Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[Kaleredar]

It's very old, yes.

The dude has a well documented savior complex: Humanity needs to be saved from climate change by taking us to mars, and Leon is literally the only one capable of doing it and the only one allowed to do it. View everything through that lens and his actions make a lot more sense as an unhinged lunatic with too much money and quite possibly one of the most severe cases of "Main character syndrome" ever documented in this galaxy.

The ultimate irony, of course, being that fixing climate change would be so much, much, much more simple than habitating mars would ever be.

[Edge-]

The ultimate irony, of course, being that fixing climate change would be so much, much, much more simple than habitating mars would ever be.

Sure, but there's no money in that! We'd have to change all the things we do on earth that current make money but harm the environment, and it's really not a sexy thing that gets people excited.

Now going to mars...



Bro way, way, way cooler.

[Mayhem]

Sure, but there's no money in that!

It's actually the opposite but it requires advanced ideas and investment. The current tech bubble has loads of the latter but lacks the former. They can't regurgitate old ideas to solve climate change and they have been doing nothing that for the past few decades.

[Jessicka]

It's actually the opposite but it requires advanced ideas and investment. The current tech bubble has loads of the latter but lacks the former. They can't regurgitate old ideas to solve climate change and they have been doing nothing that for the past few decades.

They keep trying to invent carbon capture, algae tanks instead of trees, weird shit like that where the "problem" is scale. Same way they keep trying to reinvent trains, buses and taxis in a less state owned and regulated way, which again fall over when it comes to scaling to national plans where those things exist.

[Elder Millennial]

They keep trying to invent carbon capture, algae tanks instead of trees, weird shit like that where the "problem" is scale. Same way they keep trying to reinvent trains, buses and taxis in a less state owned and regulated way, which again fall over when it comes to scaling to national plans where those things exist.

The "algae trees" are not as bad as you think they are.

There are actual urban areas, in abundance, where air pollution is so bad that creating green areas is literally not an option as trees literally just won't grow. It's usually a combination of particulate pollution+ actual dust in the air+ ground water pollution.

There several cities in India, like New Delhi, Xianyang in China, areas of Sarajevo, Cairo and Lagos in Africa etc.

Of course scalability is a huge impediment.

But if they can be scaled to something affordable and combined with other elements like emissions reductions and public transportation, they could be used to kickstart a re-greening efforts.

They are not and were never intended to be a replacement for trees just a stopgap measure between the current situation and some point where trees can grow and grow to a size and coverage density that would make a difference.

[Jessicka]

The "algae trees" are not as bad as you think they are.

There are actual urban areas, in abundance, where air pollution is so bad that creating green areas is literally not an option as trees literally just won't grow. It's usually a combination of particulate pollution+ actual dust in the air+ ground water pollution.

There several cities in India, like New Delhi, Xianyang in China, areas of Sarajevo, Cairo and Lagos in Africa etc.

Of course scalability is a huge impediment.

But if they can be scaled to something affordable and combined with other elements like emissions reductions and public transportation, they could be used to kickstart a re-greening efforts.

They are not and were never intended to be a replacement for trees just a stopgap measure between the current situation and some point where trees can grow and grow to a size and coverage density that would make a difference.

The point is that they can't be scaled, the problem is megatons when the biological capacity for these things is measured in tons at best. Same as any carbon capture, so many vested interests are stuck with CO2 emissions that they'll throw money at just about anything to keep pumping it out, but more importantly, keep the propaganda machine rolling that there's a tech solution so governments can be persuaded to put of acting.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3z37dpvl9o

Musk is being sued for using imagery from dystopian cyberpunk film classic, Bladerunner 2049 for the announcement of his Robotaxis. Alex Proyas is complaining about him ripping off his designs from his similarly dystopian 'I, Robot' film.

Guess cyberpunk dystopia really is the world he wants, but I guess you would if you're closer to Tessier-Ashpool than any cyberpunk protagonists, I can see why its attractive.

[Elder Millennial]

The point is that they can't be scaled, the problem is megatons when the biological capacity for these things is measured in tons at best. Same as any carbon capture, so many vested interests are stuck with CO2 emissions that they'll throw money at just about anything to keep pumping it out, but more importantly, keep the propaganda machine rolling that there's a tech solution so governments can be persuaded to put of acting.

Carbon capture is an entirely different conversation. Air quality can be a very localized issue. Yes, using these "algae trees" to improve local air quality is still very much in the realm of theoretical and experimental, but the people behind them didn't actually intended these as a solution to urban air pollution or for carbon capture. They are intended as local, limited solutions to a specific problem jointly with a slew of other measures.

The fact that they are being hailed as something the creators never intended them to be is an entirely different issue. The jury is still very much out on their scalability, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE.

Namely, using them together with other measures to improve local air quality in densely populated, highly polluted areas until other more permanent measures become viable.

[Jessicka]

Carbon capture is an entirely different conversation. Air quality can be a very localized issue. Yes, using these "algae trees" to improve local air quality is still very much in the realm of theoretical and experimental, but the people behind them didn't actually intended these as a solution to urban air pollution or for carbon capture. They are intended as local, limited solutions to a specific problem jointly with a slew of other measures.

The fact that they are being hailed as something the creators never intended them to be is an entirely different issue. The jury is still very much out on their scalability, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE.

Namely, using them together with other measures to improve local air quality in densely populated, highly polluted areas until other more permanent measures become viable.

https://www.euronews.com/2021/12/07/...-air-pollution

Its purpose is CO2 reduction, that’s what it does. Nothing to do with particulates or other pollutants like NO2.

[Elder Millennial]

https://www.euronews.com/2021/12/07/...-air-pollution

Its purpose is CO2 reduction, that’s what it does. Nothing to do with particulates or other pollutants like NO2.

Congratulations, you managed to read a headline and form an entire point of view off of that and nothing else.

I swear to God, I'm going to end up having to put you on ignore again.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...olluted_Cities

https://balkangreenenergynews.com/li...n-in-belgrade/

But Spasojević emphasizes another advantage of microalgae. “They are more resistant to heavy metals than trees. Through analysis of biomass, we found that they clean 300 to 3,000 cubic meters of air from heavy metals,” he pointed out. The PM microscopic dust is a carrier of such substances. Most deaths from air pollution in Serbia are attributed to elevated levels of PM particles.

According to the study Health Impact of Ambient Air Pollution in Serbia, conducted in 2019 by the World Health Organization, exposure to high levels of PM accounts for almost 1,800 deaths per year just in Belgrade.

Instead of just reading 200 word sensationalist headlines, read what the actual authors intended these to be for and what they do.

Yes they don't do everything. They are not meant for carbon capture. Nobody who works on these ever intended these to be for carbon capture, nobody who works on these intends these to replace trees. That's not what these are meant for.

They have a very specific, very niche but important theoretical application. The concept and principle are mature, but the technology itself is not, nor is it clear whether it can be scaled for it to be economically viable FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSE. Which is not and has never been "carbon capture" or replacing trees. They are and were intended as very localized, very limited air purifiers that you can put up and get running overnight as a stopgap measure.

Yes, they capture carbon, but "carbon capture" is a different thing.

[Jessicka]

Congratulations, you managed to read a headline and form an entire point of view off of that and nothing else.

I swear to God, I'm going to end up having to put you on ignore again.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...olluted_Cities

https://balkangreenenergynews.com/li...n-in-belgrade/




Instead of just reading 200 word sensationalist headlines, read what the actual authors intended these to be for and what they do.

Yes they don't do everything. They are not meant for carbon capture. Nobody who works on these ever intended these to be for carbon capture, nobody who works on these intends these to replace trees. That's not what these are meant for.

They have a very specific, very niche but important theoretical application. The concept and principle are mature, but the technology itself is not, nor is it clear whether it can be scaled for it to be economically viable FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSE. Which is not and has never been "carbon capture" or replacing trees. They are and were intended as very localized, very limited air purifiers that you can put up and get running overnight as a stopgap measure.

Yes, they capture carbon, but "carbon capture" is a different thing.

*Reads the quoted paper which exclusively discusses O2 production and enhanced oxygenation as a means of mitigating pollution instead*.

This bit really sold it:

Operating costs are another consideration for feasibility. The LIQUID3 prototype relied on a solar array to power onboard lighting, sensors, and functions. But scaling up could make electricity consumption prohibitive.

This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about.

[Rasulis]

*Reads the quoted paper which exclusively discusses O2 production and enhanced oxygenation as a means of mitigating pollution instead*.

This bit really sold it:


This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about.

Unfortunately, this is true of trees also.

Trees are struggling to sequester heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) in warmer, drier climates, meaning that they may no longer serve as a solution for offsetting humanity’s carbon footprint as the planet continues to warm, according to a new study led by Penn State researchers.

“We found that trees in warmer, drier climates are essentially coughing instead of breathing,” said Max Lloyd assistant research professor of geosciences at Penn State and lead author on the study recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “They are sending CO2 right back into the atmosphere far more than trees in cooler, wetter conditions.”

An Australian university came to the same conclusions with their separate independent study. Climate change is entering a self-sustaining cycle.

“We have knocked this essential cycle off balance,” Lloyd said. “Plants and climate are inextricably linked. The biggest drawdown of CO2 from our atmosphere is photosynthesizing organisms. It’s a big knob on the composition of the atmosphere, so that means small changes have a large impact.”

Plants currently absorb an estimated 25% of the CO2 emitted by human activities each year, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, but this percentage is likely to decrease in the future as the climate warms, Lloyd explained, especially if water is scarcer.

“When we think about climate futures, we predict that CO2 will go up, which in theory is good for plants because those are the molecules they breathe in,” Lloyd said. “But we’ve shown there will be a tradeoff that some prevailing models don’t account for. The world will be getting warmer, which means plants will be less able to draw down that CO2.”

There goes that theory that global warming is good for plants.

[Elder Millennial]

*Reads the quoted paper which exclusively discusses O2 production and enhanced oxygenation as a means of mitigating pollution instead*.

This bit really sold it:

This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about.

Not like I totally didn't give you two distinct sources one expanding on the points of the other, while I also caveat the existing issues with the thing and the fact that it's ways from being a usable tech.

Stop being so obtuse.

Anyway, last time I ever engage with you, you're going back on my ignore list forever.

[Jessicka]

Not like I totally didn't give you two distinct sources one expanding on the points of the other, while I also caveat the existing issues with the thing and the fact that it's ways from being a usable tech.

Stop being so obtuse.

Anyway, last time I ever engage with you, you're going back on my ignore list forever.

A paper and a local tabloid news article. Forgive me for ignoring the latter, it made a claim about 300-3000m^3 of air cleaned of heavy metals, without any context to make it sound good. For actual context, Manchester has about 116,000,000,000m^3 covering the top km, at any one time and it moves. So I took that as a very fringe benefit, rather than the focus since the paper didn't see cause to mention it.

[ringpriest]

Sure, but there's no money in that! We'd have to change all the things we do on earth that current make money but harm the environment, and it's really not a sexy thing that gets people excited.

Now going to mars...



Bro way, way, way cooler.

Tech bros want to colonize Mars, so that everyone will be forced to live in a contained environment.
Musk's fantasy is living to be this guy:

So that he can turn off your air if you disagree with him.

[Edge-]

Elon Musk’s Pac is spending far more on ads on Facebook and YouTube than on X, Musk’s own social network.

America Pac paid $201,000 to run dozens of ads on X, formerly Twitter, during the past three months. However, it spent $3m on thousands of advertisements on Facebook and Instagram in roughly the same time period. Musk founded the pro-Donald Trump Pac in July and has funded it to the tune of $75m, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.

While on the one hand, it's actually probably great that Leon isn't just taking political donations and turning them into revenue for Twitter.

On the other hand, boy it's embarassing when the dude who owns Twitter has his PAC's spend the overwhelming majority of their ad budget on a competing social media platform. I imagine because Facebook/Ista ads work, Twitter ads are mostly treated like what you see when browsing porn sites.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

While on the one hand, it's actually probably great that Leon isn't just taking political donations and turning them into revenue for Twitter.

On the other hand, boy it's embarassing when the dude who owns Twitter has his PAC's spend the overwhelming majority of their ad budget on a competing social media platform. I imagine because Facebook/Ista ads work, Twitter ads are mostly treated like what you see when browsing porn sites.

The thing about Musk's PAC is that he is the only person contributing to it:

https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-o...ollars-1969798

Elon Musk remains the sole donor to his political action committee, America PAC.

So, while he would massively be increasing X's ad revenue... he'd be using all his own money to do so.

[AntiFascistVoter]

Does Elom have insider knowledge that ad spending on X, is worthless?

[Edge-]

Does Elom have insider knowledge that ad spending on X, is worthless?

I think even he knows nobody is clicking on my teachers sex leg, she so sex. Which do you like? I like the secone.

[Rasulis]

Does Elom have insider knowledge that ad spending on X, is worthless?

It's not insider knowledge when everybody knows.

[Breccia]

Musk shares this post, showing-

"Oh my God, The Atlantic posted a cover saying Trump was literally Hitler?"

No. The image is fake.

This is where I used to bug the mods to have this thread merged with the Trump thread, as he's proven he's 100% campaigning for Trump. But, the thread is only 90% Elon being a Trump campaign worker, so I guess they stay separate.