This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So it looks like Elon Musk officially owns all of Twitter now, and he's already fired the CEO, CFO, and policy chief. I don't have any strong opinions on this, but does anyone want to stake some predictions?
Musk presents himself as a free speech absolutist, which is encouraging to me, but I'd be concerned about the conflict of interest. I anticipate there will be some accusations of throttling unfavorable opinions about either him or his companies (RIP rogue driverless Tesla videos). I think the tension between unrestricted speech and a quality user experience will continue to be a problem, as I can't identify an obvious solution. Blue checkmarks are making hilariously cataclysmic remarks but I predict Twitter will remain a favored haven for the journalist class.
My opinion of Musk is very low, I think he's essentially a fraud, so I don't have much hopes for his ability to improve Twitter.
Even if he does end up being a competent leader, I worry he will simply be unable to do much. It turns out Dorsey was a libertarian-leaning idealist all along, and he was unable to push his own company in that direction, and had to wait until retirement to actually start making idealistic noises again. If Musk does do anything, we're going to see another round of "No Clicks For Hate" or that WSJ article about Youtube that triggered the Adpocalypse.
I think the best case scenario we can realistically hope for is that he drives Twitter into the ground.
Then I guess I'll have to be optimistic based on Musk's track record with products I've personally witnessed:
Tesla really changed the game for electric cars. They're fast, powerful, cool, techy. People want them. At least in my PNW costal city, you see them everywhere now.
Starlink allows a friend to live in the middle of nowhere and still remote-desktop to work seamlessly. He reports that even online multiplayer gaming is doable with satellite internet.
SpaceX developed into an (I think, as a layman) impressive technology, doing things that previously weren't possible.
Like, I look around and really do see the Teslas on the street. I really do see the Starlink satellites in the sky. I've watched SpaceX launches. Admittedly, I haven't paid any attention to the financials, so maybe it's all going to come crashing down, but people have been saying that for years, and they're still going strong.
I'm a dilettante myself (went Applied Math, haven't even been to an AIAA conference in a decade), but it doesn't take a lot of knowledge to be impressed. Manned orbital launches have been accomplished by Russia, major US consortiums (e.g. Mercury was accomplished by like 5 companies working with 3 government agencies), China ... and SpaceX. Their workhorse rocket isn't quite "doing things that previously weren't possible" (unless you count the longest string of launches without a failure in history), but it is doing things that weren't possible economically, and it was created for a tenth the cost that NASA would have taken to develop it, according to reports from NASA. In each of the first three quarters of this year, the "most orbital launches" competition has ended up with SpaceX in 1st place, China in 2nd, and "everybody else in the entire world put together" in 3rd. They're on track to soon have more satellites in orbit than the rest of the world (including China, this time) put together. Their biggest problem right now is that their current R&D project is so ambitious that, despite a vehicle like Starship being a clear necessity for any significant exploitation or human exploration of space, none of their competitors would even attempt anything like it.
About the only thing I wouldn't expect a layman to be at all aware of is just how long the list is of other space industry outsiders trying to do what Musk did and failing. This isn't "oh, he just saw an opportunity and grabbed it"; the "smart" money in the beginning would have been split between "Blue Origin will beat him to the punch and make SpaceX irrelevant" and "the outsiders will all fail, again; yes this actually is rocket science".
Neither has anyone else who isn't a major private investor; they've been keeping details under tight wraps. Best guess seems to be that they're raking in profit on Falcon 9 but can't really expand that market much more, and that they're still losing money on Starlink. The big question is whether Starlink goes into the black as soon as they're done with the build out costs, or when their number of subscribers increases past some point, or not until they have a fully-successful Starship cutting down on constellation maintenance costs. Even if the latter isn't the case, the cost of Starship development is another open question. If there's a bigger downturn and they have to tighten their belts and Starship ends up getting delayed a decade because Musk burned "I need to finance tens of billions of dollars fast" credibility on Twitter of all things I'm going to be grossly disappointed.
The other question is how much of this is Musk's track record. I suspect he'd have failed before Falcon 9 if not for Gwynne Shotwell and Tom Mueller, but what the hell do I know (archive link because apparently when you're shut down that hard you go back and "protect" your tweets).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link