Not to me. So long as it's consistently applied, it actually seems like the responsible thing to do when something completely innocuous posted on Twitter could cause damage to the company.
To me it's similar to scheduled stock selling for CEOs, which gets rid of any doubt for whether there's insider trading.
Just not good enough for me given the circumstances; maybe he should delete them after he resolves them or follows up, especially if he says he’s going to look into it and never does. That’s worse than not responding on Twitter at all IMO — and then the tweets were deleted too. The optics here are just horrible.
Probably the same reason people used IE6 after it went stagnant. What was your choice? It's not like most YouTube channels have websites they publish stuff to as an alternative.
This is something that hit me when I found out how to translate between decimal and binary. If an A on a screen can be a grid of numbers, and those numbers can be reduced to a series of 1s and 0s and stored in a bunch of fancy wires, then who knows what else it could be translated to or from. Look back far enough and the A is a series of photons clashing with orbiting subatomic particles at certain frequencies.
We use math based on the status of a sea of transistors to store it in other atoms with forces we're slowly discovering how to communicate about. It's all layers of finding new ways to describe something that was already there, spinning and bumping photons long before any of us had photon detectors in our heads or a chemical machine capable of deciding to call one pattern A and all the ways to translate it into sound waves.
One pattern is called "solid state drive," and we seem to have some say in what that pattern does from our frame of reference. Maybe it was always a solid state drive and we're the language the universe uses to describe its smaller parts.
I promise I'm not high, and probably not a Boltzmann brain. Though I'm not sure about the latter.
Signal theory is deeply interesting based on your line of thinking here. I’ve been postulating similar things. The universe gives a lot of potential for things to communicate. In the end what is recognized as signal and or information is a matter of imagination and consistency given the plethora of potentially unlimited signals available.
He lets people run their mouths for hours. That means they run out of talking points, realize they're going in loops, and sometimes say something worthwhile. He has on some people who really are just awful, but even they succumb to the banality of their own nonsense. Some of them turn out to have no substance after that, but sometimes they surprise you.
I listened to a few episodes, but don't find that his guests surprise me enough to sit through it.
Things done in the name of religion are a net negative on my life. It's not the fault of all religious people, but the people doing it are hard to avoid if I get involved, even if I were inclined to try.
While that may be the case, 84% of the world identifies with an organized religion, and that number is growing (as the Christian population in China, the world’s largest putatively atheist country, grows rapidly). Religion is a bedrock for social organization nearly everywhere in the world. And actively religious people in nearly every country are much more likely to report being “very happy” compared to inactively religious or irreligious people: https://www.pewresearch.org/ft_19-01-31_wellbeing_activelyre...
None of the things in OP’s list are universals. Most people are happier if they have financial security, but some people find happiness in an ascetic and minimal lifestyle for example. And many poor people are very happy. The list therefore seems to reflect major factors that reflect happiness for the population in general. And, worldwide, participation in religion and having kids are to such factors. For much of the world that’s financially or politically insecure, they are two of the most important factors. Overlooking them completely is quite misanthropic.
Sorry, but there is plenty of happiness research that contradicts most of what you say. There are world-wide studies about it every year in nearly every country of the world. Just look up "World Happiness Report", for instance, but there are many more studies. You can barely find a topic with less empirical research in psychology, sociology, and economics.
You're right that religion and community also play a role in happiness. That should be in the list. However, the rest of what you say is just wrong, or at least very misleading. People in very poor countries are overall less happy or satisfied with their life (according to their own reports) than people in richer countries.
There is a basic level of welfare that anyone who wants to be happy needs to attain. If you don't have that, then there will be all kinds of worries, e.g. you're worried about losing your income when you get sick or how to get enough food for your children. In that case, you cannot be happy. The basic needs and any existential worries associated with them cannot be substituted with religion or anything else.
You’re thinking of happiness as a binary, but the surveys you list describe it as a scale. Most people in Bangladesh don’t meet many of the criteria in OP’s list, particularly income security. (They can feed themselves but that’s about it, and that’s not guaranteed.) So why do they rate themselves a 4.5 out of 10 on global surveys instead of 0? Because family and faith is an important source of happiness. Having kids and being able to feed them (which is a condition short of “income security” as postulated by OP, and is one that even most people in Bangladesh achieve) and participating in your religious community produces a certain baseline level of happiness. Those people would be happier if they also had income security and a fulfilling job. I agree with you on that. But their families and faith are a main source of what happiness they do have. Omitting those things from the list therefore overlooks a huge swath of the human condition.
I remember being 8 knowing my parents were poor and rarely asking for anything I wanted because of it, even food. If I did ask, I felt guilty afterwards and would debate if I should have.
I played cautiously knowing that an injury could upend my family and my little sister’s future, and I didn’t partake in school sports or anything that could disturb my parents as they were already busy working 24/7 and it would have stressed them even more to have to pick me up or pay for equipment.
