early access certainly makes it seem like it. Even if that isn’t the case, time has shown that centralized social media has flaws so idealists will just stay with Mastodon while the people that want a large user base and easy of use will just use BlueSky instead. IMO there is no market aside from a possible gofundme-invention type exit scam.