Anybody going there to test “how bad it is” is giving them traffic, which they can use to brag about its success. Personally, I’d rather completely ignore it and disregard whoever mention it one day as a source, which will never happen hopefuly.
So set the VPN to Iran so it looks like it’s only popular with ‘ayrab terrorists’ to take always his talking point?
Thats a good idea.
Elon Musk NEVER creates anything very useful as of now
Elon Musk NEVER creates.
They needed a safe space for their ideas. Less scary stuff like pronouns that make their brains hurt
their
POSSESSIVE PRONOUN!
I mean basically it’s “Conservapedia but it takes itself seriously”.
The first thing I noticed about grokipedia is that it doesn’t do a good job at qualifying the strength of sources.
That was an intentional design choice no?
References
- ^ Trust me, bro
I looked a few things up… and you aren’t wrong. It relies on primary sources way too much.
It’s been fun watching Elon go from space Jesus to shorthand for any billionaire vanity project that will amount to nothing.
Anyone who knew much about space knew that was nonsense from the start, as colonizing a subantarctic volcano is literally more practical than colonizing Mars.
And that’s assuming paradigm shifts in spaceflight. Turns out, they did not materialize at all. With SABRE air-breathing engines and Virgin-style stratolaunches dead, things actually went way worse than I expected years ago.
Don’t get me wrong. SpaceX is great, Starship is cool, research in space is awesome. But ever since I’ve first read Musk’s public thoughts, he struck me as ‘not scientifically grounded,’ and I wondered how that incongruity would shake out.
TL;DR: Truth never mattered, and it still doesn’t :(
a powerful man with a vision can be a great thing. until it isn’t.
All he has to do is force it in front of people’s eyes instead of Wikipedia. It doesn’t actually have to be useful, just in the way.
If it doesn’t do anything useful, I don’t think any amount of shoving in front of people is going to amount to much uptake beyond some cursory fiddling to determine its uselessness.
People hand out flyers to every passerby too, and nearly all of those end up in the nearest trash bin.
Facebook, Twitter, and the general burning of the ‘old’ internet suggest otherwise.
Those caught on because they’re basically addictive drugs. Furthermore, while it may be hard to remember at this late stage of the game, those services did have genuine value to some users at the beginning. Today’s versions of those products have gone through countless iterations since then, each one reducing value to the end-user and increasing value to the data buyers and advertisers, like the proverbial “slowly boiling the frog”.
How long until AI models start training off Grokipedia, and we have the biggest game of hallucination telephone?
Ultimately, this could highlight the incredibly high value of wikipedia as a common ressource, and might lead to better things there.
Maybe.
Awww… I wish I had that level of optimism.
A collection of hallucinations sounds more like a bad piece of comedy
It will burst into flames, like his cars
All cars can catch fire, some more often, others more intensely. Doesn’t matter if it’s a swastikar or not.
Instead of pitting EVs against ICE, let’s all push to reduce car dependence and instead encourage the development of public transit!
‘Not optimistic he will create anything very useful right now’
Or ever create anything (he’s just stealing other people’s creations, at best)
More like ruining other people’s creations, he has the opposite of Midas touch, anything he touches turns to shit
Truly the Thomas Edison of the 21st century.
He’s like if Edison and Henry Ford had a baby and it only inherited the worst parts of both.
They’ll say aw Topsy at my autopsy!
I’m happy I can use this after reading it yesterday:
The electrocution of Topsy the Elephant was not an anti-alternating current demonstration organized by Thomas A. Edison during the war of the currents. Edison was never at Luna Park, and the electrocution of Topsy took place ten years after the war of currents.[96] This myth may stem from the fact that the recording of the event was produced by the Edison film company.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions_about_history
He thinks he’s Nikolai Tesla, but yeah, he’s the other guy!
He is not just strealing other people’s creations. He is also giving them incredibly lame names.
Just listened to someone attempt a Freudian analysis on the X that he seems so obsessed with. It was trite.
deleted by creator
Remember that Elon overpromises & underdelivers
nah most of the time he just overpromises… rarely has he delivered anything at all, and when he does it’s such a clusterfuck that the word underdeliver feels super generous.
Literally. With everything. In every business he touches. Yet the stock goes up. It’s stupid.
Hmm it seems the speculative market loves speculation rather than actual results…
Jimmy Wales: Libertarian that ended up creating perhaps the most successful collectivist project of all time.
this is a perfect example of why we should always allow an escape space for everyone. Sometimes that person in the space you are polar opposed too will create something that defies even their own rules
In what way does Wikipedia defy Jimmy Wales own rules?
I consider myself libertarian and absolutely love Wikipedia! In fact, if I didn’t have to work, I’d work on FOSS full time.
Libertarians have no issues with collectivism, they only have issues with forced collectivism. Libertarians love private unions, co-ops, non-profits, etc.
That’s how most libertarians I’ve talked to think. There are some people who call themselves libertarians who actually just want the government out of the way so mega corps can control everything, but i don’t think Jimmy Wales is one of them.
There’s an element of vibe contrarianism in any pronounced political ideology. Meaning that libertarians often hate what they perceive as anti-libertarian, communists often hate what they perceive as anti-communist, and so on.
In that regard yes, there are plenty of libertarians who just want to kill anything with leftist vibes with fire.
But the world of ideas is far richer than the existing conventions and established ideologies, and every person has their own trajectory in that.
I agree. This is what I’ve observed: Pride and moral superiority are the primary sources of political extremism. Any attempt to reason in that emotional state is going to be filled with a ton of confirmation bias. Mix in some greed and it gets even worse.
These people have a tendency to strongly identify with their particular brand of ideology and consider any challenge a threat. They label people that disagree as evil or stupid which makes them feel even more certain in their moral superiority. They close their minds to any dissenting opinions and hide in their echo chambers continuing the vicious cycle because being right feels good and being wrong feels bad.
Some humility and genuine curiosity are ways to reverse the cycle.
Did those “libertarians” vote for Trump last election? What’s their take on Jan 6? I have a sneaking suspicion they’re conservatives who like weed, not libertarians.
You’re right that libertarians don’t want government involved in as many parts of daily life as possible. That’s where the support comes from for things like drug legalization/decriminalization, gay marriage, gun rights, etc. Wikipedia is part of that, it was created and is maintained independently, and whether it’s funded by donations, ads, or subscriptions is irrelevant. As long as government isn’t involved, libertarians are happy.
Here’s a quote I love from Penn Jillette (from memory, may have mistakes):
Government should only use violence for things I am willing to use violence for. I would use violence to stop a rape or a murder. I would not use violence to build a library.
He goes on say he supports libraries and would fund one if someone came around asking for donations.
That’s pretty much exactly what Wikipedia is, it’s a privately created, publicly available library that runs on donations, which is a libertarian wet dream. If everything good could be funded that way (charities for a social safety net, police for law enforcement, military for national defense, etc), that would be a libertarian utopia. Since that’s not feasible, libertarians want as many functions as possible to exist outside of government and carefully audit the rest.
I personally believe a social safety net cannot be independent, so I support something like UBI to replace our coercive and often subjective welfare programs and ensure everyone is above the poverty line. I also believe small companies should have legal protections (e.g. limited liability structures we have today), and large companies shouldn’t (they can buy insurance if they want), so a lawsuit or bankruptcy could go after shareholder and executive team assets.
Many libertarians disagree with me on specifics (a libertarian’s most bitter rival is another libertarian), but we agree on the foundational idea that less is more when it comes to government.
That’s sounds pretty close to where I’m at now. Ideally I want a libertarian society, but I don’t believe it will work in practice in a lot of areas (like health care or completely unregulated capitalism). On those issues I’m more aligned with the Green Party.
I’m not sure what the “best” solutions are, but I know wealth and power are way to consolidated now and we need to decentralize.
I don’t believe it will work in practice in a lot of areas
Perhaps, and ideally we can iterate on ideas to see what works and what doesn’t. I don’t like any big policy change, regardless of how it aligns with my priorities, I instead want a gradual change so it’s less disruptive to the market and we get cleaner feedback.
There are a lot of people on Wikipedia(s). There’s bound to be some that defy its creator.
Lemmy itself is a good example of this. Most of the userbase heavily disagrees with the main developers’ political opinions, yet the software works well for everyone.
Reading his Wiki page, he does sound rather reasonable. Support for Occupy Wallstreet, running as a UK Labour candidate, openly calling not to elect Trump and also calling the US Libertarian Party “lunatics”.
British libertarians get a pass on account of living in a monarchy but if you want to know why Labour’s shitting the bed, well, they let a right wing libertarian run as Labour.
