This is an example of why you shouldn't link to X or anything that looks like X.
Here you've got some guy who is talking to himself while pretending he's talking to others, not giving enough frame to understand what really happened. It looks like he showed it a picture and Grok started blabbing about "farm attacks" but what do I know?
I linked via xcancel to get around the login wall, and it seems clear enough to me? The OP posted a photo, someone else pinged Grok to ask where it is, and Grok went off on a tangent about SA farm attacks apropos of absolutely nothing.
It doesn't matter whether it is Mastodon or the "archive.today of X", almost anything contentious on those platforms turns into an infinite regress of finger pointing.
I think the first I heard of "gamergate" was that some guy, maybe in Maine, seemed to think that a bunch of radical feminists flipped over his car but it was an incredible story told from the viewpoint of somebody who already knows the moral status (always double plus good or double plus ungood) of 1000s of people.
People who are addicted to those platforms seem completely oblivious to it but the user interface on all of them for threaded discussions is terrible.
It is easy to lay out criticism, hard to tell what a real answer could be. A writer friend of mine said it in a Hegelian way, that plots are thesis - antithesis - synthesis. You have some conflict and it is resolved.
You might make experiences that are about spending some time in a loved imaginary world with loved characters (The Star Wars Holiday Special or Star Wars: Galactic Starcruiser [1]) but inevitably people who aren't superfans are going to feel it doesn't appeal to them. You can make a profitable game (Azur Lane) which is all about fanservice, collecting, and little narratives -- and people are going to say it is degenerate and compare it unfavorably to normal single player games like, say, Hi-Fi Rush or even mobile games which have a clear story like Love Nikki. All the complaints that people have around big media franchises will still stand.
"Scripts" in Python, Java and other conventional programming languages (e.g. whatever it is you already use)
Not Bash, not Excel, not any special-purpose tool because the motto of those is "you can't get there from here". Maybe you can get 80% of the way there, which is really seductive, but that last 20% is like going to the moon. Specifically, real programming languages have the tools to format dates correctly with a few lines of code you can wrap into a function, fake programming languages don't. Mapping codes is straightforward, etc.
for the longest time I envisioned some sort of configuration specification that could retrieve URLs, transform and map data, handle complex conditional flows...and then I realized that I wanted a Normal Programming Language for Commerce and started asking o3 to write me Python scripts.
To single out Meta properties, I'd point to both Instagram and WhatsApp. It was an official policy early on that you could only create a WhatsApp account if it was connected to a "real" cellular number, I think the same has been true about Instagram for a while in that every time I tried to create an account without a cellular number it didn't work. Put in a cellular number and it worked just fine.
Last time I tried to create a throwaway account for facebook it didn't actually ask for my mobile number. Just automatically banned me for being suspicious and then demanded a video of my head with no assurance that would actually help. I generally avoid meta but it seems like most craiglist sales have moved to facebook marketplace.
In 2025 with high interest rates you could run a totally honest stablecoin by putting the money in the bank or treasury bills or something else nearly risk free, spending a little of the yield on administration expenses and pocketing the rest. Contrast that to the zero interest rate regime a few years back when that wasn't possible.
I see that as unsustainable though because many people who might want to buy into a stablecoin with 0% yield would also be looking at the possibility of putting money in the bank or T-bills or tokenized T-bills, etc. Just as banks, in the long term, need to pay competitive interest rates to attract deposits, stablecoins would need to pay competitive yield.
You could have an honest stablecoin which pays some yield built the same way you could build a zero-yield stablecoin but it would then compete with dishonest stablecoins. Weird things like Luna-Terra or flat-out Ponzi schemes. Unregulated fractional reserve banking and other risky business. I don't know the details of how it happens but I know it ends in tears.
These have the advantage that they are completely off the screen so they don't compete for attention with all the IDE windows, tabs, web browsers, all of that.
The bit about "confused" turns me off right away. The kind of high-pressure stereo salesman who hopes I am the kind of 'audiophile' who prevents me from calling myself an 'audiophile' (wants mercury-filled cables for a more 'fluid' sound) always presupposes the reader/listener is "confused".
There's a lot wrong with that reply -- it mostly just shifts the goalposts without answering the central objections raised in the comment.
Much of the reply revolves around whether the mixed invariant G=E⋅B appears at leading or higher order in the QED Schwinger result. But the comment's critique used the constant-field Schwinger problem only as a check that the authors' master formula fails against a case with an exact answer; the real complaint is that the same failure occurs for curved-spacetime examples where the exact result is known to vanish. Debating G is fine, but you can't ignore the gravitational case either.
The reply repeatedly says the comment is "outside the realm of applicability" of the formula -- as though that were the comment's fault! But if the formula cannot survive the very checks the authors themselves hold up (Schwinger with B≠0, Ricci-flat space), the burden is on the authors to (severely) restrict their own claims, not on critics to ignore the failure modes.
Here you've got some guy who is talking to himself while pretending he's talking to others, not giving enough frame to understand what really happened. It looks like he showed it a picture and Grok started blabbing about "farm attacks" but what do I know?
Move on folks, nothing more to see here.
reply