Curious as to why people think this (other than partisan trend-following). I've been on Twitter since 2009, and it's arguably in the best spot it's ever been, apart from Grok being pushed so aggressively. A lot of people still build publicly on Twitter. If you're conservative you can follow conservatives, if you're liberal you can follow liberals. I find Elon annoying, so I just muted his account because it seems like it was being algorithmically pushed, especially during the DOGE days. But I do follow politics pretty closely, and it seems relatively balanced overall.
Not sure if it turned into Musk's idealistic "town square," but it's certainly more interesting than it was before.
So, I suspect the key to your experience is buried in this sentence: "I do follow politics pretty closely, and it seems relatively balanced overall."
Balance doesn't mean much by itself. Doesn't mean "informative" or even "accurate". Extremists from every walk of life screaming at each other might be in balance, but isn't much fun to be around. Note that the person you're replying to didn't even mention politics as such, much less a lack of "balance".
I watched twitter for years, starting in 2007. It was never what I'd call "good", but for quite a lot of years you could reasonably use it to follow people or topics that interested you without consuming an inordinate amount of time or attention. In fact, for most of its history you could do this without even bothering to log in - for a long time, that made it fairly useful as sort of an alert system. And that is long gone, so gone there's a good chance most folks using it now don't even remember (or never knew) that was ever a draw.
What's left is people who are logged in, _engaging_. And man, that was always the worst part of Twitter, the constant posturing and troll-baiting for clicks, pushing every viewpoint toward its extreme.
> What's left is people who are logged in, _engaging_. And man, that was always the worst part of Twitter, the constant posturing and troll-baiting for clicks, pushing every viewpoint toward its extreme.
I do agree that engagement farming is—and has been—a problem, but as someone that worked in social media (mostly on the data side, fwiw), it's been a problem for like a decade+ now, long predating "modern" Twitter. And it's a consistent problem on all platforms (I mostly use Instagram, and it's annoying on there as well).
I'm well aware; I previously worked "adjacent" to this sphere, and a non-trivial part of my work life was spent trying to forestall precisely this outcome.
The difference between Twitter now and Twitter a decade ago isn't in the quantity of vapid interactions; it's the proportion of that to anything else. The slide started a long, long time ago and at some point effectively no one was trying to stop it anymore. I'm sure there are still corners where useful information gets passed on in a timely manner, but like the citizens of so many venues before it those corners have been diminished and isolated to an extent that it no longer feels worthwhile for those not already entrenched in them to bother seeking them out
And my point was that, from what I can tell, that proportion of trash::value has been increasing on all social media in (more or less) lockstep. If anything, I'd say Facebook has seen the most precipitous drop in quality, not Twitter. So much so that I don't even log in anymore, and I was veritably addicted during college.
It's increased in lockstep here on HN as well. It used to be that I came here for the comments, but more and more the comments are going the way of everywhere else: Inflammatory, polarising, and more and more botted (both automated and human bots) -- no proof, but I've been around the internet since the early 90's, I see the patterns.
I even get sucked into contributing at times, which is why that descent into trash _works_ so well. I hate it, and I visit HN less and less as a result.
>arguably in the best spot it's ever been, apart from Grok being pushed so aggressively
So the best ever except for one of the biggest crap parts that didn't exist at all just a few years ago?
Though actually I think it's just more people figuring out how the interests of social media companies aren't the same as their own interests, and Musk's very-visible fiddling with things drove home the "people are trying to to addict you and influence you" point MUCH more quickly than anything ever did in the past to a wide chunk of the population. Not new in essence, but now highlighted with a giant neon sign pointing at it.
The ability to click the Grok button and have it privately research a claim in a post to see if there's anything else backing it up in realtime is extremely helpful.
That and the real time translation aspect leading to true global conversations right now is absolutely awesome.
I stopped using it because offensively stupid drivel from morons who paid for blue checks started getting upranked everywhere, pushing down the tweets I actually wanted to see. I have no problem talking to people with different ideologies and political views (actually I tend to enjoy it), but what the site was showing me was consistently not worth my time.
That's because most liberals don't like to be questioned or defend their positions, in general. On X they are forced to confront or actively block people. Note that the your comment is downvoted for essentially saying "twitter is still good" with no malice, and parent is still totally fine after saying (speciously) "twitter is for horny cryptobros". They have no actual response other than to downvote or leave for an echo chamber. This has been hashed out here many time before. Truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged.
I spent at least 10 hours testing it yesterday. I got a lot of relief when the number badge incremented telling me that some commented on this post. Thank you.
To me the most interesting thing is the different red team adversary agents I'm using. There is a Jony Ive design critic agent which is surprisingly very good, a red team agent that does normal code review and bug hunting by injecting logging into the code running it in isolation in the /tmp/ folder, a red team agent that code reviews and find bugs in the test harnesses, and an agent that does mutation testing by breaking the code creating regressions to make sure that the test harness catch them -- I wanted to call it the trickster agent but did didn't want to drift from training and density in the LLM model.
I did a huge amount of experimentation last week discovering that if a model misses a bug or gets something wrong, running an adversary agent using the same model or family of models will not surface it. Everyone has the intuition about that but I can describe why using data. So Claude writes code that is orders of magnitude better than any project I inherited in the past 15 years and I'd have ChatGPT run all the adversaries.
In order to surface replies to posts and comments it requires huge amounts requests so I needed to figure out what the optimal request rate is based on frequency of replies over time. First posts get replies after a week so there isn't any reason to surface them. After analysis, I can conclude a request every 5 minutes in the background is enough. What is that 288 (pollComments) + 144 (author-sync) = 432 requests/day per user? I spent a couple hours on that. Actually, I started with the Hacker News API and then realized that I should check the https://hn.algolia.com/api but wanted to know which is optimal including using both. After experimentation and research I discovered that ~432 requests a day at Algolia is enough.
This is an amazing test and it's kinda' funny how terrible gpt-2-image is. I'd take "plagiarized" images (e.g. Google search & copy-paste) any day over how awful the OpenAI result is. Doesn't even seem like they have a sanity checker/post-processing "did I follow the instructions correctly?" step, because the digit-style constraint violation should be easily caught. It's also expensive as shit to just get an image that's essentially unusable.
Essentially yes (bottom got distorted), but Gemini uses Nano Banana Pro or Nano Banana 2 so it's not a surprising result. The image I linked uses the raw API.
You are comparing ChatGPT to a raw image model. These are two completely different things. ChatGPT takes your input, modifies the prompt and then passes it to the image model and then will maybe read the image and provide output. The image model like through the API just takes the prompt verbatim and generates an image.
> I don't really understand why this type of pattern occurs, where the later words in a sentence don't properly connect to the earlier ones in AI-generated text.
Because AI is not intelligent, it doesn't "know" what it previously output even a token ago. People keep saying this, but it's quite literally fancy autocorrect. LLMs traverse optimized paths along multi-dimensional manifolds and trick our wrinkly grey matter into thinking we're being talked to. Super powerful and very fun to work with, but assuming a ghost in the shell would be illusory.
> Of course it knows what it output a token ago...
It doesn't know anything. It has a bunch of weights that were updated by the previous stuff in the token stream. At least our brains, whatever they do, certainly don't function like that.
I don't know anything (or even much) about how our brains function, but the idea of a neuron sending an electrical output when the sum of the strengths of its inputs exceeds some value seems to be me like "a bunch of weights" getting repeatedly updated by stimulus.
To you it might be obvious our brains are different from a network of weights being reconfigured as new information comes in; to me it's not so clear how they differ. And I do not feel I know the meaning of the word "know" clearly enough to establish whether something that can emit fluent text about a topic is somehow excluded from "knowing" about it through its means of construction.
How close are you to saying that a repair manual "knows" how to fix your car? I think the conversation here is really around word choice and anthropomorphization.
The problem is, people think word choice influences capabilities: when people redefine "reasoning" or "consciousness" or so on as something only the sacred human soul can do, they're not actually changing what an LLM is capable of doing, and the machine will continue generating "I can't believe it's not Reasoning™" and providing novel insights into mathematics and so forth.
Similarly, the repair manual cannot reason about novel circumstances, or apply logic to fill in gaps. LLMs quite obviously can - even if you have to reword that sentence slightly.
You're making an argument Descartes formalized in the 1600s (and folks have been making long before him). It's a cute philosophical puzzle, but we assume that there's no Descartes' Demon fiddling with our thoughts and that we have a continuous and personal inner life that manifests itself, at least in part, through our conscious experience.
If all the training data contains semantically-meaningful sentences it should be possible to build a network optimized for generating semantically-meaningful sentence primarily/only.
But we don't appear to have entirely done that yet. It's just curious to me that the linguistic structure is there while the "intelligence", as you call it, is not.
> If all the training data contains semantically-meaningful sentences it should be possible to build a network optimized for generating semantically-meaningful sentence primarily/only.
Not necessarily. You can check this yourself by building a very simple Markov Chain. You can then use the weights generated by feeding it Moby Dick or whatever, and this gap will be way more obvious. Generated sentences will be "grammatically" correct, but semantically often very wrong. Clearly LLMs are way more sophisticated than a home-made Markov Chain, but I think it's helpful to see the probabilities kind of "leak through."
But there is a very good chance that is what intelligence is.
Nobody knows what they are saying either, the brain is just (some form) of a neural net that produces output which we claim as our own. In fact most people go their entire life without noticing this. The words I am typing right now are just as mysterious to me as the words that pop on screen when an LLM is outputting.
I feel confident enough to disregard duelists (people who believe in brain magic), that it only leaves a neural net architecture as the explanation for intelligence, and the only two tools that that neural net can have is deterministic and random processes. The same ingredients that all software/hardware has to work with.
I'm a dualist, but I promise no to duel you :) We might just have some elementary disagreements, then. I feel like I'm pretty confident in my position, but I do know most philosophers generally aren't dualists (though there's been a resurgence since Chalmers).
> the brain is just (some form) of a neural net that produces output
We have no idea how our brain functions, so I think claiming it's "like X" or "like Y" is reaching.
Again, unless you are a dualist, we can put comfortable bounds on what the brain is. We know it's made from neurons linked together. We know it uses mediators and signals. We know it converts inputs to outputs. We know it can only be using deterministic and random processes.
We don't know the architecture or algorithms, but we know it abides by physics and through that know it also abides by computational theory.
Brains invented this language to express their inner thoughts, it is made to fit our thoughts, it is very different from what LLM does with it they don't start with our inner thoughts and learning to express those it just learns to repeat what brains have expressed.
Sentences only have semantic meaning because you have experiences that they map to. The LLM isn't training on the experiences, just the characters. At least, that seems about right to me.
There are things that happen in the world that are external to us. We observe those things, and that observation is what I'm calling an experience. We can say things about the experience, but those words are not the experience.
As to what the experience maps to, I think the simplest answer is that our phenomenal experiences are encoded as structures in our brain, but that's not necessary to understanding the difference between words that describe experiences and experiences themselves.
Ok, what kind of information structure is that experience encoded in? This is where it's really easy to start thinking the brain is some kind of interesting magic rather than encoded information.
I'm not sure I understand your question but I'll try to answer as best I can - also keep in mind that this is simply one view. The structure of the brain encodes information based on experience in the same way that the force of gravity encodes information on two rocks that collide, or other physical forces encode information into chemical structures, etc.
In the case of the brain the encoding is such that various functions "fall out of" it, like being able to relate experiences, etc.
There's no magic proposed here, this is a physicalist functionalist view.
Nothing about this prevents a computer from being sentient. As I said, none of this even matters. The key premise is that LLMs are trained on language and not experiences. Unless you believe that a description of an experience is identical to the phenomenal experience, then we agree on the key premise. Do you think that they are identical?
Why would that be curious? The network is trained on the linguistic structure, not the "intelligence."
It's a difficult thing to produce a body of text that conveys a particular meaning, even for simple concepts, especially if you're seeking brevity. The editing process is not in the training set, so we're hoping to replicate it simply by looking at the final output.
How effectively do you suppose model training differentiates between low quality verbiage and high quality prose? I think that itself would be a fascinatingly hard problem that, if we could train a machine to do, would deliver plenty of value simply as a classifier.
> I think Tim Cook took Steve Job's vision and really took it to the moon.
I vehemently disagree with this. I think Cook's logistics and business-focused goals are, if not diametrically opposed to Job's product obsession, at the very least orthogonal to it. Almost everything about Apple the product, over the past 15 years, has either coasted (e.g. stayed at par with the rest of the industry) or gotten worse. The one exception is arguably Apple Silicon (and I'm sure their board is acutely aware of it).
I find this critique extremely odd. Sure, Apple isn't perfect, but literally every thing they do is top tier in the category they enter.
I started writing out a list of Apple's products and it was simply [x device] in [y category] is either the best or consistently rated in the top of that category.
MacOS sucks but everything else sucks harder. Linux is still nowhere close to being good enough for the average consumer in regards to simplicity regardless of how much gaslighting the community pushes.
Linux sucks in a way that is more controllable by me. I have run Arch Linux as my daily driver for 4-5 years. But I can't on a MacBook, which has the nicest hardware
It's not gaslighting; you're not the average consumer by the simple fact that you know what HN is. My 12 year old cousins havE daily driven ElementaryOS for a year
In Steve Jobs biography, I read that he was obsessed with the factory they built to mass produce devices. I think he was in some way also obsessed with logistics of how things were made, and Tim Cook came in and not only helped Apple but also helped transform the global supply chain.
I also think most products apple makes are in the top tier of their respective category, if not the best.
Successful for the business no doubt, but they are an example of 'par with the rest of the industry' aren't they? Nothing market leading about them (except perhaps the price, heh) and not the first in the category, just one of a bunch of good options.
Nothing market leading about AirPods? I find it telling that it’s one of the only Apple products that LTT Linus is using, despite not working as well with Android as with iOS. And they have around 30% market share in their product category
You find it telling that some YouTube 'influencer' uses Airpods? You only noticed because of Apple's distinctive white branding, they have market leading marketing, I'll give you that!
Not GP, but I also find it telling that Influencer with a free pick at any sound equipment at any price point, famously not super onboard with the ecosystem (Bar recently with the Neo) still does pick them
Linus is not an audiophile by any means, but he's also exposed to more and better equipment than even most of the already significant outliers in HN
Their ability to connect and move between devices is 100x better than any competitor. They were also the first to make truly wireless earphones that didn't suck. Judging it now, when the market has finally caught up in most areas doesn't make sense.
>Their ability to connect and move between devices is 100x better than any competitor.
This statement only has any merit if your usage pattern is 100% limited to Apple devices, otherwise it falls apart.
It would be fine if they fell back to "at least as good as the competition" in a mixed use case, but in the mixed case they are worse than what even low-budget BT buds often offer (no BT Multipoint, no ear recognition, etc., hell, not even a battery level over BT...and even pairing/reconnect is often a crapshoot reminiscent of the state of BT Audio 10-15 years ago). It was honestly a really disappointing realization.
I have no problems using my AirPods across two Macs, an iPhone and Windows. I have to manually reconnect on Windows if I have an active Apple device nearby which I recently used the AirPods with, but apart from that it's quite seamless. This worked fine in 2020 already.
Yes, what about airpods? Little reason to buy them if you are not in the Apple ecosystem, and if you are, and you are a careful buyer, you'll probably settle with other brands which are technically ahead (in either of build, sound or ANR quality, or all, Apple being on the Pareto front of neither). I'm not dismissing the marketing forces behind airpods selling by the millions as a "status symbol", but that's very much a "high cost of living country" thing, Apple is inexistent elsewhere, which is most places.
Apple plays the 'it's the best for most people' game, not the 'technically ahead in [one or a few feature categories]' game. They make the lion's share of profit in the categories they compete in because they sell to the mass market; there's 2.5 billion active iOS devices!
Every time I see someone here dismiss this success as status symbol-oriented marketing, I just shake my head at how much that signals a deep misunderstanding of how the world works or what most of the human race wants in a product. Nobody wants the Sony WF-1000XM5 earbuds because Sony doesn't even give a shit enough to give them a name people can remember. Nobody wants Bose earbuds because nobody wants to open a buggy spyware-laden app to turn on/off noise cancelling. These products are destined to fail because they make simple things complicated, untrustworthy, bothersome.
People are whole-experience buyers, not single-feature buyers, and the experience nearly every person on earth wants is the magical 'I put it in and it works' experience. What people want is all the upside of the magic of technology and none of the cognitive overhead associated with it. The specific choices that make up a product offering - aka the product marketing - reflect the inherent desire of the customer. Any luxury / status symbol aspects come AFTER that.
You fool! The WF-1000XM5 is the worst model of the line! You should buy the WF-1010XN5, it is far superior!
Apple tends to name things in an odd way, e.g. sometimes you need to remember whether your laptop came out in "early" 2014 or "late" 2014, but they have a remarkably flat, but consistent, product line.
I mean, honestly, if somebody just tossed you a random Macbook from the Apple store, it may not be the exact model you want but you wouldn't complain. All of them are pretty good, even down to the bargain basement Neo.
Yeah tho most customers never even encounter that level of detail. Most people just know there’s a ‘new one’ and an ‘old one’. If they have an old one, they come in and get a new one. Everyone replaces on their own replacement schedule, and every year there’s a new one, so it kinda just works for everyone.
Apple at its best makes its product like so legible people only need dim awareness of what they’re buying. That’s only possible if you build a ton of trust with consumers, which is why Apple is so so focused on their brand value.
This comes off as a quite dismissive and incurious take. Are you quite sure that of the ~500 million consumers who bought a pair, nobody considered utility and it was simply a fashion choice? Or is it more likely that some consumers judge the utility differently from you?
I happen to have a pair of airpod pro 2 and some Sony's (the airpods being a gift). Nothing about the airpods strikes me as being clearly superior, which is surprisingly rare for Apple products: they tend to all stand out in one way or another, whether that's essential to the experience or not (I have no use for an iPad, but I can tell a good display when I see one, I wouldn't keep a MacBook if one was gifted to me, but I can appreciate a good trackpad, …).
Airpods? I have nothing bad to say about them, but nothing good either (I rather take the Sony's with better NC and battery life on a flight, better audio quality and painless equalizer).
> Or is it more likely that some consumers judge the utility differently from you?
That's possibly the case, so help me, what I am missing?
Apple didn't use to be a status symbol. I think they earned it. And the fact that they are going all in on Neo tells me they don't care about the status symbol part as much as the profit maximizing. Let me know when Ferrari sells an affordable car.
Yep - Apple have worked through to becoming a luxury, upscale brand and there is no reason for them right now to change from that perception with their current market upper hand
Im not sure how you think Apple is an upscale luxury brand. Every teenager in America owns an iphone with airpods.
Thats the power of marketing, making you think you are exclusive and treating yourself to luxury when you buy their product, instead of the reality that is everybody on the planet owns the same device as you.
Staus symbol is defined as "a visible, external marker—such as luxury goods, exclusive memberships, or specific lifestyles—used to indicate an individual's high social, economic, or professional standing."
Does owning the same phone as every 16 year old in America really fit that description?
People forget that you could buy Ferrari's in the 60s for 7-18K. 7K was the entry Ferrari. Average new car price in 1967 was $3000, so the entry Ferrari was 2.3 times the average new car price.
Today the average new car price in the US is 50K. That would make an entry Ferrari 115K, but the cheapest new Ferrari is the Roma at 225K, or double that.
Ferrari used to be more accessible, but we had compressed incomes then, the rich weren't so far from the middle as they are now. Similarly in 1967 a bottle of Channel no 5 cost $15, but today it is $200. According to inflation, it should be $140, so again roughly double the spread.
That's a very weird choice. I can understand people buying them for the integration with the Apple ecosystem, but outside of it they're just dumb bluetooth earphones. There are better alternatives.
Instead of being curious why someone would make a choice you didn't, you chose to attack the choice! You might as well stick your fingers in your ears and go "na na na I can't hear you!" until you find a tribe of fellow haters.
In my experience, they work much better, their bluetooth connectivity and the way both of them are in sync is top notch. I also find their ergonomics the best for comfort, battery, how the case works, etc. And they have one of the best microphone for calls and how audible you are to the other person while not picking up too much noise.
This is tangential but somehow fits here. I tried multiple wired and bluetooth earphones/headphones with my switch 2. And the only ones that gave the sound that was acceptable to me, were the airpods. I had the Sony WHX… headphones, I also tried them using an aux cable, I had a few aux wired earphones (skullcandy and some others), all of their output was weak.
I am not even sure how that’s possible, I don’t understand sound/music quality as much, but I was genuinely surprised by this.
It’s a logical choice. They are good and not that expensive. The whole "they only fit with other Apple devices" is misleading. They work better with a Mac than a Windows PC, sure, but on that Windows PC they work as well as the really good alternatives. None of the supposedly better alternatives are better in every aspect. It’s a tradeoff.
> you'll probably settle with other brands which are technically ahead (in either of build, sound or ANR quality, or all, Apple being on the Pareto front of neither)
Like what? In the true wireless camp, the Sony's are much less comfortable (and more expensive), the Bose are not as good (and more expensive)...
There's cheaper options, sure, but you're sacrificing build, ANC, battery life, etc.
Except we can’t discount the fact that Jobs chose Cook as his successor. So there’s something Jobs clearly saw there, past being “diametrically opposed” to Jobs’ product obsession. Maybe Jobs felt there were enough product people.
Apple has Metal, which is already pretty well-integrated in llama.cpp, various Python libs, and mistral-rs & candle. Unpopular opinion, but Vulkan is hot garbage and the definition of "design by committee." There's a reason people still prefer CUDA, whereas most code could likely be programmatically ported anyway.
This is what their argument is, and personally I think it's a pretty good one. But the main issue is that retail is getting fleeced and lives are being destroyed by gambling, so non-professional investors should not be able to use it. Imo, the upside (some fisherman with insider knowledge betting on the Strait of Hormuz) doesn't outweight the downside (a large-scale societal gambling epidemic[1]).
What are they sharing that they know though? That someone's getting bombed in an hour? That the government is rampant with corruption?
The first seems arguably treasonous. And the latter seems directly supported and funded by these "prediction markets".
If the argument is that prediction markets are truth machines, their social function seems to be support crime on a massive scale and get away with it.
If we take a completely utilitarian and amoral viewpoint, the insiders are selling their material, non-public information. The rest of the market participants are buying. From the latter's utilitarian perspective the former are providing a valuable service and getting paid for it. I'm pretty sure there was a legal term for such sales activity...
The only people playing fair are those who don't know how to cheat well enough.
Afaik, Polymarket removes predictions that break CFTC's regulations (this includes assassinations, etc., at least in the US). They basically provide no value unless you're an insider, but they do tend to be leading indicators so it might inform some decisions (like: should you keep your money in oil?) that could be contingent on Polymarket predictions.
If I'm reading the order book correctly, right now you can "win" $474,746 on Polymarket with a $4,000 bet if Trump "ceases to be the President" by April 30
Maybe it's just me, but I think it looks kind of cool. I like how it tapers from the ultra-smooth front to the jagged back edges. Only suggestion would be to use better tools to do the filing, since it looks a bit uneven/rough.
But then you go on to describe exactly what @Brendinooo described, just under the guise of your system of "value hierarchy." The problem is that you can always default to "our values are hierarchically misaligned" and then never have to do any coalition building ever.
So how do you solve that? Because it seems that you can't.
Hierarchical values are just that. Not wholesale. We call that nonsense, e.g. I believe pigs can fly, therefore the sky is red. They are making an ontological error.
For a Christian, a top maxim in their value hierarchy would be rooted in Jesus' famous commandment: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind." Now, if you're an atheist, this might be nonsense to you. You might not believe that Jesus was resurrected or that God even exists. To you, these are fundamentally irrational statements ("pigs can fly," etc.). Under your system, if you were an atheist and your opposition was a Christian, you could never possibly build a coalition because there's a disagreement at the top of the value hierarchy.
But this seems wrong because people of different creeds and value systems do stuff together all the time. Or am I misunderstanding your point? What I understand @Brendinooo to be saying is: "we may not share the same moral framework (or value hierarchy, using your term), but we do agree on X, so let's do X."
I think you confuse beliefs with values by placing that at the root.
I'd have a problem with it if my tax bracket were determined by whether I loved the Christian Lord rather than any other deity.
People of different faiths band together because of shared values that actually make a difference as long as they are happy to live and let live on matters of belief.
It is true that a lot of values sit on a foundation of beliefs, via the teachings we think are inextricably associated with our beliefs.
A Christian's values (e.g. "you are born a boy or a girl') might conflict with a trans person's beliefs ("I was not born with the body that matches my gender identity"). Meanwhile another Christian's values ("God has a plan and your body and gender identity must by definition be a part of that plan") might be entirely compatible.
Beliefs are absolutely foundational but all the values built on them are just received wisdom, interpretation etc.
Of course, it is easy to confuse these things, and people who rise to power are often those who do. Keeping an open mind requires time and mental energy. CEOs and world leaders rarely have time to examine their values, and refraining that act as "questioning my beliefs" reframes a rational act into an invitation to have a crippling crisis of faith - which is much easier to tell yourself is a temptation of the devil that you must not indulge.
By shying away from such examination they have much more time and mental energy and deciseness to execute effectively on their agenda.
The obvious downside is that this lack of reflection means the agenda they execute so effectively on is potentially not what they actually would have chosen if they'd really thought it through in a rational way.
You can hold some values as core to your position, your belief. Outside of your beliefs, there is a strict hierarchy of values.
Colors require perception, kinematics breaks down without velocity/acceleration.
Being Aetheist or Christian conveniently doesn't tend to conflict with the general hierarchy of values, which is independent of your particular religious interpretation of them. Your interpretation of the general hierarchy, can cause issues, however.
I don't know, I've noticed this in the right as well. I think there's always some degree of purity-testing to any community, though I agree there is more on the current (radical?) progressive end than average.
Not sure if it turned into Musk's idealistic "town square," but it's certainly more interesting than it was before.
reply