In earlier drafts I wrote "the existence of some set of best
essays follows necessarily" but it sounded so pedantic that it didn't seem worth keeping just to protect myself from being accused of not understanding the distinction between a partial and total order. I assumed anyone reading it in good faith would understand what I was saying.
I used to work on it and have spent tons of time in the headset. The eye tracking is next-level and it's really the only platform that exists with eye tracking as a primary input method. I'm pretty confident it will greatly improve your friend's quality of life.
Because of that, I'm also sure that eye tracking will go mainstream in other areas once the Vision Pro is released once everyone else catches on to it as a great input method.
This is pretty much exactly why I vehemently disagree with Apple's decision to draw such a firm line in the sand preventing devs from accessing the eye/gaze data directly. I'm part of an academic spin-off start-up that specializes in analyzing gaze and movement data. Locking the gaze information outside of the app sandbox severely hampers the ability to quickly iterate design and UI patterns that could be game changing for accessibility. Hopefully they make accommodations moving forward for these circumstances.
The issue is doubly close to my heart because my father has ALS and is nearly at the point where eye-tracking will be his only means of communicating effectively with the world. While existing Tobii systems work well enough, typing with your eyes is still exhausting to do.
Ultimately I don't think a platform like the vision pro is suitable for ALS patients, especially later term. They cannot support the weight of the headset and/or fatigue will set in rapidly. Many (including my father) also require use of a ventilator, accompanied with a mask that can seal effectively enough to support the positive pressure necessary to inflate their lungs. Unless the form factor for HMD's minimalizes significantly, it will likely interfere with the respirator's efficacy.
I don’t know much about those medical conditions, but it doesn’t take that much imagination to understand that access to eye-gaze data would pretty much give developers mind-reading abilities against whoever is wearing the headset. As the platform matures it will probably be a whole discussion around how it works, who gets access to it and for what reason. I could imagine Apple putting their weight behind developing all sorts of wild disability features.
Developers control what goes in front of the user and where, we'll still be able to tell plenty about a user's decision making process given that and how their head and hands navigate the space. There are plenty of companies that specialize in this as their entire product offering, assessing fitness for duty, alertness, attention mapping, etc. Plenty of published research on the matter as well.
The supposed security of blackboxing the eye data itself is illusory and functionally just for marketing.
The level of eye tracking performance for general population interactions is really only possible when you control the illumination like in a VR headset. A Vision Pro might work for the friend in question. More generally this requires the full vr display to make it work. See through AR or just plane glasses will not be nearly as good, and I think that will cap the general acceptance.
Is it doing something fundamentally different from what everyone else is doing (infrared light source, do some flavour of pupil segmentation and pose estimation)?
Is the eye-tracking performance/accuracy step change on Apple's headset purely just a software/algo change? Or is it actually using a new principle/apparatus for eye-tracking?
I don't think there's anything revolutionary, just a lot of parts working very well in tandem:
- Multiple cameras per eye, and at a very short distance from your eye
- The screen is fixed relative to the cameras for all devices, there's no worry about that half of the equation getting off calibration or differing for every customer
- OS is built around eye tracking, which means there won't be any actions that are unnaturally hard to perform with eye tracking
Doesn't it rely on external cameras to see users hands and use that as the "click" inputs? Seems like that negates usage for ALS cases.
Also, I'm not an ALS expert, but if the only muscular control is in the eyes, then lack of control in the head/neck probably breaks some assumptions about how the vision headset works (just a guess though).
It does not require using one's hands to click, it supports various input hardware (keyboard, mouse, switch, etc.). If someone has control of basically any muscle, it can use a switch input. The Vision Pro also has Dwell Control, activating things by keeping your gaze on it long enough, but I don't know whether it can currently be solely operated using nothing but one's eyes.
Not just multiple companies, multiple approaches. Eye tracking is exhausting, and that's pretty fundamental to the modality - dwell time requires significant control to be usable as a click, and even able bodied people find it exhausting. Some folks have tried doing eye tracking and using something else (EMG for example) as the click, but it doesn't work consistently for the population. ALS is also progressive, and people lose their eye control. Blackrock Neurotech has been working on a brain implant, with spinal cord injury as a first target population (because they're less fragile, among other reasons), and it works for current research patients, but medical devices take a lot of time, money and work to get cleared in the US. The implant itself is cleared, but the FDA wants the entire system to be cleared too.
Agreed. It would be great if the hardware was more affordable/accessible as well. That's potentially a barrier to entry worth addressing for devs who might otherwise be interested in tackling the problem, but don't have the quality eye tracking hardware to start. A Tobii-like hardware devkit could be a starting point.
I'm not leaving Twitter. It seems more likely than not that Elon will reverse the ban on links to other social media sites. I just don't want to hang out there in the meantime. Plus given the way things are going, it seemed like a good time to learn about alternatives.
I still think Elon is a smart guy. His work on cars and rockets speaks for itself. Nor do I think he's the villain a lot of people try to make him out to be. He's eccentric, definitely, but that should be news to no one. Plus I don't think he realizes that the techniques that work for cars and rockets don't work in social media. Those two facts are sufficient to explain most of his behavior.
He could still salvage the situation. He's the sort of person it would be a big mistake to write off. And I hope he does. I would be delighted to go back to using Twitter regularly.
Thanks, but as I learned when I was running HN, being a regular user of a forum (which the moderator necessarily is) and writing essays are fundamentally incompatible.
If you're known to be a regular user of a forum, then when someone says something about you and you don't reply, it reads as a tacit admission that they're correct. And when you write essays people say all kinds of things about you. The combination is a disaster. Forum users can sense that you're compelled to respond, and it encourages them to pick fights with you.
Back when I used to moderate HN, hitting publish on an essay was usually followed by several hours of saying various forms of "No, what I said was..." Life is much better now that I never look at the HN threads on them.
Huh, I'm one of several mods for a Sub-Reddit. Works fine. Only things that changed are a) my own comment quality standard is higher and b) the way I read other comments. Now, I scan comments for rule infractions, which lessens my reading enjoyment a bit.
Also never observed a problem between mods and other users in other Sub-Reddits. Maybe because mods on Reddit are not that visible?
Depends on the subject matter as well. I've moderated a - large - forum for years and in the beginning I was also a user of the site. That quickly led to people figuring out that the moderator is a part of the scene and so you get people that try to get into your good book and others that try to set each other up. Every word you write gets lawyered over and so on. If your Sub-Reddit doesn't have those problems count yourself lucky. But personally I think that the way dang here does it is perfect (see: sucking up ;) ), he only enters the conversation to explain his moderation actions, but does not actually take a position on any of the issues discussed, thus leading to perceived impartiality (he still gets plenty of flak but imo that is undeserved).
> (he still gets plenty of flak but imo that is undeserved)
Yeah I don't think it's possible to escape the criticism even without taking a position. That said, of the two options, I agree that not wading in may have less of a chilling effect and thus encourages more interaction.
It gets more complicated behind the scenes. If you're making a lot of content moderation decisions without disclosing them, you may be introducing bias without realizing it. Eventually people are going to be hip to that. Platforms are rife with this right now: selective invisibility, visibility filtering, ranking, visible to self, reducing, deboosting, and "disguising a gag" are all words platforms use internally or externally to justify non-disclosure of content moderation decisions. Without public awareness of the existence of these secretive moderation decisions, administrators may feel they have to use them in order to compete with other forums.
I think transparent moderation is the sustainable way forwards for social media, and I recently made my case for that here:
> Huh, I'm one of several mods for a Sub-Reddit. Works fine.
Reddit is mostly anonymous, which can make people think they can do whatever they want as moderators/users without any repercussions. Of course that isn't true: all of our actions impact our own behavior, attitude etc.
> Also never observed a problem between mods and other users in other Sub-Reddits. Maybe because mods on Reddit are not that visible?
It happens all the time. These r/Libertarian [1] and r/LibertarianUncensored [2] threads may be the most succinct examples of how far users/mods will go to make their voices heard. I list many more in my talk [3].
It's funny you mention /r/libertarian x) I was shadow-banned for saying (verbatim) "Imposing your will through violence is always illegitimate" (the context was Chile's 1973 coup).
Except for that time before they got html escaping figured out and some joker put an unclosed <BLINK> tag in their title, and the entire blogoverse started blinking.
You should check out Radiopaper (radiopaper.com), which was designed to address this dynamic: when someone sends you a message or comments on something you wrote, their comment is only visible to you and remains unpublished until/unless you reply.
Hello! I am the CEO and cofounder of Radiopaper. Thanks for mentioning us. The mechanism you describe is indeed one of the core features of the platform. The effect is to distributes moderation decisions to those most immediately affected
I might be stating the obvious here, but it's just sad that loud negative minority deprieved everyone else of your participation. I learned a ton from your essays and would be happy to see you actively commenting on HN.
Like, no specific solution or anything from me, I get why you make that decision and not trying to convince you to change it – just wanted to post a comment of appreciation I guess.
I used to think that too, but I've since come across a story that SpaceX actually has people who's informal job is to manage him, and they present their ideas in such a way that he thinks they're his, in order to keep him happy. He's mostly there to bring money and hype.
No idea if that story is true, but honestly, it would explain some things.
The impression he's been giving me recently is that his success may have broken him. Too many people worshipping him and praising literally every crazy thing he does, may have made him believe he can do literally everything including run a social media company on his own without first learning how social media companies work. He honestly seems to be running Twitter into the ground. The mass firings he started with, followed by ruining the blue checkmark feature, really didn't make it look like he knows what he's doing. His management style sounds like hell.
I did my PhD under possibly the most narcissistic, ruthless, and petty professors anyone around me had ever heard of, so I might be able to comment on this.
I and the few people who managed to actually graduate with our sanity intact (out of like 50) learned to play this game you suggested where we have to play to their egos, and try and salvage their shitty, shitty ideas into workable projects that will end with us publishing. Every week they will suggest experiments that are nonsensical, and we will huddle and discuss how to do some preliminary work and present it in a way such that they will think it’s their idea to change it in a more productive direction.
When smart people are forced to work with egotistical pricks like this, I think it’s inevitable such a system comes in place.
The interesting thing is my professor kinda knew we do this, he just acknowledged it as part of the dance of their system. For Better or worse this shitty lab actually put out a drug that helps patients (I constantly think about how and why that happened). Could this lab have been more productive? Absolutely. Would this lab have existed without these people though? Probably not though.
The question here is whether Elon is aware this is why spacex and Tesla succeeded or he’s too deranged now to remember it. Looks like it’s the latter and that just sucks. My professors too have gotten unhinged (they’ve been literally pushed out of two universities and an entire country, though they always find another sucker, which at this point is the wellcome institute lol). When you’ve been doing this shitty shtick for too long I suppose it gets to you.
> The interesting thing is my professor kinda knew we do this, he just acknowledged it as part of the dance of their system.
Professor's diary: It's so tiring coming up with broken experiments that still have some possible merit, but the system works, and my role is clear. If only the benefits of working under constraints weren't so clear with regard to innovation, they they are what they are and this farce continues for all of us. Maybe I'll finally feel like the private sector is the way to go next yet. Probably not, but who knows.
Also, this sounds like I've heard the military described at times, expecially in war, where the upper echelons come out with wile ideas that make no sense on the ground and mid-level officers pull wild solutions out of their asses and whatever works ends up being copied.
I could see something like this possibly developing as a natural solution when all you look at is the output and not the process, and provide a rigid framework within which different behavior can be iterated until it stabilizes on something that works. That, unsurprisingly to me, has similarities in how ML works, given given these are basically institutions that act as machines.
Honestly sounds kind of like my job. Corporate executives suggesting nonsensical solutions to technical problems they created and insisting they are right. You just need to let them think they won and work around them to get things done. You learn this after a few years working corporate. No point butting heads with people in power. They won’t back down because they will look silly to everyone else in the meeting. They always have to be right to save their own face.
Achieving a PhD in dealing with narcissistic assholes is a valuable career skill, that will benefit you in any field, no matter the topic of your thesis.
The most important skill I learned getting a BS in CS was how to BS.
You’re absolutely right about that. I switched over to tech, and pretty much feel like Will Ferrell in the final season of office, “this job is a joke” and all this politics is so silly and petty and so easy to game and overcome! Life is literally in easy mode now. I highly recommend a PhD to anyone who wants to just become wiser about life in general not just to do research.
I worked on the Engineering side of compliance at my last job managing Compliance and Security. As part of going public, part of my job was keeping some executives away from the Auditors. This was not because the Auditors wanted information from them that we didn’t want to share, but because the auditors actually had zero interest in what they had to say. I.e. they did not care about Joe Techbro and his Git front end and how it would allow us to avoid having an Internal Audit team (news flash: it didn’t).
All these pointless conversations would slow the process down and the auditors would bill (aggressively) for these pointless interjections.
My job for a while was listening for signs they would do this, create a meeting, take notes, email the notes to our Eng team, and then fein concern. This worked as the audit team were able to do what they needed to do and we went public. Eventually half the people I was playing interference against were asked to leave the company or were otherwise fired for unrelated reasons that I’d roughly group into being unprofessional or poorly prepared for their role.
In my subsequent job (years later and at a multinational) I’ve seen more of this. I’ve learned that at any sufficiently large company there will be at least one person paid to keep one person from messing things up with their presence.
Overall, I find the stories about keeping Elon placated completely believable.
My dad's oldest living friend worked at Koch industries for years. I forget his official title, but they way he describes his role was "I ran interference to keep the brothers from killing each other."
The truth is somewhere between what the boosters want you to believe and what the detractors want you to believe. Elon's very smart and works incredibly hard, but has a serious ego problem and isn't pleasant to work for. A bit like Steve Jobs maybe.
No CEO can succeed without attracting talented people and inspiring them to excel, and Elon has been very successful at that. By working incredibly hard, thinking incredibly big, and setting high expectations, he inspires everyone else in the company. But he's also capricious in a way that demoralizes people and burns them out.
We like the story of a lone hero who does everything. But there are many people who worked at Elon's companies and played a key role, but feel underappreciated in a way that the author seemed sympathetic to.
The "people managing Elon" thing is true to a degree. It so happens that I've spoken to a couple employees (one SpaceX one Tesla) who both told me stories like this. (Specifically the two stories were something like: (1) "We adjusted the Tesla to optimize for the route Elon drives, even though that hurt autopilot performance overall" and (2) "We keep having to explain to Elon the basic probability math that explains the importance of continually testing rocket components")
At the same time, "he's mostly there to bring money and hype" seriously underplays his role. As an extreme analogy, imagine you had a toddler who told you "[Mommy/Daddy] I designed an awesome treehouse and I want you to build it". You keep saying you're busy and treehouses are impractical. But your toddler gets you to buy into their vision, and challenges you to overcome obstacles until an awesome treehouse is built. Even if you did all the work in this analogy, you have to give your toddler some credit. The power of visionary leadership and extreme determination was one of my big takeaways from the book -- again similar to Jobs with the "reality distortion field", I guess.
Social media moderation requires a humility and good judgement -- not Elon's strengths. But it's definitely not a coincidence that he's started so many successful companies.
The difference with Twitter is that, being a web site and app, his decisions have immediate visibility. Bans, unbans, blue checkmarks — those become visible to everyone in the world to see right away.
With his other companies, the lag time before anything becomes public is longer. We presumably don't see a lot of the eccentric decisions Musk makes because the companies are able to course-correct before they end up becoming real.
Of course, we still get screws-ups like the Cybertruck and whatever that robot was.
I don't think anyone has ever argued that. He obviously has above-average IQ. That does not automatically make his claims of working on rocket designs himself, credible. In fact, I think those claims put credence to the story that they present ideas in such a way that he thinks he's designing rockets himself.
> explain to me how it would work, such that elon wouldn't notice
He's a narcissist. At least, it seems obvious to me that he is. And narcissists are absolutely amenable to co-opting other people's ideas. It's what they do, because everything is about them.
Please read again. I'm not arguing its truth, I'm arguing its credibility. Those are not the same thing.
How would it work? I'm not even remotely an expert on it, but one of the things I heard they did with Trump, was to present several options, some obviously good, others obviously, bad, and then let him choose. (On that particular issue, Trump apparently picked the bad option that nobody expected him to pick. So there's a level where this trick stops working.)
what part of being offered choices and picking one would convince someone they came up with it themselves? That doesn't even make sense.
Arguing credibility vs truth for something you have no evidence for is a fine hair to split that actually makes no difference. You're inventing it whole cloth either way, you can pick whichever word makes you happier and it doesn't give you any insight or make repeating baseless defamation suddenly credible.
>I was an intern at SpaceX years ago, back it when it was a much smaller compan
this person never had any access to elon and is repeating things he heard. His example is:
>The funniest example of “stage management” I can remember is this dude on the IT security team. He had a script running in a terminal on one of his monitors that would output random garbage, Matrix-style, so that it always looked like he was doing Important Computer Things to anyone who walked by his desk. Second funniest was all the people I saw playing WoW at their desks after ~5pm, who did it in the office just to give the appearance that they were working late.
If you're buying this you'll buy anything, just not if elon is selling it you because you don't like him.
SpaceX has talented people working there despite Elon, not because of him.
They supposedly have an entire handbook on "managing Elon" for deflecting his weird requests and framing things in a way that doesn't provoke his ire. They put up with it because they only have so many opportunities to work on space.
Twitter has people dependent on their H-1B and very few true believers that are unfit to serve in their role. Ella Irwin has apparently personally ghost banned ("Hide Reply" but with lying to the user about being hidden) any mention of libsoftiktok - a stochastic terror organization just itching for a lynching of queer people - made anywhere close to TwitterSafety recently.
Right, Twitter is absolutely nothing like SpaceX or Tesla. Twitter's problems aren't engineering issues, they're political and related to moderation. Content moderation is one of the hardest problems current which no company has managed to solve. Especially when you have the user-creator-advertiser triangle. It was clear from the very start Elon has no clue what he was walking into.
My impression were that Twitter’s problems included:
1. Not having that much revenue
2. Being expensive to run
Firing a bunch of people probably helped with #2. But there are definitely engineering problems in there too. For #1, there was the whole verified checks thing but I think that’s not going to bring in anywhere near as much money as ads did. Seems one good thing to do there is not upset advertisers. Currently advertisers seem upset. An alternative would be allowing more advertisers, eg gambling ads are quite lucrative.
The whole censorship/hellsite stuff doesn’t strike me as such an immediate problem – I think Twitter could have done ok for a while with the previous moderation policy changing at the previous rate. Though figuring out better things to do there would probably be necessary in the long term and something a private company might better be able to do, eg figuring out how to focus on the long-term interests of users rather than numbers that shareholders think are important.
But maybe I’m totally wrong and if Elon wasn’t seen to be doing things about censorship the whole thing would fall apart?
TikTok is a complete black box, no one has any idea how any of it works, so it's easier to pretend everything is fine if no one knows what's happening. They could be over-moderating and erring on the side of having more false negatives, and no one would know.
Also, I wouldn't really say so, there are plenty of stories about the algorithm serving harmful content to kids. But again since each person has a different FYP, it's hard to tell. Just because you don't fall into a bad rabbit hole doesn't mean some kid out there won't.
> They supposedly have an entire handbook on "managing Elon" for deflecting his weird requests and framing things in a way that doesn't provoke his ire.
I heard that too. Is it just a rumour or do we know this is true?
And if it's true at SpaceX, is it also true at Tesla?
I’ve heard about people depending on Twitter for visa sponsorship but I don’t think I’ve seen any firsthand accounts. Is it actually happening? I’ve also heard that people who work for (or were fired from) twitter were deluged with job offers despite it not being a great time for hiring (so my guess is that people on H1-B visas could find sponsorship elsewhere)
It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that some people are staying for risk-aversion reasons but I feel like most people are there because:
- they actually like Elon or believe in the future of Twitter under different management
- they see it as an opportunity for career growth (you can have proportionally larger impact on the business; fewer senior positions at the company; they will likely hire more people soon, just not at salaries that are effectively inflated by Elon’s purchase)
- they correctly infer that they would be in a worse position if they moved to some other firm. (I think most people thinking this underestimate themselves, however)
It seems like it could be possible for employees to have a big impact on the platform or the business. It also seems like the whole thing could go up in flames. I don’t really know how bad it is to be associated with a site that goes up. I guess not that bad for job prospects for an average employee, especially if they got to learn about putting out fires / many more parts of the system than an average big tech employee. But then experience hacking in minimal fixes to keep mountains of software going perhaps isn’t going to teach you as much as properly understanding and improving fewer systems and making more changes that will have impact over a longer timescale.
It really is criminal how much preferential treatment lott is getting both now and under the previous administration. This alone should be grounds for an investigation into the site
Remind me, who kept posting misinformation about a children's hospital just before it got bomb threats?
And who kept doing it knowing that fact, causing repeats of such bomb threats?
And who posted relentlessly about the drag show in Moore County for more than a month before a bunch of substations got shot up, supposedly to shut them down?
> Plus I don't think he realizes that the techniques that work for cars and rockets don't work in social media.
This argument made sense a month ago. Unfortunately he really hasn't shown any improvement since then that would lead me to agree with you on that point.
It's now a situation where he has to either find enough new people who agree with whatever his approach is or /win people back/ - both of those are quite a bit harder than keeping people who already loved the app.
I also hope he - or someone - is able to recover Twitter. But I'm not betting on it at this point.
Twitter keeps emailing me about how I need to log in and look at fake notifications I've already seen. I verified I was already unsubed from all the various fake notifications they generate (including the specific fake ones they generated).
Whilst I strongly disagree with the banning of links and accounts without good reason, it is true for me that Twitter has greatly improved since Musk took over.
Part of that is that interesting voices like PG’s are not so drowned out by background noise, so losing folks like PG begins to undo that improvement.
Silicon Valley CA where the only politics is left, and even more left.
Twitter post Elon is Awesome,
They are crying foul now that rules are actually being evenly enforced instead of just on the right. The activists that claim to be journalists having to follow actual rules for once in their life
What is the saying... To the privileged equality looks like oppression, well that is what the Activists that work for mainstream media are feeling today on twitter
I disagree with the rule, however the rule was broken so yes I still feel the same
My number one complaint about Twitter, YT, Twitch, or any other large platform is the arbitrary and uneven enforcement of rules, Person A does action and gets nothing, person B does same action get permabanned, often as a result of their political influence, notoriety, internal connections, or in the case of twitter often just being of the "correct" political party
I would prefer a different rules set, always have for twitter but if they are going to have a rule it absolutely unquestionably needs to be enforced equally across the platform.
The only person I saw suspended during that insane period was PG. Hundreds of people in my TL were saying "FU heres my mastodon ban me if you want Elon" and didn't see any repercussions whatsoever.
Yeah, I feel Twitter has improved under Elon’s leadership. In the past my account was banned and I could never get Twitter Support to explain what tweet caused my ban. Then I stopped using Twitter for a very long time. Perhaps a year ago created a new account and since Elon took over I am much less worried for unfair bans.
I like that many doctors who were silenced during COVID pandemic have been allowed to speak once more. Censorship was ridiculous under the old leadership. It seems Twitter is now much more a free speech platform and I feel Twitter is better for it being so.
Unfortunately for those who idolised Elon, their world view is beginning to crumble. His actions are not justifiable. The way he treats people, the way he rules his companies, the way he governs his new "free speech" platform. The man is a tyrant. He's idolised for the things he's achieved but if he had not achieved them would he be given the same benefit of the doubt?
Hypocrisy. The way people treat this man versus others who act the same, it's two faced. The who's who of silicon valley were championing him right up until a few hours ago. Everything that he says or does that is deplorable, people eat up. But I guess if he's "changing the world" he should get to be a dick right?
Imagine if it were Tim Cook who called Vern Unsworth, the British diver who helped rescue the trapped Thai kids in the flooded cave, a "pedo guy". Or, if you want to picture an amazing shitstorm, Barack Obama.
That whole Thai situation was when my opinion of Elon cratered. The pedo insult and subsequent lawsuits really gave insight into Elon's (lack of) character - the fact he would use that as an insult, the person he insulted, and the fact he wouldn't apologise and let it get to the stage of a lawsuit.
Whilst the 'submarine solution' he proposed shattered my belief that he was some engineering genius. It was plainly obvious to even a non-technical person that a cave system was not going to be suitable for a submarine - yet here was the 'genius' designing a solution without even checking the requirements. It was so fundamentally stupid that it's made me really believe that Tesla/SpaceX are a (technical) success in spite of Elon, not because.
Maybe the whole submarine thing was purely a marketing/publicity plot ... but trying to gain PR points off a live tragedy? Well that goes back to my point about his character.
Or the easier explanation, that Elon has changed. He was my favorite billionaire back when all his prospects related to colonization of Mars and all his investments were aimed at creating new technology. But power can corrupt people, and he seems particularly prone to it. The entire Twitter episode is at odds with everything he did 10 years ago; Mars doesn't need a social network, and he's not innovating anything here. Not to mention that part where he's spent the last 7+ years sleeping around and fathering as many children as possible.
A different way of looking at "power corrupts" is that negative social interactions are an important part of the feedback loop that calibrates a person's sense of right and wrong. When a person decides that they don't want to hear conflicting opinions, they loose out on accurate feedback, and de-calibrate, unless they have a strong internal sense of empathy. Empathy is a disadvantage to becoming a billionaire in the first place, so very few of them have much of it. Guys like Musk and Bezos and Trump end up victims of their own success and echo chamber.
he basically just bought twitter because he wanted to ban people from making fun of him, every decision he makes is completely personally motivated and has absolutely no bearing on making the website better or reflecting the will of its users at all
And that's exactly my point, that his new decisions seem petty and self-centered, where his old decisions (sinking his significant wealth into risky car and rocket companies and sleeping in the factory instead of buying a Caribbean island and living out his years in paradise) seemed to be more about lofty goals and ambition. Something changed. $40B could have done sooo much more for his previous ambitions; it's a crime to see it wasted like this. If he starts gold-plating his toilets, we'll know he's really gone forever. Thank goodness he wasn't born in the USA.
We saw this writ large with the evangelical support for Donald Trump. It's crystal clear that DT is a huge "family values" hypocrite, yet he's seen to be a global change agent (of God, no less), so that justifies their uncritical support.
It's no different with Musk. His work with SpaceX and Tesla are seen as worthy goals at the whole-of-humanity scale, so that justifies (in some people's eyes) glossing over any character defects.
It was similar with Steve Jobs, a reputed workplace bully and tyrant.
Techies get paid well, but in the conflict between capital and labor, we're not capital. Not most of us anyway, not by a large margin. Occasionally a blessed few might win the IPO lottery and become rich enough to get out of the rat race, but exceedingly few become rich enough on top of that to "extract surplus money from society".
Well he did very publicly call the cave diver who saved 12 children a pedophile because he was jealous of him. He also called for a leading infectious disease expert to be jailed, further endangering someone who was already under armed protection from previous threats. And there was that one time that he shared an unfounded conspiracy theory about an elderly man who was attacked with a hammer in his own home. There was also the time when he tried to trade a horse for a handjob from one of his employees.
> Musk visited the cave system himself. Unsworth said the billionaire “was asked to leave very quickly”. He also told CNN Musk could “stick his submarine where it hurts”.
I think pg is one of the best placed people to critique the situation because he knows what a start-up is and how to do one, he's in the same tier of society (top tier wealth), and he knows what is takes to run a social network.
The "it is going to be hardcore from here" email the CEO sent to Tesla employees 'worked', but the same email to Twitter employees resulted in significant resignations. I think the CEO was shocked and this underlies pg's point.
Given that it was a forced buy, the game was always that of a corporate raider approach - go in, make the unpleasant but needed decisions, and then sell out as soon as the value uptick became realisable. pg applauded the cut to staff IIRC.
CEO should have taken a leaf out of Rupert Murdoch's book - as the owner don't write the headlines - let the editor do that. Being behind the scenes to just make the most considered accurate business decisions was the right way.
If instead you are out in front of the public, you're emotional side will kick in due to the slings-and-arrows coming from the audience. Hence the wrong decisions will be made.
You can't wear both the hats of 'eccentric' Corporate Jester and Corporate Raider at the same time. The Dave Chapelle boo-ing incident just underlies this.
What i hoped he would he'd do was to find another Gwynne Shotwell and have them run the company while taking his advice and kindly ignore it when it makes sense.
Alas, I don't see something like this panning out, that future is gone.
"Villain" isn't the word I'd use, but he has been increasingly indulging in gleeful cruelty and childish nonsense, both of which are very off putting.
I also admire his car and rocket businesses, but he seems to have gotten sucked deeply into the very online culture war grievance trap in the past few years, to the point that it now seems to be taking up essentially all of his time now. It's really a shame to see.
"Gleeful cruelty" is how his bullying tweets come off to me, yeah. He does the thing where he plays it off like he's just joking, just like every other bully out there, but he's being cruel, and enjoying it.
Sure you didn't see a fake screenshot meme? I haven't been able to find anyone else talking about that, I couldn't find that on Elon's twitter replies page, and Elon just tweeted that he's reversing the ban (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604616426114932737) which I'm not sure tracks with him posting exactly like that. (Not trying to defend him at all, just trying to keep a handle on what exactly it is he's doing.)
> Plus I don't think he realizes that the techniques that work for cars and rockets don't work in social media.
You have someone with Asperger's who is self aware enough to go on SNL and laugh about it, but for some reason also wants to spend 40B on owning and running a social platform, thinking they can "improve" by working on it part time despite having zero actual experience in the field. The ego is unbelievable.
> He could still salvage the situation
I hope so, but these billionaire ego megaprojects just don't seem to be die. Neom, Metaverse, dystopia-twitter...
Elon is so incredibly thin-skinned that he's burning bridges with anyone who dares to not agree with him even once. First Bari Weiss, now Paul Graham. Paul clearly stated here & on Mastodon that he still believes in Elon Musk. This is classic self-sabotage of a deranged dictator.
My own personal sense tells me no employee/subordinate would carry out such abrupt and drastic actions without explicit approval from above, no matter how much they want to please their boss. I could be wrong though.
Unfollowing Bari Weiss and suspending Paul Graham over very minor disagreements they voiced seems like a very personal & impulsive decision that I don't see why anyone besides Elon himself decided on it.
> My own personal sense tells me no employee/subordinate would carry out such abrupt and drastic actions without explicit approval from above, no matter how much they want to please their boss. I could be wrong though.
outside of a very small bubble no one knows who PG is and I promise you his twitter status account doesn't matter if it was breaking the rules.
Go ask your mother if she knows who elon musk, bill gates, steve jobs, and paul graham are/were. No one outside of computer science/business people looking for VC know who he is.
I'm not sure what your point here is. Paul Graham is a notable user in the context of Twitter based on his follower count, user interactions, and legacy verified checkmark. Any employee handling the suspension of accounts would've noticed this is not some random spam bot or edgy no-name. They would not have done that autonomously without Musk's personal directives.
When you say "I still think Elon is a smart guy" every every time you write about your departure statement, you just communicate lots of things: too much respect and consideration for despicable actors just conveys fear.
I don't understand how he can salvage this situation. You cannot simply go 'lol jk' with policy changes like this and reverse them because once you've lost user trust it cannot be easily regained. Individuals may not remember, but groups as a whole can have a long lasting memory and once the various subgroups like art twitter, influencer twitter etc leave they aren't coming back without serious enticement which Twitter can barely afford as they're burning money.
> I don't think he realizes that the techniques that work for cars and rockets don't work in social media.
That’s what I find so peculiar. I thought he made so much progress on cars and rockets by trusting experts to help him. But with Twitter there have been lots of experts who keep trying to tell him he’s seriously misunderstanding how social media works, and he will just give them a snarky tweet reply and act like he knows better. Maybe it’s the fact that on twitter everyone can see the discussion and he’s got to project this persona with bravado that he probably doesn’t do in a private meeting.
Maybe he will turn it around but for a lot of us he’s destroyed our hang out spot and we’ve embraced alternatives. Mastodon isn’t perfect but it feels really great to see a problem, open a GitHub issue, and get a genuine discussion of how to implement it.
And no one is going to come crashing in and tear it all down.
In what context does a "smart guy" truly not realize that growing industrial manufacturing companies ("cars and rockets") from scratch is a fundamentally different challenge than running a mature web-only social media company?
He had plenty of time to think about it before deciding to fire all the people he fired in the cruelest way possible.
It may have been satisfying to him because he has a caricature in his head of who they are and what they did and it made his fans happy. But impulsive? No, there was plenty of time for smart to override impulsive here. This is something -- arbitrary, chaotic, intentionally cruel -- but it isn't impulsive.
This is fair, but you would think that once he realized what kind of bag he was holding, he would also possess the clarity of mind to realize a need to step back and learn something about the internal workings of the industry, let alone the company he had just acquired without any due diligence.
If Elon had simply sat back and done "almost nothing" after the purchase, instead taking the time to really learn about something he had just bought, he would not be in this PR firestorm, let alone getting forced to sell off billions in TSLA stock.
Yes you are. The smart guy that works on cars and rockets and who's not a villain and who's a political moderate and a totally reasonable guy, just made you.
> I would be delighted to go back to using Twitter regularly
My prediction is that Elon will realize how badly he is fucking up things and change. I was listening to All-in-podcast and there was a really good comment that was made - "He[Elon] needs to just get back to landing rockets on barges" which I agree, moderating and micromanaging a massive social media platform doesn't feel like a good use of his time.
I really really really dislike this whole trend to feel “victimized” while being some of the most successful people in earth. People are “turning” on Elon after being hugely beloved, purely cause he’s doing idiotic things. Plain an simple.
Furthermore, we should hold someone who’s the richest person on earth to higher standards.
"a political moderate"?? PG said this a month ago? (Nov. 17th) Wow. That tells us much more about PG's politics than I would ever have wanted to know.
Also, "rich white guy" adds a nice vibe of "all lives matter". It's a truth universally acknowledged that white people are victims. Esp. if they're male. And rich.
There are plenty of rich white guys I'm not actively rooting to fail. In fact, until quite recently, I really believed Musk was doing good, was as smart as he presented himself, and was a decent human being. Quirky maybe, but I love quirky.
He has since exposed himself as a massive asshole and idiot.
Becoming poor and powerless I'd bet...
Any of us plebs behaving so erratically and cruel wouldn't get support from the like of PG. But the rich sympathies with the rich. So for now Elon is eccentric and smart, not mad and dangerous
If the same techniques would have been applied to Tesla and SpaceX the result would be different. I guess there must be quite a few people much smarter than Musk behind the success of those companies.
Calling abusive and intolerant behaviour "eccentric" is really weak.
Twitter is incidentally a tech company. Fundamentally, it's a "people communicating with each other in people-configurable groups" and that is quite unlike building vehicles.
Eccentric people buy stuff and are too busy enjoying them .
This guy searches for mentions of himself to silence critics while sitting on 200bn dollars. When that wasn’t enough to silence everybody he went on to buy the platform.
If that is the end of the road then it’s better to get lost on the way like the Dan Bilzerians , and the other truly eccentric guys
Nobody has ever pay nor will ever pay Elon to work on cars or rockets. He is solely responsible for working on people a job which by all accounts he does very poorly.
With twitter his poor performance is merely on display for the whole world in tweets. It is yet another poor decision in an entire life full of poor decisions ranging from paying a cut rate private investigator to investigate a hero spearheading the effort to save children and then publicly and falsely proclaiming that person a pedophile, then lying about pedophile just being used as a generic insult, allegedly trying to bribe an employee to have sex with him for a pony by her account, an entire series of failed relationships, abandoning his wife after their kid died by her account of the matter, spreading conspiracy theories that the psycho that attacked pelosi was a prostitute rather than a deranged conspiracy theorist.
He doesn't do anything but buy the services of people smarter and better than himself and take credit for their success while continually making poor choices and offering an example of terrible leadership.
You act as if his failure with twitter is forgivable because its a different sort of business from his other ventures but its really not. Nobody expects Elon to design a rocket either he's supposed to be an expert in leading people and he's stunningly poor at it.
There is little chance of turning twitter around with Elon at the helm. It was barely been profitable in its whole history and now its becoming a pariah to both the potential employees who could serve in that role and the advertisers who pay all of the bills. It's going to steadily lose money until Elon steps away and makes a firm commitment not to ratfuck it any longer and puts someone in charge that both sides trust. Then MAYBE it can stop hemorrhaging money. It will remain a black eye both personally to him and his business acumen.
Twitter introduced the world to the real Elon and its not a person worth knowing. If you have positive feelings towards him I would suggest its because as a fellow rich person you have more in common with him than with us even if you are a better man. I would suggest not lowering your own stock by defending those so obviously inferior to yourself.
Given that you're not giving up your Twitter account, nor something less tangible like your belief Elon is acting in good faith, nor even something the evidence keeps building against like his ability to run Twitter well - what exactly are you giving up, or giving up on?
Not leaving Twitter, just not reading or posting and using alternative platforms.
Not to play word police, but I think that's what people meant when they said 'leaving'. But if you mean that it's not necessarily forever, I understand what you're saying.
>Plus I don't think he realizes that the techniques that work for cars and rockets don't work in social media.
>It's remarkable how many people who've never run any kind of company think they know how to run a tech company better than someone who's run Tesla and SpaceX.
If the techniques for cars and rockets don't work in social media, why were people wrong to write him off despite his Tesla and SpaceX experience?
Twitter just has to be predictable, that's it. That's all anyone wants, IMO, when you boil the controversies down to its essence. People will always complain, but the brands, the journalists, the users, they all just want something they can understand.
That might come in time. Surely it can't continue to be this chaotic forever, right? At least then we'll know what this site's future is.
I don't think Musk has any negative feedback loops anymore, it's highly unlikely said there is a single person who can tell him when he's screwing up.
Or maybe he needs something of Twitter going bust magnitude to get feedback now. I hope that happens so that he can go back to making great stuff again
Any first degree negative feedback loops. But reality has a way of poking its head in, like getting booed in public forums that should have been adoring you.
Fortunately second and third degree feedback loops are notoriously stupid, and wrong, and they’re the problem there, not you.
I can get on board with all of the above in principle, but I think you've made a strong case for suggesting it's in a tailspin.
It's theoretically salvageable, but I don't see a version of a salvaged Twitter that is compatible with his worldview.
He is a colourful, loud, opinionated public figure. That's great for his personal Twitter and his follower count, but it's terrible if you're trying to convince the world that you're a suitable custodian of a free public square.
Mark Zuckerberg is beige as often as he's able to be on just about everything. Tim Cook speaks on issues of privacy when it's relevant and otherwise says as little as possible. Reddit is as un-opinionated on content as they can possibly be.
Having any divisive opinion by definition divides your support base. Usually in half.
I can only assume Musk-brand libertarian free-for-all social media is a niche product (potentially a large niche, but a niche nonetheless) that's very probably worth some amount significantly less than $40 billion.
He has nothing to do with the quality of the cars or rockets. He’s done none of the “work” there. He gets attention with overpromises and straight up lies.
I've kept a pretty distanced opinion about Musk's Twitter dramas, figuring that the network effect and having access to the thoughts of whichever thinkers I enjoy reading is what matters. Most other stuff is ancillary to that, and challenging the ad-based funding model of media is a very interesting experiment.
But now that he's started banning the A list of intellectually interesting people, I don't see how it can end well. This decision needs to be reversed very soon, or the network effect will be destroyed.
Your tweets are the reason I bothered to register an account in the first place, so hoping that Musk figures this out sooner than the hopefully short time that's needed for most to accrete somewhere else.
As Musk slowly (or rapidly depending on your point of view) turns Twitter into an expensive version of Truth Social and Parler, being "seen" there threatens to associate users with his overriding POV -- it's going to start sending a message just for being there. Running a forum that's even handed is pretty hard and requires a different kind of idealism.
Paul, on Nov. 16 you mentioned on twitter, "It's remarkable how many people who've never run any kind of company think they know how to run a tech company better than someone who's run Tesla and SpaceX." Source: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1592852796185128961
In hindsight do you now think that Musk is not suitable anymore? He is too thin-skinned to be running a public forum and not being able to anticipate consequences that his new rules/actions have on the brand value of twitter and musk. He and Peter Theil are extremely anti-democratic as it all comes down to money and power trips. What are your thoughts?
I'm impressed that one of your tweets could generate almost 600 comments in 1 hour. This should be an interesting stress test of HN. Often when something generates this level of interaction performance suffers.
The man making the decisions in Twitter may be smart but that's irrelevant because of the fact that he's irresponsible. Others might find it outlandish but social media is a tool for tyrants in some parts of the world such as where I'm living. By tyrant, I don't mean someone who merely violates the right to free speech. Thousands have lost their lives because of the irresponsible implementation of ideas in places where loss of revenue is the only consequence for mistakes.
I've deactivated the account that I created last month.
I agree that he may still salvage the situation, and I hope to reactivate or create a new account if/when that happens. For now, though, the best thing I can do is reinforce the signal that this was a major misstep, for a reason he should be well aware of: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1533616384747442176
I’m curious to hear your thoughts on him banning Ukrainian phone numbers, effectively making it so that Ukrainians can’t sign up to share information about the war.
You with all the transportation disaster metaphors today!
It is not appropriate or ethical for ship captains to use euphemisms or other language that may downplay or minimize the severity of a ship running aground or any other maritime incident or accident. Ship captains have a serious responsibility to communicate clearly and accurately about the status of their vessel and to take all necessary actions to ensure the safety of their crew and passengers. Using euphemisms or other language that may mislead or confuse people about the true nature of an incident or accident could potentially compromise safety and hinder effective communication and response.
It's astonishing how much benefit of the doubt Elon Musk gets from his cult of personality. Whether or not he's smart, the things he's doing at Twitter are /glaringly/ not smart from a business perspective: He's driven away advertisers, alienated users, crippled system resilience by firing so many engineers, and set the stage for dozens of lawsuits that will run the gamut from employment law to SEC oversight to EU compliance. Twitter is burning, and it's increasingly hard to see how genius Elon Musk is going to salvage it when he keeps throwing gasoline on the fire.
If you were presented this whole debacle in an anonymized format, without Elon Musk's name attached, how would you judge these actions?
Not everyone that does not hate Elon Musk is following a personality cult. I have not much of an opinion of Elon Musk in general and kinda ignore the person himself, but what he did to Twitter is awesome for everyone, but the woke bubble. It's definitely fun to watch it.
I think the fact that pg himself is frustrated and pausing his Twitter presence is evidence enough that this is not awesome for everyone except those in the “woke bubble”. Paul Graham is very obviously not a “woke” guy. You are very obviously inside an “anti-woke” bubble yourself if this nonsense is your main takeaway from Musk’s tactics as Twitter CEO.
It is evidence that Paul Graham is frustrated with Twitter politics. Now using him as evidence for anything else is more of a personality cult around Paul Graham.
> You are very obviously inside an “anti-woke” bubble[...]
Anyone outside the woke bubble is considered anti-woke. If you're not part of them you're the enemy. I find it really refreshing to see them whine about reinstating accounts of "the enemy" which is as I said basically anyone of differing opinion. It's also fun that people on here throwing a tantrum about this. So sweet.
PS.: Delicious was the word I was looking for. The only tool they have here is downvoting, which is like confirmation in this case. Delicious!
Despite what you’ve been told, Twitter is just a platform. Political ideologies won’t be affected by whether it succeeds or fails. Indeed, failure may even reinforce the woke bubble because no moderation is toxic to advertisers and you’ll have proof.
"Eccentric" is not the best way to describe him. He's full of hate, vengeful, reactionary, abusive, and surrounded by yes men/women.
You've slowly been piecing each of them together over the past month, but clearly still don't get it. I don't know why you're still giving so much benefit of the doubt, other than the fact that he's also a billionaire.
After seeing PG claim that the criticism of Musk was rooted in politics yesterday, I think it's clear that he's become a Musk fanboy. Ironically, this very article is pretty useful in prescribing how to react towards PG himself.
Edit: Maybe the suspension will break PG's fanboy-ism, and he'll emerge humbler and wiser.
That's definitely not what he argues there. It's quite possible for 95% of hate to be mostly unfounded while that person is still worthy of hate. It's just that the existence of haters does not necessarily mean that person is hate-worthy.
The different rates and ways that various types of information travels through media (both social and not) and gets distorted by it are fascinating and there's probably been some good books written on them...
If my memory serves, Graham would sometimes link to his essay when people criticized Musk. It’s hard for me to check at the moment, as Graham’s Twitter account has been suspended.
As I said, 95% of criticism might by illegitimate while the 5% isn't. Paul could have been linking for the X% of Musk hate that's ill founded based on his personal knowledge of the guy.
In the article, he makes no breakdown like you describe. He appears to have created a straw man which he alludes to whenever once of his associates receive criticism.
In light of Musk fulfilling the predictions of his worst “haters,” maybe this merits clarifying the essay.
I’m referring to him treating Twitter as his plaything, changing rules on a whim to suit his latest impulses, creating a whole mess of problems such as scaring advertisers away.
I have to say it’s surprising the the site hasn’t had downtime. Maybe that’s a testament to how resilient the previous engineers made things. I think most experienced engineers would agree that if you lost 75% of your company in the span of a month and a half, you’re going to lose critical institutional knowledge, and Twitter has a lot of moving parts. So kudos to Musk for winning that round of Russian roulette? At least so far.
> He's eccentric, definitely, but that should be news to no one.
Being "eccentric" usually means non-mainstream clothing, music taste, a big ass selection of historic cars or similar things.
Musk? Dude literally interacts with or unbans high-profile neo-Nazis and antisemites. That's not "eccentric" by any definition, that's enabling the vilest of the vile. No, banning Kanye again doesn't excuse all the other Nazi accounts.
I think this is often ignored given the daily deluge of chaos but this move was only ever arguably valid in the context of being a free speech absolutist. It's clear at this point that free speech absolutism is not at all what he's interested in.
So I agree that he did smart things in the past. However he is totally incompetent managing Twitter in a rational business way. For a while there I thought he might be trying to get the debt reduced substantially and was preserving cash in the meantime. The last few weeks and the constant own-goal-via-shitposting that he does are solid evidence that any strategic plot has been well and truly lost.
I get the sense that he wants to “own the libs” to build credibility with US “conservatives” — despite the fact that the libs regularly own themselves more thoroughly than he can — but he’s mostly just scoring goals against his own pocket book right now. The people I feel sorry for are TSLA investors.
Edit: oh and the rank and file Twitter employees who are either having to put up with his BS or haven’t been paid the severance they were promised. He seems to be taking a “sue me” approach to that, which is really really shitty for a typical employee who uses their income to pay rent/mortgages and buy groceries. I hope he loses another billion in back payments and penalties on that shit, because he’s setting awful examples right now.
Fair enough. I don't think he will be able to salvage this and I've deleted my account to reduce the temptation to return.
A reputation is not like a piece of software that you fix and then re-run as though it never broke in the first place. Elon has utterly wrecked his reputation over the last couple of months (and probably longer than that) and it is getting worse, not better.
Edit: I guess Paul won't be going back to Twitter because his account just got suspended...
There’s the immediate issues of the policy. But there’s the bigger issue of the thought process that led to the policy. One of Elons central criticism of old Twitter management was unfair content moderation policy. And almost immediately he enacts a far worse content policy than anything old management did, in a brazen display of hypocrisy.
Even if he reverses course on this one issue, he’s demonstrated that any previous advocacy for free speech was completely disingenuous. He wants to run Twitter like he’s the dictator of a banana republic. And any time you spend on the platform strengthens his ability to do so.
It was disturbing and confusing watching people like pg and Lex Fridman seemingly throw their apparent principles to the wind tolerating this type of behavior. I do sympathize there was some ambiguity about Elons plans for Twitter before this last week but with the banning of journalists and the banning of links to Mastodon, that ambiguity has been removed.
I’m relieved pg took a stand here but like you I wish it was a much stronger one.
I think even your critical statement gives Elon too much credit. I think he might genuinely think he is doing good, but is just completely out of his depth and is at the same time convinced that he will succeed in improving it. Any thread by Yishsn has more insight to offer on content moderation than Musk is exhibiting and could have easily predicted the failed he makes. Mental issues or his (warranted) arrogance from his incredible past success are clouding his judgment. He also has clearly a lot of penned up culture war anger and might not be aware of that bias either. His behavior is just too erratic to seem like any kind of evil plan. After all he tried to get out of buying Twitter fort months.
The ironic thing is that one of his latest posts was about dumb people and identity politics.
The whole group of tech luminaries turned political whiners just goes to show that it’s time for a new generation and they should not bend the knee for the last one but forge their own way.
If enough high profile people took a stronger stance that might just be enough to make Musk see the light. I'm not going to hold my breath for that though.
That censoring whatever and whomever he wants on a whim is not the same as guaranteeing a platform without censorship?
And he will somehow change his personality and thinking and put the integrity of the platform above his own small thinking limited to self interest?
I really don’t see it. His reputation of an unstable, vindictive, insecure person with the power to annihilate any voice he dislikes and the track record of doing so is precise.
How does one climb back from that kind of chasm and establish public trust?
Twitter used to have certain policies. Now seemingly replaced by “whatever Elon likes, today”.
That censoring whatever and whomever he wants on a whim is not the same as guaranteeing a platform without censorship?
And he will somehow change his personality and thinking and put the integrity of the platform above his own small thinking limited to self interest?
I really don’t see it. His reputation of an unstable, vindictive, insecure person with the power to annihilate any voice he dislikes and the track record of doing so is precise.
How does one climb back from that kind of chasm and establish public trust?
Twitter used to have certain policies. Now seemingly replaced to “whatever Elon likes, today”.
Elon Musk's social media policy is now so sensitive that repeatedly linking to other platforms will get you banned. This is coming from the guy who thinks it's fair play to repeatedly call a rescue worker a pedophile -- of all things that shouldn't be considered fair play on or off social media.
As I recall, when it went to trial, Musk's defense was basically, "I wasn't serious about him being a pedophile. This kind of trolling is what happens on the Internet."
If he actually had any dirt on the guy, his defense wouldn't be, "Don't take my claim seriously," but rather, "Here's the evidence to back up my claim."
I vaguely remember hearing he hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on the guy to ruin his life but there was no dirt to be dug up. But maybe I am misremembering things.
Then there would be at least two people misremembering. He wanted to navigate the tight system of a water filled cave with a submarine and felt insulted that his idea was non-sense. The rescue operation involved divers holding their oxygen tanks in front of them to squeeze through holes.
pg calling him a smart guy is quite disappointing.
The guy is happy to consume and repeat QAnon propaganda(E.g. Pelosi’s husband).
Is happy to lie(journalists who didn’t fix him got banned).
Takes emotional decisions to only reverse them hours later.
Lacks any logical thinking, keeps gaslighting and cannot keep a consistent line(he is a free speech absolutist who believes hate speech and call to insurrection is ok but not doxxing)
Has no morals and uses anything under his power to achieve his goals(banning external links to social media)
The question is: was Musk in the past as smart as he is today or is that changing. This could point to either mental health issues or drug usage or some other factor. But this is becoming farcical.
I’d like to point out that this is what everyone says is happening, but actually that’s not what’s happening.
Twitter allows linking to other social networks as long as that’s not the only thing you do. Twitter is suspending accounts which were made sorely for linking to another network. (The mastodon account was only used for promoting mastodon’s alternative social network).
If you try to post a link to a mastodon profile, it will fail. Old links will bring up a "this site may be harmful" interstitial. Most large instances seem affected.
I read some advice that it's better to lock the account than delete it, especially if you had a decent number of followers. Reduces the likelihood of impersonation.
It is not appropriate or ethical for pilots to use euphemisms or other language that may downplay or minimize the severity of an aviation incident or accident. Pilots have a serious responsibility to communicate clearly and accurately about the status of a flight, and to take all necessary actions to ensure the safety of their passengers and crew. Using euphemisms or other language that may mislead or confuse people about the true nature of an incident or accident could potentially compromise safety and hinder effective communication and response.
I'm still on the fence about what to do. As I've written elsewhere today I'm not currently in the best of health and social media takes up a lot of time and energy, also I am wondering whether I should simply not let that go and concentrate on more real world stuff. I do still blog every now and then and I'm on HN in waves depending on how much free time I have.
> social media takes up a lot of time and energy, also I am wondering whether I should simply not let that go and concentrate on more real world stuff.
I dont see why more people arent doing this. How much value are these places really providing you in your life. I think its mostly fomo. Maybe theres a gem somewhere in there.
I've gotten a ton of mileage out of social media, met lots of interesting people, made friends from all over the world, made start-up investments (some good, some bad), helped people, have been helped by people and in general found that there are interesting stories everywhere. But that was when I was still swimming in time and now the trade-off is different. As I wrote, I'm on the fence, but the value is/was definitely there.
I will say since Mastodon blew up, I've found a lot less need for HN in my life. I'm still getting all the interesting tech news and projects, but I'm not doing battle with crazy fanatics. It's more pleasant, and I probably spend less overall time on it because of it.
Same for me and I was surprised how many people I know were already there. I didn't do the statistics for a while but for the people I follow on Twitter it was 10% on 22-11-06 and 23% on 22-11-29.
I've been on mastodon.social for like five years. The choice was entirely practical: I didn't want to deal with server shutdowns or defederations, so I joined the biggest instance which is pretty core to the whole network.
Laughably, this is a very centralizing choice. And now I am starting to feel the downsides: Mastodon.social has a really hard time coping with server load when Elon does something dumb!
Fosstodon and Hachyderm would be really good choices though too, I follow a lot of people on both, and they're well-run by decent folks.
I do think articles hype up the choice a lot more than necessary though. The differences are primarily "the moderators", and most people don't do stuff to get moderated anyways. And the platform includes good tools for changing instances too.
Not ocdtrekkie and I hope you don't mind me adding my opinion: I'm on my own instance but I don't host it myself and that's what I'd recommend. Your home is your castle.
Just use any of the hosters, set up the DNS record and be done. It's pretty similar to hosted e-mail under your own domain and even cheaper than a Twitter Blue subscription.
I had heard only good things about masto.host but they had closed their subscriptions, so I signed up with both Ossrox and Weingärtner IT to give both a try.
I have not decided yet which one to keep because they were both flawless so far. I ordered from both at almost the same time and they both activated my accounts almost at the same time about a day later.
Main instance I use currently is the Ossrox one, but that is just coincidence.
I'm not in any way affiliated with any of those companies and don't know anyone working there personally.
'Reputation is like a crystal vase, you can drop it, and glue it back together again but it will never again be the same vase that it was before you dropped it'.
Hi jacquesm, I noticed that you have both a strong background in business and a negative opinion of Elon Musk. As someone who is interested in understanding different perspectives, I would love to hear more about your thoughts on this topic. Could you please share more about the actions or decisions by Elon that have led you to form this negative opinion? I'm not looking to engage in an argument, but rather just to gain a better understanding of your perspective. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Do not try to understand Musk any more than you try and understand Putin, Hitler or Trump, instead you must hate him and believe every negative thing you hear about him. There must be no positive traits or deed ascribed tot them. No negative trait or deed can be questioned. Only then will the social media upvotes flow!
(You can replace Hitler, Trump and Putin with Obama, Soros and Hillary if you're on American conservative social media)
(It really is odd how the hated enemy can never have a single positive chatacteristic... seems to be a universal)
> Elon has utterly wrecked his reputation over the last couple of months (and probably longer than that) and it is getting worse, not better.
Lol. This could be the worst prediction from an otherwise smart person I've ever seen. Please elaborate and define it mathematically. (My guess in trying to do so you'll either discover the errors in your thinking or double down on your intellectual dishonesty)
It wasn't a neutral statement but I don't think I'd call it a personal attack. It's a claim about reputation.
There's also a significant difference between attacking a fellow user in a flamewar style comment vs. talking about a powerful public figure; we don't allow the worst kinds of personal attack in the latter case either*, but the bar is necessarily higher.
That would involve him spending the time to learn how social media works. No doubt he's smart enough, but it seems like he may no longer have the attention span required to learn this.
You can fix policies, but trust is very difficult to build back. Elon is very lucky there's not a viable alternative to Twitter, otherwise there would be a true Myspace to Facebook style exodus.
I think all social media have terms and conditions similar to this, it just seemed a bit dramatic the way they laid it out.
I enjoy your tweets and would miss you if you left.
He can be good at rockets and cars and still be a villain. Being eccentric on its own doesn’t involve victimizing innocents, which he does on the regular…
His intelligence and maximum capability aside, it is his inconsistency and sociopathic levels of impulsivity that are what is causing his bank to drain right now. I’m surprised I have any surprise left that pg has so much tolerance for complete disregard for principles or users. All my friends, the hackers makers annd those who are on the forefront are leaving Twitter.
I give as much credence to these thoughts as I do to all the Hacker News users predicting the imminent software-crash of twitter one month ago when Elon fired 80% of the employees. My reflection is that HN just seems smarter than reddit and other places, but it's just an illusion.
I think villains don't exist in the real world. There are no Voldemort with no discernible reason for doing bad things, but Elon has been doing a lot of bad things lately and is inching into the realm that seems worth calling a villain to me
Calling and implying random people pedophiles including a former executive, mass unbanning people, firing thousands based on very little, and pushing the rest to go "hardcore", releasing internal documents to conservative outlets so they can go on and tar everyone, and honestly just running his company into the ground which is bad because people rely on him to keep twitter as a going concern
I'm speaking in two senses of the word villain. It's clear that for basically everyone if you dig deep enough you can understand why they do things, it's also true that some people do bad things and cause harm and it's not the craziest thing to call those people villains
Some people act like villains and it’s okay to call them villains but if you dig deep enough to understand their motives they’re usually just misunderstood and actually not villains at all. Makes sense to me. Thank you for explaining!
Not a villain? Well he's utterly screwed his employees and broken employment law in multiple countries by not giving proper notice or consulting on redundancies, but hey who gives a shit about workers rights? Not you obviously.
FWIW, he has called two people paedophiles, an ex twitter employ, and a diver. The ex employee left his home as he received death threats.
By all means, I am holding Elon responsible for this. Here is the reasoning:
1. Either he is too stupid to understand the power he yields, and therefore should not yield it, or
2. He knows and does not care about anyone other than Elon, or
3. He knows and did it on purpose.
Hanlon's razor says 1, Occam's razor says 2. My priors say 1 is not possible, he can't be that stupid. I hope that he is not that vindictive for 3 to be true.
The former Twitter head of trust and safety Elon called pedo in his PhD thesis argued grindr should accommodate underage queer youth on their platform.
Arguably, that’s creepy. Also, he did not act upon child porn on Twitter while as the Twitter files show he was perfectly capable of acting upon legal speech.
The Twitter files did not expose child porn acccounts that should have been banned, at least as far as I am aware, it’s the ease with which Elon has banned child porn accounts afterwards that showed how easy this was to do.
Twitter former head of Trust and Safety seems like a queer theorist. Queer theory, in direct opposition to the gay civil rights movement, from the first 1984 essay “Thinking Sex” by Gayle Rubin argued for normalizing “man boy love” as in pedophilia [1].
How queer activism build upon queer theory intersect with antifa activism may be why so much of Twitter antifa was involved in child porn and was banned for it.
Yup, it's exactly that deference that gives people like Musk a permission structure to thrive as sociopaths. pg is part of the problem.
Leaders need to have enough integrity and humility to admit when they're wrong. Giving them a pass for being "eccentric" denies them opportunity for self-correction.
In which country? Different countries have different legal regimes, and, I realise this is shocking for many, the USA is not the world and Twitter has a presence in multiple countries and is bound by the laws of those countries.
I am fine with this actually. It is not Amazon warehouse workers we are talking about. These people were highly paid and Twitter seems to run just fine without them. FAANG can probably get rid of 70% of the bloat.
Elon did give them 3 months severence which is quite amazing.
Some of them are, but even at Twitter not everyone is a highly paid dev and those people have been fired as well. Let's not even go I to the ridiculousness of expecting people to sacrifice their health and wellbeing by being a hardcore worker for the further enrichment of one of the world's richest men.
If this is true that that's inexclusable and shitty. Still legal(?), but not ethical. Looks like the they're being challenged in the court.
Whether firing was done ethically or not, I still think that Twitter was bloated af and needed trimming. The macroeconomic conditions led to a huge hiring spree for last 8 years of 0% interest rates. We fucked around in the silicon valley and we are about to find out.
Overall, on a national/GDP scale, we can use these employees for betterment of other things than wasting their time at FAANG/Twitter. I'd like to see 1000 lean and mean companies than 10 bloated FAANGs.
That's just, like, your opinion. What matters here is employees were fired on extremely arbitrary grounds, then had their labour rights infringed upon.
I’m guessing you haven’t been keeping up with the news. 2FA not working for some, countries missing from account recovery process, axes Twitter Spaces after being criticized by a journalist, and last bit not least…he seems to have decided he will not pay severance.
I hope you write a blog about the process of staying off twitter. It's a system that has a lot of psychological rewards and I believe quitting it is almost like changing an addictive habit.
The best choice. Twitter was Twitter before Elon Musk and it could be Twitter again after Elon Tusk - although it is likely to tank unless he has the balls to move on before say 2024.
If Twitter is going down, I think it's going down well before 2024 rolls around.
Also, I don't think Twitter is ever going to be the same. It trades heavily on its reputation, and reputation damage isn't so easily undone. People who left and found something else, won't be coming back.
I do not agree with your opinion on Elon Musk, but I admire how calm, rational and polite your response to this situation is. Most people (including me) would let our emotions take over. You, sir, are a class act.
I'm sorry but saying "he is a smart guy" is a bit ridiculous at this point. A "smart guy" certainly may not know everything about running a social network, but he _would_ listen to the advice from those around them.
Being smart also means understanding what you don't know and not surround yourself with sycophants.
> At this point, I'm assuming he is surrounded by people too eager to please him.
He definitely is. Or at least people pretending to.
I think this is one of the biggest risks of being too successful, too rich: it becomes too easy to surround yourself with people who will only agree with everything you say, and you end up believing in yourself too much, any criticism is jealousy, any contradiction is sabotage, and obviously you must really be so smart you can do anything, because look at all the people telling you so.
(Unrelated, but I think that's also what hurt the Star Wars prequels; Lucas was the legend. He either didn't get or didn't accept the constructive criticism that made the originals great.)
I have no inside info of Twitter besides being an interested bystander, but it seems like he's flat out ignored advice (and later fired the advice givers) at multiple points since taking over. I'm sure anyone left is only still around by being a yesman.
To expand on this: intelligence (smarts, IQ, etc) is the ability to come up with what appears to be the objectively best answer to a problem or action to take, often in a situation with only partial information.
Wisdom is the ability to evaluate many solutions to a problem or required action, and choosing the one which has the greatest utilitarian value, for some complex utility function that attempts to incorporate a far wider collection of evidence than intelligence does.
Somebody can be quite intelligent but lack wisdom. Intelligent people are also much better at self-delusion, and erection of reality distortion fields, than wise people. They are also prone to assuming that their intelligence transfers- for example between engineering and social media.
Hopefully, he'll shut down twitter sooner rather than later and then we won't have to listen to this ongoing blather.
Power and fame are intoxicating, moreso than any known chemical drug compound. Elon just didn't have the means to express this version of himself before his companies took off.
However, it seemed that Elon's mind was more with manipulating Bitcoin rates, and then buying and changing Twitter the last few years. Tesla and SpaceX must be run by other people, which investors and Elon conveniently keep out of the picture.
Elon is certainly laser-focused on self-promotion, no doubt. I suspect most of the value he will deliver at those companies is in the past, but that doesn't detract from it.
Perhaps founders are not all that different from the companies they run. In time, bloat and complacency will twist them into unrecognizable shapes, until they too are disrupted by upstarts.
This wasn't an achievement for SpaceX. Lots of very talented people wanted to work on space based on passion alone. It just came down to providing funding at a time space privatization was an uncertain venture.
No one wanted to work at SpaceX initially. It took Musk's persistence and ability to sell a vision to hire first employees. And yes, also money. But just money gives you Blue Origin, not SpaceX.
It took SpaceX many years and a few rockets blowing up before they had first successful lunch so what you expect Neuralink to have achieved by now?
They're making progress. Let's revisit the "Neuarlink is a failure" 10 years from now.
The role of Mike Griffin in helping Musk set up SpaceX and source the right people, and then steering NASA support his way can’t be ignored though. Without that it’s almost certain it wouldn’t exist now.
There is still something special about spacex. There are many other space companies that get the same passionate people but they get very little done by comparison.
Tesla's aren't even good cars they are great batteries attached to mediocre cars sold at an unprofitable price rendered profitable only by government handouts.
Jeff Bezos is hiring engineers to work on rockets. Blue Origin is older than SpaceX and still hasn't reached orbit. So, I don't think it's that simple.
pg, yes Elon's $8 a month and now this has generated terrible optics. But like Donald Trump with politicians, isn't he just saying the quiet part out loud that most capitalists actually do? I think it is valuable to examine why we were against Donald Trump doing, but somehow in the broader picture everyone was doing it (e.g. Bill Clinton cracking down on "illegal immigrants", building border fences etc.) The important thing is the broader industry, not one player.
You want to see alternatives? Here is an alternative we've been building since 2011, it's a labor of love in which we invested over $1 million and 10 years. It is far, far more extensive than Mastodon and you can see below why that matters. Would you check it out? It's free and open source: https://github.com/Qbix/Platform
Not only have we built it, but we've interviewed a ton of people around the broader topics of capitalism and free speech. There is the idea that capitalism is the best system for promoting free speech, but that is not, in fact, the case. Just as one example of many, Sinclair Television told their anchors word-for-word what to say, and anyone who doesn't do what the employer says is fired and replaced by a different mouthpiece. Intellectual property, and other forms of ownership, are by their very definition designed to exclude people from using certain content / property in certain ways.
In fact, conservatives who bristled at Obama's "you didn't build it" used to say "I built it, I own it!" In that case, they should celebrate the way that Twitter and Facebook were privately managed. But many of them instead were calling for regulations to prevent them from doing just that. So which is it? I had an interview with Noam Chomsky twice about that, here is the latest:
https://qbix.com/chomsky
If you allow me to bring up a taboo for a bit, I think it's important to bring it up on Hacker News. VCs as an industry, and YCombinator as part of that, specifically try to fund platforms that end up being managed by only a few people and extract rents. Most of them avoid funding open source platforms, which end up crowdfunding from the People (thanks to the JOBS act, for instance). Or from the Knight Foundation. Or Matt Mullenweg of Wordpress funding Matrix.org
VCs specifically tell you that they want you to "focus" on one feature, to "capture" enough of the market, and some of them (e.g. Peter Thiel) unabashedly proclaimed that "competition is for losers", build a monopoly. Zuck used to be a guy who turned down a $1M acquisition offer from Microsoft, and open sourced his code. He wanted to build Wirehog as a decentralized platform for the people (https://techcrunch.com/2010/05/26/wirehog/) Peter Thiel and Sean Parker "put a bullet in that thing" (their words) and groomed him to build a monopoly and extract rents. Zuck and Elon privately control the major PUBLIC forums we all use. And are we all better for it?
I think the work of Tim Berners-Lee, Linus Torvalds, Vitalik and others has benefitted the world far more and enabled trillions in new ideas (including Google, Facebook, Amazon) precisely because it was based around open source and protocols, and didn't prevent people and organizations from using it the way they wanted! Google, Amazon etc. could have never started as "keyword: Google" on AOL, for instance. Think about it.
Over the last decade I have been steadily drawn into the open source camp. My team and I started an open source alternative to Big Tech 10 years ago. We've applied to YC probably around 8 different times, as we kept growing and reaching 10 million users. We never even got to the interview. Such general-purpose ideas are just not something interesting to most VCs. It took MySQL, NGiNX, and other platforms 7-10 years before they got funded in a capitalist manner. By then, they'd taken over the world.
I'm sure there are exceptions, and YCombinator has recently started to fund open protocols and nonprofits - I'm glad to see it. For reference, our pitch to VCs for years had been along these lines:
PS: For those who downvote, please write a response. After all, I've spent a decade and $1M of my own money putting together an alternative pg is looking for, seeing the need for it way before others. I give it away for free. All I ask is that you take a minute to write your own words in the conversation about why you disagree :)
PPS: I think the rule that you can downvote on HN to signal mere disagreement (as opposed to logical issues, dishonesty, etc.) is flawed. This is also a free speech issue ... on this site, if we want to be intellectually honest, we should at least downvote and then comment.
Re your PPS, maybe it’s not the platform but the users of the platform. Maybe Elon’s long game is to get the toxic users off the platform. It has a lot more value with diverse views (meaning ideas you disagree with) than the current echo chamber.
How are you defining toxic? I think antisemites and white supremacists qualify more often than not and yet their access to the platform was restored. Certainly we can't argue it was for the sake of free speech absolutism since that clearly isn't a value the new Twitter actually believes in. I know everyone wants to give the benefit of the doubt but I fail to see the "4D chess" strategy here if his goal really is to remove toxic users.
Other presidents built border walls and tried to put the brakes on immigration. They on the other hand didn't pretend we were under attack by an army of brown people who could only be defeated by destroying immigrants civil rights, punishing them by stealing their children, spending 10s of billions of additional funds building an unfeasible great wall of America, and ending democracy in order to install dear leader the only hope for the white race about to be replaced by brown people and liberals. This is to say context matters.
Trump didn't just say the quiet part out loud he turned it into a battle flag for hate and bigotry. Bringing him into the discussion basically ensures you wont have a good discussion on anything else its the current variation of Godwins Law.
> I can't identify a single person in history who has dared to risk so much, personally and financially, in support of freedom in many forms.
The guy literally banned a bunch of people for making fun of him shortly after he took over, then proceeded to ban journalists for... doing journalism.
Now he's censoring any mention of competitors in an obviously anti-competitive move
Yes. The root of the problem is that the hospitals' supply chain is brittle, and broke under the stress. One hopes it will get redesigned to be more robust. But in the meantime Flexport can get PPE now, and now is when it's needed.
This looks pretty good. The only thing I don't like is the coloring of tokens in the examples. It doesn't make them easier to read; it's just distracting.
This is partly due to the fact that Common Lisp rules are used for syntax highlighting - so the function, macro and special form names are highlighted somewhat randomly.
As names, car and cdr are great: short, and just the right visual distance apart. The only argument against them is that they're not mnemonic. But (a) more mnemonic names tend to be over-specific (not all cdrs are tails), and (b) after a week of using Lisp, car and cdr mean the two halves of a cons cell, and languages should be designed for people who've used them for more than a week.
I feel like this applies just as much (if not more so) to calling something the "contents of the address part of the register" or "contents of the decrement part of the register", especially when in actuality the "car" and "cdr" of a cons cell are implemented in a way that has nothing to do with an IBM 704.
> short, and just the right visual distance apart
Even shorter (and similar visual distance apart) would be cl and cr (for "cons left" and "cons right", i.e. the car and cdr, respectively). Or pl and pr if we swap "cons"/"cell" for "pair". Like car and cdr, these can be combined into other operations, like (cllllr foo) -> (cl (cl (cl (cl (cr foo))))). Heck, we could go even shorter with just "l" and "r". They're even kinda pronounceable ("cull", "curr", "cullullullullurr"). Literally all the upsides of "car" and "cdr" without any historical baggage.
Point being, if Bel is supposed to be a reconceptualization of Lisp, it feels really weird to not reconceptualize how we talk about cons cells and the contents thereof.
> after a week of using Lisp, car and cdr mean the two halves of a cons cell,
This could be true for any chosen terminology here. Unless you meant Lisp in general and not this particular dialect, in which case there are counterexamples to that (namely: Clojure, last I checked).
(def typecheck ((var f) arg env s r m)
(mev (cons (list (list f (list 'quote arg)) env)
(fu (s r m)
(if (car r)
(pass var arg env s (cdr r) m)
(sigerr 'mistype s r m)))
s)
r
m))
says is, first create a function call
(list f (list 'quote arg))
in which the function describing the type (e.g. int) is called on the argument that came in for that parameter. Its value will end up on the return value stack, r. So in the next step you look at the first thing on the return value stack
(car r)
If it's true, you keep going as if the parameter had been a naked one, with no type restriction
Initially I would have preferred that. I did it that way in Arc. But since functions are lists in Bel, I couldn't do that, or you wouldn't be able to call a function on a number.
As often happened with things I was forced into, though, I not only got used to putting numbers first but started to prefer it. It means for example you can compose them with other callable things.
Which in turn means 'car and' 1 are equivalent? (probably means 'car should be thrown out, because surely '1 is clearer?
Ed: and with some notation to differenciate "element at N" and "tail behind N" you could get even more mileage out of integers? And then to generalize to lists of lists to reference elements and sub-sections (sub dimensions, like cubes) of matrices?
Not sure what would be nice, perhaps star or ellipsis?
(1... '(a b c))
>'(b c)
('(1..) '(0..2)
'(
(a b c)
(d e f))
>'(
(b c)
(d f))
It would not be clearer to use 1 instead of car when you were using a pair to represent a tree, rather than a list, and you were traversing the left and right branches using car and cdr.
Yes, I suppose that's something I've never grown quite used to with lisp - that it's lists (as a special form of "leaning" trees) and trees - not arrays and matrices.
I suppose even proper lists are incidental - it's really all about trees (and also parse trees).
I was curious more about how you think about your own time at this phase in your career -- are you mostly 'playing'? Is this "serious play"? Is it motivated by anything beyond personal interest?
I ask because I'm monitoring my own projects and time commitments more seriously as I hit my mid 40s and trying to make sense of how and when I've had the best impact, globally, personally, to my own happiness, etc.
One of the keys for me seems to have been to pay attention to what interests/intrigues me, and I'm curious what your experience is on that front as well -- you have a pretty unique amount of experience assessing and watching companies that have in some cases made a major amount of change in the world.
Anyway, I guess I'm just asking for a sort of 'mid career thoughts' essay from you, or at least wondering if you're thinking much about it.
This was something I'd meant to do for a long time, and wanting to work on it was one of the reasons I retired from YC. Being overtly ambitious would have provoked haters, but few will see this thread now, so I'll tell you: the goal was to discover the Platonic form of Lisp, which is something I could always sense lurking beneath the surface of the many dialects I've used, but hidden by mistaken design choices. (T was probably the best in this respect.)
I don't know how much my experience translates to other people, because my "career" has been unusually random, but when I retired from YC what I was thinking was that at 49, if there was something I'd been meaning to do, I'd better do it.
