How kind of him to give his wealth away after intentionally using his company to fracture society as much as he could to earn the money in the first place
I get it, meta has caused a huge amount of societal damage, and we wouldn't need philanthropists if we fairer economies.
But people are complicated, and if Zuckerberg really is giving away 99% of his wealty to causes, that's a positive and worth discussing. Even if it doesn't make up for other harm.
No, Zuckerberg did not set out consciously trying to "fracture society". He started out trying to provide a way to rate women at Harvard by how attractive they were, then by just trying to optimize revenue without any consideration for unintended consequences. Then kept going.
Not understanding the failure mode is going to just lead to repeating the same mistakes at even grander scales, like what's happening now with AI. Nerds obsessed with creating "AGI" without the capability or willingness to think through the potential consequences.
This is like the oil companies that hid the internal climate change studies for as long as they could. Zuck knew what he was doing long before everyone else did. Acting like he was just dumb and uninformed is wrong. When they started he might not have realized how bad optimizing for engagement was but it doesn't take a genius to realize what was happening with the data they have. He's not some starry eyed kid who accidentally made a monster, he found out he could become one of the richest men in the world if he made his monster vicious enough. This is a guy that started buying the land for his survival bunker 10 years ago.
The real reason to be pessimistic about elder scrolls 6 is that Bethesda has tried multiple times already to get paid modding where they take a huge chuck of the profits to stick. They will stop taking no for an answer at some point
Comparing the internet we grew up with and the modern internet where a army of psychologists have been unleashed with the express intent to massively increase addiction to everything they touch is very foolish
This is not about telling kids no. This is about companies (and foreign hostile governments!) worth billions of dollars openly studying how best to prey on children's minds. There are things that are just poisonous to society as a concept.
The same people demanding the anti-smart phone laws will rat your ass out the second your kid is spotted walking alone, playing independently, etc. They want to put you in a catch-22 situation.
The real problem here is way less people are parents or people that have no idea what parenting is like, so they don't understand the practicalities of raising children so they come up with the dumbest laws possible and then lord it over you with the full weigh of the state so they can pretend to be parents but with none of the responsibility and all of the smug moral superiority.
Jonathan Haidt, the most prominent psychologist pushing for restrictions on social media use for children, is also the most prominent proponent of letting kids play and roam more freely. So no, those are not the same people.
You can’t survive in survival bunkers or islands, and thinking otherwise is a pipe dream. We don’t have a true model of what this might look like, but if there’s extreme instability then wealth doesn’t serve as a safety measure—it will be a target. You need backing by governed armies to protect status and wealth, but in some proto-civilization model, there will just be warring factions with bunker busters and maybe nukes going at each other. They’ll eventually form treaties and merge into city states, repeating the same trend towards nation states and democracy. Just skip the dumb bloodshed in the middle, and settle on Nordic socialism from the get go.
You'd be surprised. See. GP asks a very interesting question. And some grid infra indeed relies on AWS, definitely not all of it but there are some aspects of it that are hosted by AWS.
This is already happening. I have looked at quite a few companies in the energy space this year, two of them had AWS as a critical dependency in their primary business processes and that could definitely have an impact on the grid. To their defense: AWS presumably tests their fall-back options (generators) with some regularity. But this isn't a farfetched idea at all.
I can say I've cooked chicken sous vide incorrectly before that had cooked long and hot enough to be safe, but the texture and feel of the meat could only be described as a meat gusher, if you've ever had those candies. Every bite exploded with liquid and the meat itself was squishy, it was very disgusting
Is this really surprising? Most women spend a considerable amount of time and effort to appear younger and most men do not. Especially when it comes to ceos, men even getting hairline surgery can be a subject of ridicule while woman with the means can surgically change their entire face.
> Most women spend a considerable amount of time and effort to appear younger and most men do not.
What are you grounding this claim in? Research? You own observations? It seems like you're adding to the original claims in the article but I'm not sure where you're getting your data or if this is just your opinion.
Anecdotally, I feel like there are quite a few male ceos who are loud and proud about their attempts to appear younger and beat aging (e.g. Bryan Johnson and all his followers, Andrew Huberman and folks following his protocols). I don't see the same for women (unless you're including folks like a Kylie Jenner etc. who are celebrities who got famous in part because of their looks / makeup taste etc.).
> "On the other hand, the Men segment, while smaller in comparison, is steadily gaining momentum. The growth in this segment is fueled by a rising awareness among men about skincare, supported by increasing marketing campaigns and product innovations tailored to men’s skin types. This segment is expected to expand as societal attitudes shift, and men increasingly prioritize grooming and skincare routines aimed at maintaining a youthful appearance."
I think is a more data-driven explanation of what I've observed, although you're right that women are the majority of anti-aging product consumers as defined by this report (seems like mostly skincare and cosmetics, makes sense).
> The Global Anti-Aging Products Market size is [worth] USD 47.4 Billion in 2023
That would work out to the average woman spending about $9 on it a year. So one might still question the 'most women' claim, unless these products are considerably cheaper than I'm imagining :)
I strongly suspect that the real story is "a small minority of women and an even smaller minority of men spend quite a lot on these things, the remainder of the population doesn't use them at all."
Bit of a tangent but after reading your comment, I had to look up if Pamela Anderson is the CEO of anything...turns out she is, of a skincare company.
I guess my assumption (which may be wrong) is that Huberman and Johnson are not isolated figures but rather wildly popular figures with followings of millions of men who want to do what they do and be more like them when it comes to longevity etc.
Wanting longevity and wanting to look younger are related but distinct things.
Huberman’s and Johnson’s niche seems to be telling people how to live longer and feel better, not really how to look younger. Huberman sports a very gray beard. He’s not trying to pretend he’s in his 20s.
> Men with means and receding hairlines 100% get hair transplants, even middle class baldies do so
Not that I'm looking to make the case, but I believe they agreed. They were saying ridicule is included for free, perhaps crediting it with too much impact on choice.
I'd say similar care for the ladies has another standard, because, well, there is. It's practically expected. Real mystery. Practical example: a bald man worries about the shape of his head and some jokes. Conversely, a bald woman worries about her life/exclusion.
Anyway, I've rocked 'The Costanza' since I was a wee child. Can't be bothered to go any further [with the trimmer or plane to Türkiye] :)
> I'd say similar care for the ladies has another standard, because, well, there is. It's practically expected.
Plastic surgery is absolutely not _expected_. About 15 million aesthetic plastic surgeries are performed worldwide per year. That's about one in 500 people, but in reality most people who have one procedure have multiple, so it is likely even rarer than that.
You mistake my point and overlooked 'practically'. It's not about cosmetic surgery or any particular action; commenting on the lengths or expectations based on gender. To be clear: I generally don't subscribe to these norms, failing to meet them myself.
Regardless, let's force the issue a bit. Consider a gruesome accident. While I'm not willing to research it, I feel comfortable saying there would be more social pressure towards cosmetic surgery for women.
At risk of another pointless debate, another example: a man can commonly, without worry or second thought, throw on a wrinkled shirt; a woman worries about repeating outfits.
It doesn't help that really everyone already understands that basically every company is completely devoid of morality and ethics. Noone who pays attention is surprised or shocked at companies taking advantage of disasters. They're not even above manufacturing the disaster themselves if they think they'll get away with it. Reporting on what they do feels like screaming into the void.
reply