These numbers mean nothing. Just raw numbers in a vacuum. Facebook is worthless and it's visit count means nothing. Same with instagram or twitter. The only reason google is so high is due to it being a search engine. These numbers are not the gotcha you seem to be implying they are.
I don't think they argued their point well, but I do see it. The argument is that Twitter is an important website at least to the point of not dismissing the troubles of Twitter's users with "I am not missing anything". It hardly matters if a particular person is not missing anything; many other people (who are actually on Twitter) are also not missing anything but they also happen to be invested in Twitter as a social media platform.
Someone who doesn't visit this website could say, "People seem to care too much about HN. I don't use HN and am under the impression I'm not missing anything." They wouldn't even be wrong. But it's also dismissive of everyone who does use this site and ultimately irrelevant to any issues which the HN community might have with the service.
Can someone with more context explain why it looks like the Rust Foundation is shooting themselves in the foot? Is there an angle to this that I am missing?
If you ask lawyers to give you the most permissive trademark policy that's still enforceable, this is what you get. Unfortunately what lawyers consider to be extremely permissive, hackers see as fatally authoritarian. It's not clear whether there's any room for compromise.
This isn't "The Rust Foundation went and Did It". AFAIK it's more like "The Project has wanted to change the trademark policy for a while (My understanding is "It's currently completely legally ambiguous despite seemingly being permissive, so it's A Problem"), and one of the explicit reasons the Rust Foundation was created was to deal with the Trademark Problem. The Project (Or at least, project leadership) were very involved in drafting the current draft policy". If project members are finding issues with the policy (And not just bugs/gotchas like "We didn't realize this would ban X crates, we're gonna fix that ASAP", but with some of the explicit goals of the Policy like what it says of commercial activities in general), then that's just showing how the current structure of The Rust Project is far from ideal. And that's generally widely known.
The guy who wrote the article is very clearly neither a computer scientist nor a mathematician nor even a machine learning engineer and it very very clearly shows.
Also where did they all that info on GPT-4? Pure speculation with zero theoretical basis. But then again that’s the sort of stuff you expect from lesswrong anyway
