Everyone wants to gesture vaguely at the state of it but it's still by far the best place. Just use the site the way you want to use it, post the way you wish others posted, and mute stuff you don't like aggressively.
yep, x/twitter is great (relative basis). people will confirmation bias their way to whatever matches their priors though. i spent a day or two marking things as "not interested" and blocking people -- my feed is great: 99% tech niches, 0% politics.
i find reddit to be particularly bad; a true cesspool of negativity. Seems to be mostly just bots and incels looking for someone to blame and/or somewhere to direct their unhappiness towards.
It's not all that hard to curate a feed without that stuff. Block people who annoy you, mute words/phrases that annoy you, and follow people you enjoy.
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.
Younger Dryas, definitely. It very likely abruptly stopped progress in human agriculture, before allowing it to abruptly restart again. Makes the Medieval warm period and little ice age look like a joke. Two massive shifts that punctuate the timeline of early human prehistory.
> The Younger Dryas (YD, Greenland Stadial GS-1) was a period in Earth's geologic history that occurred circa 12,900 to 11,700 years Before Present (BP). It is primarily known for the sudden or "abrupt" cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, when the North Atlantic Ocean cooled and annual air temperatures decreased by ~3 °C (5 °F) over North America, 2–6 °C (4–11 °F) in Europe and up to 10 °C (18 °F) in Greenland, in a few decades
As a fan of Calvino I will say that If on a Winter’s Night a Traveller is somewhat more enjoyable after you've read a bunch of other Calvino, since it has a somewhat cheeky, self-referential feel and the more you sympathize with the author the more you may like it.
Numbers in the Dark is very good as a place to start.
In italian high schools you learn to hate a lot of what you do, just because you're a student and can't be bothered to enjoy an analysis of some themes - then when you're a bit older you start to appreciate what you hated much more
I absolutely loved Invisible Cities, but I couldn't get more than a couple of chapters into If on a Winter's Night. The first pages are very evocative, but it gets really repetitive with nothing to "progress" the "plot".
My impression (possibly mistaken) is that it's a product of its time that was innovative, but hasn't aged that well. More a fun puzzle box than something with emotional weight.
Given the above, what other Calvino work might appeal more to someone like me?
Flora Carta, design and keep track of your gardens. Originally a project for myself to keep track of every rose variety (I have over a hundred) in my garden, and apple/pear/plum variety in my orchard.
Since we (as old Rummy said) do not know what we do not know, we cannot be certain about the extent of cyber attacks and what they might have influenced, and may not know these things until discoveries decades later, if ever.
I believe the popular sentiment is that when they hacked the DNC they found a handful of things that would provide bad optics for the party. But the RNC? They found so much evidence of criminality that near to the entire party flipped positions on issues related to Russia. So we have 2x successful hacks, one of which yielded some bad press for the Dems, and yielded an entirely compromised party in the Repubs who now are being actively blackmailed.
Or maybe it's that our archaic system was designed so that some people's votes literally matter more than others, and more than half the country does not have a meaningful voice in our Federal elections.
> more than half the country does not have a meaningful voice in our Federal elections
There is almost certainly an election on your ballot every time that is meaningful. Relinquishing that civic duty is how we get Trump. People to lazy, stupid or proud to vote absolutely bear responsibility for this mess.
I agree to an extent but I have a hard time blaming many in the LGBT community/supporters of Palestine for sitting out when Harris and co so thoroughly abandoned them in the general. They stood behind Biden in 2020 then watched as the democrats gave in on trans rights and did nothing to stop Israel’s campaign. Now they’re watching Newsome and folks gleefully accept trans erasure going into the mid terms/next election, so they’ve been validated in many ways.
Is it tactically sound? No. Is it what I did? No. But I’ve had enough conversations with folks that I get where they’re coming from, even if I thought it was the wrong decision.
I vote in local, state, and federal elections. I have volunteered with multiple campaigns and causes, and given substantial time/labor to the EFF. I have been harassed by Trump supporters while filming protests and other civic action. Please do not presume to know me.
I get you’re angry but you’re swinging at the wrong person.
Good. But the parent was blaming Trump on disinformation propaganda, and it is important to point out that the remaining 1/3-rd of the country is not some kind of idiot army that replaced their brains with FB propaganda. They voted for this actively.
Also, in a democracy you don't get to disavow 1/3rd of the population that didn't vote with you.
Clearly you do, since Donald Trump has been aggressively doing this for his whole political career. I agree that it's a morally problematic thing to do, and it can be bad tactically depending on the situation. Practically, it does happen without consequences.
Not if the election was stolen. There was a smattering of evidence after the election but the speed with which is disappeared was truly something to behold.
> Someone is trying to get the message across that Italy has decided to suspend the use of bases for U.S. assets.
> Something that's simply false, because the bases are active, in use, and nothing has changed.
> The Government continues to do what all Italian Governments have always done in full adherence to the commitments made in Parliament and to the line reiterated in the Supreme Defense Council as well, in continuity with all previous Councils over the decades.
> International agreements clearly regulate and distinguish what requires specific Government authorization (for which it has been decided to always involve Parliament), without which it is not possible to grant anything, and what is instead considered technically authorized because it is included in the agreements.
> A minister only has to ensure they are respected.
> There is no third option.
> Finally, I want to reiterate that there is no cooling or tension with the U.S., because they know the rules that have governed their presence in Italy since 1954 just as well as we do.
> no cooling or tension with the U.S., because they know the rules
Not to add to the fake news cycle, but since the US seems fine in abandoning international agreements (at least for climate and nuclear weapons,) this comes across as blue-eyed or disingenuous.
Is this really true in 2026? Even 10 year old cars are simply big now, and not that expensive. I could believe it in 1990 maybe.
I have 3 babies (ages 0, 2, 4 when we started) in a 2016 Subaru Outback for 1.5 years now and it's been mostly fine. I have 2 "slim" seats from Clek, one is a booster, and it's really not a big deal. I cannot imagine deciding to give up a child because of a minor inconvenience like this.
Buying slim car seats is just not that expensive compared to buying a new car, so we did that. It's hard to believe that people who really want 3 children cannot make it work.
As mentioned it’s an attempt to note the pressure without doing direct interviews.
And not to disparage you or cast aspersions, but if you think about why you do not have a fourth kid it’s likely that “have to get new vehicle” could be part of it.
Of course, when you come around from the other end (fourth is on the way, what do) you then change the equation and work it out.
To test the theory presented in the study, we should issue minivans with car seats to new parents; since they have a vehicle large enough they should statistically have more kids than the median.
> I cannot imagine deciding to give up a child because of a minor inconvenience like this.
I don't think the article was suggesting that parents sit down together, ask each other "hey, should we have a third kid?" and one of them says, "well, I would say yes, but the only downside I can think of is that fitting a third child seat will be really hard, so let's not do it."
Parents who decide not to have the third kid certainly have other reasons for not wanting one, and the difficulty of a third car seat is a contributing factor, not the only consideration.
He's made a lot of predictions: Apple will acquire Disney (recent), Microsoft will acquire Yahoo (mid 2000s), we'd have a "hard landing" in 2023/2024. None of these have turned out true. It's especially hard to meaningfully evaluate claims of crashes.
Well, if I remember correctly Microsoft was very close to acquire Yahoo.
So it means it made sense to do it. Even if you correctly predict the economic, political currents, sometimes it is up to the actions of individuals that are very hard to predict.
Even if there was a 29 style crash, assuming you can hold for 20 or so years, less than the length of most home mortgages, you would still come out ahead. Not that it wouldn’t be painful for seniors and those who are middle age and not well diversified, but it’s hard to not see a US crash as a buying opportunity for international capital.
A 1929-style crash was accompanied by mass unemployment (~25%), meaning people were often forced to sell at the bottom precisely because they had no income. You can't "hold" if you're selling assets to eat. Also just because it recovered in the past doesn't mean it'll follow the same trajectory in the future.
"A 1929-style crash was accompanied by mass unemployment (~25%), meaning people were often forced to sell at the bottom precisely because they had no income. You can't "hold" if you're selling assets to eat."
That's the evil thing about economic crises. People with enough capital usually can sit them out and often even benefit. People with less capital often lose everything and when the recovery comes, they have nothing that could benefit from it.
I am close to retirement and I often think how quickly your reserves can be wiped out in a long enough crisis.
How was the GFC worse? Not in unemployment rate. Not in losses to bank depositors, either. (As a kid, my mother lost money in a bank that went down in the Great Depression.) Not in business bankruptcies.
It was worse because we bailed out the banks, because they were too big to fail, teaching them the lesson that they can do stupid shit and not really pay and consequences. There's no number on that to compare to a different situation, but thems the breaks.
right. And because we know of the crashes of 2022, 2008, 2001, etc. the market is showing a lot more resiliency. Which is good, but it will take longer to have a correction. Which may be bad by itself.
Stabilizing from those crashes were all about the injecting liquidity and faith and credit in the US Treasury. Hoover didn’t handle the events subsequent to 1929 well, but more out of ignorance than malice.
In 2026, the POTUS, his family and friends are looting the treasury with brazen acts of fraud. The government is buying losing futures contracts to manipulate oil and other markets, and “mysterious people” are buying securities before scheduled, secret events to profit from it.
The US assassinated the leaders of a hostile power after they essentially gave in to our demands.
We eliminated the governments experts in a variety of strategic topics including oil, and installed toadies to run the fiscal service that disburses government funds.
People are working on undermining the FDIC and decapitating social security.
So a crash now is really disturbing. Nobody can have the level of confidence in the faith and credit of the United States as we did in 2008. The people who understand the complex issues have been purged by the government, and the rest of the leadership is complicit in criminality and is counting on loyalty to secure pardons for later. So you should be anxious.
I definitely don't think it's a case of more market resiliency but rather a case of central banks willing to act much more aggressively to respond to these things. This is often what Ben Bernanke argues, given he wrote his thesis on the '29 crash, and how he handled the '08 crisis.
Most people who have significant savings in the stock market don't have the lifespan to ride out a 25 year recovery cycle. And those young enough to have the time usually don't have much in savings yet.
I guess it depends what you call "significant". I am 40 and have over 200k in my 401k, which I think is significant. And I could most likely expect to live 25 more years. If there's a crash tomorrow, my money wouldn't grow the way I am hoping it will over that time, but I should come out ok considering that I will be getting discount stocks while the market recovers.
It is significant if you remain healthy and employed with income.
But it is basically nothing if you get laid off at age 56, and you can't find another job due to age discrimination, your COBRA runs out after 18 months, but you are not 65 years old yet for Medicare . Obamacare may be completely neutered by then, so private health insurance may cost $30k/year for a 57 year-old. You still have a mortgage, you can't afford health insurance, so you take a risk and decide to skip it, because you are healthy. Then you get pancreatic cancer, and without health insurance, your chemotherapy completely depletes your 401k in one year. Then you die of cancer at age 59, because you cannot pay for the treatments anymore.
Given your government is trying very hard to relive the global demand for the US dollar and thus repatriate the trillions of dollars held outside the US that seems very unlikely.
If you're only expecting to live to 65, you would be trying to time your 401k into a roughly 5 year window (assuming you wait until 59 1/2 to begin withdrawl).
What's more important is that before the crash there was a period of crazy market growth. So averaged out over ~10 years it didn't look all that bad. Especially accounting for deflation that happened in the same time.
Arguably people who got caught in 1970s bear market had it worse.
On the other hand, in 1970s no one got hungry - in 1930s they totally did - but it had very little to do with the stock market, agricultural crisis was because of unexpectedly quick recovery of European crops after WWI and consequential overproduction of US farms (i.e. production that they assumed will be easy to sell to Europe, found itself without market), that precipitated crisis of bad debt, attempts to compensate prices with quantity, even more bad debt as a result, and ecological disaster due to overexploitation of soil - but stock market had nothing to do with it.
A 29 style crash would be accompanied by a 29 crash in other countries. Besides most countries (besides Argentine) suffered, some more some less. The US market wouldn't necessarily be a bigger bargain than others.
On the other hand, the best way to improve your capabilities is to use them frequently.
The Russian army assumed a state of readiness for the Ukraine invasion that turned out to be, well, less. Their special forces floundered, their logistics were (are still!?) unpalletized - using bespoke metal containers and wooden crates! Whereas the US military learned an awful lot from its (mis)adventures over the last decades.
This is essentially what Jensen Huang (Nvidia CEO) was predicting a few months ago. Incumbents in most software spaces will probably see a lot of short and medium term benefits from the new tooling as being trustworthy and truly understanding the problem space.
Everyone wants to gesture vaguely at the state of it but it's still by far the best place. Just use the site the way you want to use it, post the way you wish others posted, and mute stuff you don't like aggressively.
reply