At SpaceX, Tesla, and other companies he hired industry experts.

At SpaceX and Tesla his direct reports have isolated him from having any major impact on the rest of the company. Twitter had no such luck.

On the other hand this seems really strange to me and it just seems so insane to think that Reddit would even think of doing this.

Have you read about any of Spez's interviews? This feels entirely like something they would do. Don't forget, reddit was originally populated with bots.

Pretty easy, honestly. You tell him what he wants to hear, you don't tell him what he doesn't want to hear, and you make decisions that are best for your people. If everyone that reports to him behaves like that, he will have very little influence on the company.

Musk is a raging narcissist. He just wants to be told that he's the smartest, funniest person alive.

And yet the percentage of the population that lives in poverty has dropped by more than half.

Funny how that works.

Uh, no. It was reddit that made reddit shitty.

Yeah, my understanding is at SpaceX they've done a good job of isolating him, at Tesla a not great job, and obviously at Twitter nobody's even tried.

Ah, damn. Should've figured it was too good to be true if she was posting it.

For what it's worth, LibsOfTikTok's already getting slapped by Threads's moderation.

Of the top 10 posts currently on my front page, 2 are about the Fediverse, 1 is about Kbin specifically, and the other 7 are completely different topics including politics, space, video games and art.

Maybe you should look for magazines/communities other than /m/fediverse if you want to talk about things other than the fediverse.

One of Dubya's biggest selling points was that he was "someone you could have a beer with".

So no, the people that vote for those kinds of people don't want someone smarter than themselves. They want someone like themselves.

That was actually a part of Hilary's trouble too: people just didn't like her on a personality level, so they didn't vote for her.

Fact: there are double the number of people in the country after than there were before.

Fact: social status tends to have generational inertia.

Specious: "misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive."

It's absolutely specious, because you're somehow suggesting those policies failed because the absolute number of individuals went up, disregarding the fact that had those policies not been in place, the number would've been double what it is.

And I said at best, because it's far more likely you're just trolling. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's work through this.

If a family in poverty that's 2 people, has 3 children, that's now 5 people.

If this is the only family that exists, 100% of people are in poverty. If one of those children winds up getting out of poverty, you've gone from 2 people in poverty, to 4 people in poverty. However, you've gone from 100% poverty to 80% poverty.

And you're saying that's a failure.

No, I'm pointing out that your argument is specious at best.

This, definitely. Reddit's always had an "Other Discussions" button in posts, and I've actually found a lot of good small subs over time from clicking through and reading comments in other subreddits.

I won't touch Google products anymore. I had GPAA. It was amazing. They butchered it to make YouTube Music.

You call it "Gaslighting: The Game", I call it "My Childhood in a nutshell".

Think about the ramifications of that.

I also sign into Outlook.com with my Gmail account. It has its own inbox, which is weird, but hey.

I thought it was funny.

Nah, like the other guy said, it's just OAuth. It's silly that they even let you do it, but hey, it is what it is.

Again: because there's more PEOPLE than there has ever been. Yes, there is more suffering. I have no idea what you expect, the political climate is such that we can't just eradicate their suffering. But to pretend like these policies are a failure is going to cause more suffering. How do you not see that?

That 20% is the number that aren't suffering because of these policies. If you were to remove them, that 20% is the added suffering you are causing.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not.

Have they accomplished everything they set out to? Absolutely not.

Are they failing? Absolutely not.

I mean, what is an acceptable number of people living in poverty to you and when are there too many? Is it a percentage? Or is it a real number of real people?

See, in my world, percentages are real numbers of real people. I know, that's crazy. And I'm not going to pretend like there's some number that's acceptable, or enough, because that's not the point. The point is that the policies we're discussing have reduced the suffering.

You calling them a lie can only lead to more suffering. Hopefully you realize that some day.

Don't forget about Ohio, where our own state supreme court decided our map was unconstitutional 5 times in a row and then just sorta gave up.