EightBitBlood
@EightBitBlood@lemmy.world
- Comment on Most of the misery in the world is the direct result of too much money in too few unscrupulous hands. This is not only the cause of the vast majority of human suffering, but also of climate change, wh 3 days ago:
If we depose them, we’d have access to their wealth to tackle climate change. And it wouldn’t be for building the doomsday bunkers they are now.
Zuckerberg spent nearly $400 million for a bunker to be built in Hawaii. This was after Hawaii had fires that cost them nearly a billion in damages.
Zucks $400 million purchase could have repaired half the nation-state. It would have immediately improved ecological recovery, and restore the canopy biome that helps pull C02 from the air as a natural deterent to Climate change. He’d then have most of the population worshipping him for doing so. Likely welcoming him anywhere in the state he’d want to visit.
Instead he can now visit his bunker, needs it because the island hates him, and helped contribute to ecological collapse in building it.
The problem is that billionaires are the worst humans imaginable to have such wealth. It will always go towards cthe acceleration of climate collapse for their benefit instead of preventing it. Whether you feel they’re a contributor or not, they’re still in charge of the resources that could easily stop climate change faster than any other mechanism on the planet.
Instead they’re building bunkers with that money to run from the problems they’ve actively contributed to more than any other human on the planet.
- Comment on Bye, X: Europeans are launching their own social media platform, W 6 days ago:
Free software can’t be “purchased,” so it can’t be turned to shit 👍 Good point.
To clarify mine where needed: the purchasing of what people make is what eventually turns it to shit. (Not just that it’s made, apologies if that was confusing.)
So I completely agree GPL is fantastic and the way forward for us a civilization.
Seriously appreciate this point as a great example of what DOES work well for both creators and community.
- Comment on A Guide to the Circular Deals Underpinning the AI Boom | A web of interlinked investments raises the risk of cascading losses if AI falls short of its potential. 1 week ago:
Don’t forget how they also missed the point that “potential” returns would actually need to be the equivalent of several countries worth of GDP to actually be profitable.
Pretty much everyone is going to miss the target of creating the most profitable thing ever in all of human existence.
I too will eat my words if these bullshit models can ever be remotely profitable. Let alone more profitable than most nations.
Bloomberg is practicing journalistic malfeasance by even pretending these “potential” returns are viable. The article might as well say AI expects to make a gajillion dollars, as that would be at least more accurate than what they printed instead.
- Comment on Microsoft CEO warns that we must 'do something useful' with AI or they'll lose 'social permission' to burn electricity on it 1 week ago:
Buy my snake oil. It’s a cognitive amplifier. I just need several neighborhoods worth of electricity to make a bottle. Better find a use for this oil, otherwise I’ll get lynched!
- Microsoft CEO 2025.
- Comment on Bye, X: Europeans are launching their own social media platform, W 1 week ago:
Fair point. But I think you’re burying the promising parts of this article:
W’s data will be hosted decentrally in Europe by European companies, and the platform will adhere to strict EU data protection laws.
“We believe there is an urgent need for a new social media platform built, governed and hosted in Europe. With human verification, free speech and data privacy at its core,” she wrote.
In her LinkedIn post announcing the launch of W, Zeiter emphasized that systemic disinformation is eroding public trust and weakening democratic decision-making.
I’ve never heard an Elon say that.
And her background is solid compared to tech bros:
She earned her PhD in law at the University of Hamburg and later studied at Stanford University.
W will be legally the subsidiary of “We Don’t Have Time,” a media platform for climate action, but the team is scattered across Europe, with offices in Berlin and Paris planned, Bilanz reports.
And the whole platform is legally under a company dedicated towards climate action.
Lot of wins in this article make me think it’s far from the typical VC billionaire babysitting service.
- Comment on Bye, X: Europeans are launching their own social media platform, W 1 week ago:
Well said. I am certainly here for a reason :)
- Comment on Bye, X: Europeans are launching their own social media platform, W 1 week ago:
Oh because people did such a good job the first time?
Anything people make, no mater how good, can and has been purchased to be turned to shit and controlled by those that purchase it. In that world, which is the one we live in now, a government made and publicly used social media service is just about the only way to create a resilient and uncorruptable form of social media. Especially compared to current alternatives that are already getting corrupted.
I’m not saying what they’ll make is perfect. But it’s far better than any other option we currently have. thKnee jerk reacting to assuming it’s bad is very much the same crux billionaires used in the US to weaken the government that would otherwise regulate them.
A government is literally the best suited to creating this tech due to its public utility. Same with electricity, water, Emergency services, roads and more. Everyone uses them, so our taxes should go to making those things better.
This is a step in the right direction.
- Comment on 2 months ago:
At any given time, there’s about 400 million people playing game on the planet. Of those people, only 14% play NEW games released within 12 months.
It used to be 30% 10 years ago. Now it’s less for a variety of factors, but one of them is less people have the income and budget they used to.
You are in that 14%.
Which is great - but the games you buy as part of that 14% are based on your taste. Not if they are exceptionally good, only if they are exceptionally good to you.
So making games that are “exceptionally good” for an audience isn’t easy because your audience doesn’t even know what they want beyond a genre. I’m sure you could tell me about the games you like and prefer to play, possibly even a genre of games you love.
But if I asked you to tell me what game COULD be exceptionally good in that genre, you might not have an answer. Just other games to compare it to. And if you do have an answer, there’s no telling if it would actually be popular with a bigger audience that genre enjoys.
Making “exceptional games” isn’t a bar to be crossed that makes a game money. Rather a game is “exceptional” once it finds an audience that feels that way about it. Games that have broad appeal have broad audiences like Call of Duty who all feel that game is exceptional too. Many who play it would argue which one in the series was the most “exceptional” and wouldn’t have a great answer for what to make as a better version of that game.
People like what they play, and exceptional games are only exceptional to the audience that plays them. So it’s not so much about making something exceptional, but making something that has an audience that thinks it’s exceptional.
And finding that audience is the hard part. Especially when only 14% of people who plays games are even looking at what you’ve made.
But it’s not impossible. Just difficult these days.
- Comment on 2 months ago:
Based on what? Your opinion? Or is there a profit analysis and breakdown you want to pair with that to make a point?
- Comment on 2 months ago:
My dude, I’m very familiar with the 14% of videogame players new game devs are vying for. And every one of the games you mentioned launched at that price because they were developed by a single dev (two at most) who could profit off of the $10 - $15 dollar space that was below the smaller studios putting out games like Shadow Complex, or Mercenary Kings, or Shank 1+2 for $20.
Now all of those spaces are being crushed together. Mostly due to economic factors. Thats where the biggest problem really lies, in the fact that people just have less money to spend on all that entertainment. Just pointing out that it’s competitive at all is obvious my dude, but the direction its going in is one in where there’s less anything being made (including games) because not as many people have money to spend on anything but necessities.
That’s why AAA is now scavenging at the bottom of the totem pole, and pricing their older games at $10 or less on sale, it’s because the few people that have money find that price point appealing. So it’s now one that not just the people who made Terraria, Braid, etc compete in. The money those devs made previously in that space is now up for grabs to AAA companies that never had anything to sell at that price before.
Theres a very tried and true formula for any business, including making games, and in the last 2 years it has completely broken apart. Mostly due to the Embracer group merger failing, combined with AI, combined with economic uncertainty, combined with AAA companies stabbing indie creators in the back (Subnautica, Disco Elysium). Your game doesn’t have to be a massive hit to be successful, it just needs to have a big enough audience to be profitable. But that audience has shrunk over the years as economies have tightened, and the companies getting squeezed have been invading markets they never had a presence in before.
So it’s just desperate times more than anything. But that doesn’t mean you can’t make a living off of making games. I know dozens of small teams funded by government grants making small games you’ve never heard of to help kids in hospitals learn about their cancer. Or teach kids in underprivileged schools about resource scarcity. Making games as a business goes far beyond entertainment and the hopes of narcissists. It’s an artistic medium like any other, and as such benefits society by making the toughest parts of it more accessible.
There’s plenty of ways to run a company doing just that - and just because the world economy is in free fall doesn’t mean the entire business of making games is something for the lucky few. It’s just for anyone that wants to learn how to run a game company. Which isn’t easy, but extends far beyond the simplistic view you are portraying.
- Comment on 2 months ago:
Thanks! 🙂 Appreciate you confirming that. We actually changed the price of our latest game to $10 (from $20) because we launched last December and got buried by AAA selling for $15.
Almost every dev team we talked to this year felt the same about the $20 price. That is, it’s much better to go out at $15 or $10 as a LOT of people see indie games at that price as better than modern AAA. (All while still holding out for classic AAA that go on sale for $20.)
And that being said, I’m totally cool with losing a sale to MGSV or Witcher 3 😁 Just wish the $20 space wasn’t getting so crowded. It’s making it rough for the smaller teams to compete at that price too now.
- Comment on 2 months ago:
As an indie dev, this article is fucking stupid.
Want to know why indie games are priced at $10 to $15? Becaue AAA has been putting everything they’ve made in the last decade on Steam and it’s all going for $20 - $25.
Indies can’t launch at that price point anymore because they’re competing with AAA games from 10 years ago that have been discounted to death.
The Steam winter sale is the best example of this, where most people will buy RDR2 for $19 instead of the new mega hit indie that’s $20. So indies have been lowering their price to actually get sales. That’s why team cherry priced Silk Song at $20.
Basically, AAA is now just competing with the bottom part of the market they spent that last decade flooding.
They’re complaining about people actually choosing where to spend their money wisely because that means they might actually have to make a good product if they want to sell a game for $70.
- Comment on People who say 'the rich get richer, the lazy live for free, and the middle class pays for it all' don't realize how expensive it is to be rich and how close middle class is to being below the poverty line. 2 months ago:
People are just monkeys. Monkeys do what they see because they’re stupid and a product of their environment. Billionaires now control everything in that environment, so US monkies mostly see what those billionaires want.
FOX NEWS. Paid for by billionaires so USA Monkies want Citizens United, No child Left Behind, the Patriot act, and Trillions in the national debt for the first time in 200 years of being a nation. Bush W is now okay despite being an idiot because he’s surrounded by smart people. But smart people are definitley bad.
FACEBOOK ADS. Paid for by billionaires so USA monkies will vote against Healthcare, their own taxes, and educatiom to fight made up enemies like “libs” and “illegals”. Local elections are now won by the dumbest people imaginable that believe these enemies are real. Actual Proffesionals are now suspicious.
TWITTER. Now just owned by a billionaire so USA monkies think Trump is a genius, Fascism is good, and it’s totally okay more Americans died from COVID than anywhere else in the world, a death toll higher than all the wars America ever fought in combined. Trump is great because he punishes smart people, and people that point out his COVID bullshit, as those smart people are now your enemy.
This makes Elon wealthy. Zuckerberg Wealthy. And the Murdochs wealthy.
They covered the US in news that it was on fire and keep profiting off of selling fire extinguishers.
There is no fire. (Illegal immigrants, libs, trans, caravans, wmds in Iraq, war on drugs, war on terror, etc) But now half the country votes like there is because that keeps billionaires wealthy instead of actually taxed to benefit society. They are the problem. They know they are the problem. So they purchase as many media outlets as they can, like Bezos, to normalize their greed and it’s affects on our country. Just about to the point we don’t have one anymore.
- Comment on Adversarial Poetry as a Universal Single-Turn Jailbreak Mechanism in Large Language Models 2 months ago:
Critical of sources? Okay, in that case the US isn’t the country that banned the phrase “Tianaman square 1989” from being spoken online. Nor are they the country that will prevent you from owning a house if you say it enough.
That’s China.
And it exists to silence criticism of them killing a bunch of protestors with tanks:
Then running them over with those tanks until their bodies became a bunch of organic paste, so they could wash their remains into the sewers:
www.cnd.org/June4th/massacre.html
(NSFW pictures: mascr014.gif to see what a human body looks like after being crushed by a tank)
There’s more pictures of the dead in that last link - go ahead and be critical of them, seeing as they died fighting for the Democracy you’re now critical of.
Want to be critical? Alright, why do you think the US is the only country that’s capable of bullshit propaganda? It’s so you don’t consider Democracy as viable, rather evil and ineffecient. Something I’m sure you fully believe with absolutely zero critical thought. (Despite most of Europe being a dang good example of its effectiveness)
- Comment on People who say 'the rich get richer, the lazy live for free, and the middle class pays for it all' don't realize how expensive it is to be rich and how close middle class is to being below the poverty line. 2 months ago:
Who do you think was responsible for convincing the middle class to vote against their own best interests?
It was the people who didn’t have to pay taxes after Reagonomics. They used their money to fill television, print, and eventually social media with propaganda. Propaganda that taxes were too high (for them) despite our entire social safety net outgrowing it’s sustainability.
And this form of propaganda was SO effective, the Russians figured they would do the same. Then the Chinese. Now the Saudis. So now we have just about every country in the world that hates America purchasing every second of entertainment they can to make sure we’re always voting against our best interests to the point we just about don’t have a country.
- Comment on People who say 'the rich get richer, the lazy live for free, and the middle class pays for it all' don't realize how expensive it is to be rich and how close middle class is to being below the poverty line. 2 months ago:
You are correct! And it’s crazy how effective those high corporate tax rates were at distributing wealth to better society and create a healthy middleclass of consumers to fuel an economy and prevent it from collapsing.
Weird how everything’s turning to shit now that corporations don’t pay taxes and use all their earnings to influence government elections instead of needing to actually be accountable to them.
“Too big to fail” was actually just “too big to stop.” So now where there used to be a US government, there is a handful of billionaire cultists.
The middleclass 100% existed. Billionaires just stole it. The money that drove US spending across 3 decades is now all in 5 people’s bank accounts doing jack shit to help anyone but those 5 people.
Higher corporate taxes = a middle class. See most Nordic countries as a great example that still exists.
Thank you for making this point. A middle class is the sign of a functioning society.
- Comment on Alberto Mielgo defends the Marathon cinematic as "not AI," denies his team touched Bungie’s plagiarized material and calls the art theft incident a genuine mistake that was "blown out of proportion" 2 months ago:
The real question is how a company accidentally steals something like that for a 4th time. (This was the 4th time they’ve been caught doing this).
- Comment on When we eat the billionaires, we should spare Gabe Newell? No? 2 months ago:
The end of your previous post:
Yes, it’s better than other vanity projects, but it is still a wasteful vanity project.
The literal definition of a vanity project:
dictionary.reverso.net/…/vanity+project
project undertaken for self-satisfaction.
Each one of the examples I provided shows very clearly this yacht was NOT made for HIS self-satisfaction. Rather, it was literally made to the satisfaction of the research team that uses the yacht.
Specifically:
“His” yacht being used to better the scientific community instead of just him.
- Made quite literally for a large team of scientists as he is the second largest contributor to deep sea research on the planet. Nearly the exact opposite of being for vanity.
“His” yacht made to have the least environmental impact from noise or oil pollution.
- Made for the environment. Not Gabe. So not for vanity.
Huge efforts were made to reduce noise and vibration, thereby creating a pleasant onboard environment.
- Made for sensative aquatic life that engine noises can disturb and affect the research of. Not for Gabe. So not for vanity.
“His” yacht made to have little maintenance requirements so the crew can focus on science and research.
- Made to be easy to work on for the hundreds of crew that maintain it. Not for Gabe. So not for vanity.
Every point of my last comment was proving your statement about this being a vanity project completely and unquestionably wrong. But I guess I just understand your last sentence better than you.
You are shitting on the best deep sea scientific research vessel in existence while implying you have the moral high ground. There’s nothing immoral about scientific research just because it happens on a yacht.
You are literally using the same logic as a cop saying a person with dark skin is a criminal. This yacht clearly isn’t a vanity project. It is for Inksea, and being used to help fight climate change and the affect that has on deep sea ocean currents.
But to you this yacht is just as criminal as a dark skinned person is to a cop. No exceptions.
Please understand: the point you are making is not incorrect. But the way you are making it very much is.
I completely agree that Billionaires shouldn’t exist, and in general most yachts are unquestionably vanity projects. But this one clearly isn’t.
So if you want to make your point heard, going about it through uncompromising bigotry is just about the worst way to make it.
- Comment on They Wylin' 2 months ago:
The Ken Starr report that lead to Clinton’s impeachment begs to differ.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report
Many of the details reveal highly personal information; many are sexually explicit…Because Starr’s office allegedly leaked portions to press about sexual details that were mentioned in his report, he was criticized for using the scandal as a political maneuver and was charged for violating legal ethics by presenting information irrelevant to an investigation as evidence of legal wrongdoing.
That report is ten times the size of the 9-11 report btw.
Reading the charges now is hilarious considering Trump is guilty of the same hundreds, possibly thousands of times over.
- Comment on When we eat the billionaires, we should spare Gabe Newell? No? 2 months ago:
It’s his vessel because he paid for it. That’s how money works. There’s no other pronoun that is appropriate.
Here’s the rest of the article that completely unwinds how far you want to stretch that term:
“His” yacht made through collaboration:
“Not only have we designed a very unusual yacht that leans into Oceanco’s strengths of innovation and design, but the team has also been willing to collaborate with us on evolving the process.”
“His” yacht made to have the least environmental impact from noise or oil polution (Diesel hybrid electric engine):
Huge efforts were made to reduce noise and vibration, thereby creating a pleasant onboard environment. The hybrid diesel-electric propulsion system is whisper-quiet, and the engine room is positioned further forward to reduce noise. The built-in battery bank also allows for silent nighttime operation.
“His” yacht made to have little maintenance requirements so the crew can focus on science and research:
Leviathan is also incredibly low-maintenance. The off-white exterior and synthetic handrails require less cleaning, for example. That means the crew can spend less time on routine maintenance and more time on more important tasks. “We adopted a crew-centric approach that really digs into how Leviathan is operated and maintained,” explains Newell.
“His” thoughts on “His” yacht being used to better the scientific community instead of just him.
“Yachts have great potential to serve as platforms for scientific research,” adds Newell. “It’s about recognizing that you’re part of a broader community and ensuring the yacht’s presence adds value to the communities around it.”
- Comment on When we eat the billionaires, we should spare Gabe Newell? No? 2 months ago:
Like the 3000 scientists, engineers, and designers that helped him build that yacht for research?
That collaboration started with the design and build. Newell joined forces with YTMC, Y.CO, the Oceanco Design team, Lateral Naval Architects, Mark Berryman Design, and thousands of designers, engineers, and other experts to bring his dream vessel to fruition. The names of the nearly 3,000 contributors are listed near the main staircase, in fact. “It is this level of collaboration that sets Leviathan apart from anything we’ve built before,” Oceanco CEO Marcel Onkenhout said in a statement.
Is there more efficient ways to spend this money on research? Sure. But don’t equate this effort as meaningless just because it’s not perfect. It’s a great place to be a researcher, but it’s still for research.
- Comment on When we eat the billionaires, we should spare Gabe Newell? No? 2 months ago:
Your assumption all his yachts were for pleasure has already been proven wrong. Now you’re just moving the goal posts.
As I said, he’s the second largest doner to marine research on the entire planet, and the burden of proof for proving his yachts are ALL for personal use is something you’ve never provided, only assumed.
I’ve proved 1/3 were for scientific research. I’m not going to do the other 2/3 just for you to ignore and move the goal posts elsewhere.
Prove your point, and I’ll believe it.
Until then, he’s still a billionaire instead of the trillionaire he could be, so I’m not going to think poorly of him just because he’s not fitting some arbitrary number of currency tied to his worth that magically makes you think he’s moral.
Instead I will judge him based on his actions. The ones that I have detailed have unquestionably made the world a better place for many more people than him.
How about you actually tell me something he’s done wrong that’s worth your judgement, instead of basing it entirely on yachts you won’t research?
- Comment on When we eat the billionaires, we should spare Gabe Newell? No? 2 months ago:
What have I said that isn’t true?
robbreport.com/…/billionaire-gabe-newell-oceanco-…
The 364-foot Leviathan was designed for billionaire gaming visionary Gabe Newell, who acquired the Dutch shipyard this past April.
Leviathan is the latest addition to Newell’s Inkfish fleet and will be used to further scientific research in the marine sector. Occupying the place of the standard beach club is a fully equipped dive center, laboratory, and a hospital. There’s even a 3-D printing workshop where the crew can create spare or replacement parts. “Yachts have great potential to serve as platforms for scientific research,” adds Newell. “It’s about recognizing that you’re part of a broader community and ensuring the yacht’s presence adds value to the communities around it.”
You are just continuing to make assumptions based entirely on the assets he owns instead of his behaviour.
Something I keep pointing out, and is why I have also been responding.
I am completely on your side and feel that anyone with over a billion is an ethical and moral burden. However, I’m also wise enough to recognize that as a goal to strive towards not a destination to jisdgr against. So I’m not going to chastise those actively working towards that goal while still being a billionaire.
- Comment on When we eat the billionaires, we should spare Gabe Newell? No? 2 months ago:
I see granting access for anyone to make games for Steam as a good cause.
The opportunity cost for what profit could be made by closing that is multitudes of yachts worth.
Just because you do not value this as a good cause does not mean it is not.
Does Gabe have more yachts than are needed? Yes. But again, you can’t just say he’s greedy because he has them. That’s being incredibly biased.
Instead, how about you tell me what actions of his has made him greedy that don’t involve his assets?
I can name hundreds of ways Musk should be drawn and quartered based on his actions that have nothing to do with his wealth, but rather his actual documented choices.
What choices / actions / or anything of actual greed has Gabe done that you can point to?
It’s like saying anything with a swastika on it is for Nazis without realizing Hindus have been using a right oriented Swastika to represent good fortune for years.
Gabe Newall has done the following with his 11 Billion fortune:
-
Co-founded “The Heart of Racing” car racing team that raises money for Children’s charity.
-
Donates heavily to the Seattle Children’s Hospital and several others around the world.
-
Founded Foundry10, a non profit education company that helps neuro divergent kids learn through new methods of education
-
Started InkFish to expand the scientific study of our oceans and is now the second highest individual donor towards marine research on the planet.
80.lv/…/gabe-newell-reportedly-plans-to-invest-us…
That’s why he has those yachts.
Same reason Hindus have their swastikas.
Their actions speak louder than the symbols they use suggest. Even when those symbols are Yachts.
He has 11 Billion. Everyone else even close to his level of market control has several magnitudes more. Why does he have so little when he owns a virtual monopoly on digital distribution?
Because he’s not in it for maximizing his bank account.
-
- Comment on When we eat the billionaires, we should spare Gabe Newell? No? 2 months ago:
The dispicableness of billionaires is measured by their actions not their worth. And despite being of high worth, Gabes actions are unquestionably not greedy. He’s doing almost everything he can to minimize his wealth in favor of equality to access Steam as a game dev.
If he wanted to, he could charge far more than $100 to develop for them, and buy several more yachts.
But he hasn’t.
Which makes his platform more popular. And in turn brings him even more cash to buy more yachts.
His yachts aren’t indicative of his greed, but his benevolence in the face of it.
Show me a single other company the size of Valve that has chosen to forgo profit over access to something like Steam to make money yourself. That’s basically non existent in the year 2025 aside from Valve. I’m not going to judge Gabe as a bad person for profiting from that. He could be profiting much much more and is choosing access for nearly everyone instead.
- Comment on When we eat the billionaires, we should spare Gabe Newell? No? 2 months ago:
I agree with this sentiment, but given a choice, I believe Gabe would make the right one and spend his wealth to lose billionaire status.
His supposed exploitation was not by his own design, but rather by luck - the sheer benefit of riding a privately owned and benevelontly steered surfboard on top of a collapsing capitalist society.
Basically, there’s a meme about all other companies shooting themselves in the foot so Gabe always benefits, and part of that is in the way those companies fucked and manipulated their control of capital and markets. Gabe benefits just by being one of the few that can afford to participate in that system others rigged.
So he simply rigs it the least, and wins by providing the platform with the least greedy problems. Far far less than he could given his position.
IMHO, despite all controversies, Steams cut of profits from providing equal access to game visibility despite creator, nationality, background, etc, has legitimately opened the door for nearly anyone to be successful on their platform. For all the tools and services they provide, they ask for literally the smallest cut compared to any other publishing platform.
Gabe could destroy that to his benefit on a whim, and instead he over designs it to make it possible for nearly anyone to try gaem dev if they do the work needed to develop for them.
To hold so much capital simply for providing some form of equality to access the same in a system that overwhelming benefits others with more resources is in no way greedy imo. It’s being the person with the only fire extinguisher who knows how to use it in a burning down building: popular.
- Comment on Elon Musk says Optimus will 'eliminate poverty' in speech after his $1 trillion pay package was approved 2 months ago:
So you can’t explain or define what genius is, yet judge anyone as an idiot who asks for that context?
Genius and brilliant are synonyms btw. Something pretty obvious.
So unless you want to explain the difference between those two terms, they mean the same thing.
Being pedantic about that doesn’t make you right. It very mush implies the opposite. You just look like someone that ate billionaire PR bait, and forgot what reality tastes like.
You are not saving face by refusing to go into the details, you just look like you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Something you could easily disprove if you did. Because Geniuses can go into those details. Idiots can only pretend.
So makes sense why you look up to Musk so much. You can only pretend to be smart like him.
- Comment on Elon Musk says Optimus will 'eliminate poverty' in speech after his $1 trillion pay package was approved 2 months ago:
I reject your claim Musk is a genius.
Prove it to me.
You read two of his biographies, so you should know. (Unless those were both fanfiction he paid someone to write about him.)
Musk has indeed been in close proximity to several large companies and their origins.
But genius is not something achievable through osmosis.
What has he, as a person, done with any skill, to suggest he’s a genius? Aside from osmosis.
Let me drop some really basic logical observations your argument will need to overcome to be truthful:
He’s not a productive man:
- As evidenced by his near average of 100 tweets a day. Confirmed by AI. Which is close to 2 hours a day tweeting, not doing anything of value or skill.
- As also evidenced by his character in Path of Exile, one played in hardcore mode, with the best gear available, that would require nearly 10 hours a day of play to achieve.
There is no difference between this behaviour and a jobless NEET or internet troll. They get shit on for this bevavioir due to how unproductive it is.
It’s just as unproductive when Musk does it.
He’s not an accountable father:
- As evidenced hy his 14 children with 4 different women.
This is literally the punchline of a Jeff Foxworthy “You might be a Redneck if…” Joke.
It’s just as unaccountable of Musk to have this many kids with this many people. He would need to spend a lot of time with each to raise them well, and instead he’s playing video games and tweeting almost all day.
Logically, if Musk actually wanted to go to Mars, it would be a 3 step process:
- Rocket a person to Mars
- Terraform and settle Mars
- Migrate to Mars.
He’s focused on 1, and telling you it’s for the good of Humanity.
But if instead he focused on step 2, he would be fighting climate change right now while developing the tech needed to Terraform Mars, as they are the same tech. That’s what a genius would do.
Instead he’s trying to replace NASA with Space X because money.
He doesn’t use his money to improve society. He just uses it to improve himself while lying to you that it’s for the greater good.
It’s not. And it’s never been.
As evidenced by his Hyper loop being a lie to convince legislators in California to cancel plans for a high speed rail. Something California would now benefit from if not for his interference.
All Musk does with his money is use it to buy PR and good will so he can continue to be someone that uses Twitter and play games all day instead of being a good dad. That’s not genius. That’s greed and stupidity.
He could, even now, solve the world’s problems with his wealth. He literally asked for a plan to solve world hunger, and when presented with one that could have done it for like 8 Billion a year, he refused. Then purchased Twitter for 5 times that amount. Because he wanted to be popular.
Yet solving Wolrd hunger would make him worshipped by the people he fed. More popular than anyone. Families would praise his name. And communities would erect statues for him. This is something he certainly wants, yet his way of achieving that goal is to spend even more than 8 billion on PR to convince you he’s a genius.
That’s not very genius like behavior. It’s still just stupid and greedy.
Imagine, for a moment, you’re a Trillionaire. What would you do with that money? Solve the world’s problems? Help your family? Help your friends? That’s what 90% 9f people say when asked.
And Musk does none of that. Just plays games, shit posts on the internet, and convinces you through biographies and large well paid PR teams that he knows what he’s doing and should be worshipped.
His wealth, unquestionably, would be better used if it was in the hands of thousands instead of his. He wants you to think he deserves it, that he’s a genius. When the most casual look at his approaches to problems immediately reveals he’s not. He just a wad of unspent money that wants to use it to take credit for other people’s work instead of fixing the planet.
Time to prove why you think that makes him a genius.
I’ve worked for him by the way. He’s not a genius. He just has good PR to make you think he is.
- Comment on Elon Musk says Optimus will 'eliminate poverty' in speech after his $1 trillion pay package was approved 2 months ago:
Dude. You aren’t even talking about Musk. You are entirely talking about what his well paid PR team has made you think of him.
The dude hasn’t done fuck of shit. Just used his money to help others build shit he never bothered to acquire the skills for. Reusable Rockets? That was Tom Mueller you should be thanking. Not the person writing his paycheck. That could be literally anyone.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mueller
Musk uses his money exclusively to get his name on things to take credit for other people’s work. Tesla, PayPal, Space X, now Twitter / X. All the same. Musk lacks any actual talent or work ethic. He just has money to attach his name to those that do, and money to pay PR teams to make his image appear as someone that has skills to create instead of wealth to take all the credit from those that do.
IF you want to respect someone that has enough wealth to solve almost all of the major problems in the world but uses it instead to purchase a social media platform to shit on others and warp elections, then you go right ahead. But don’t expect anyone else with a sense of reality to agree with you.
- Comment on With The Sims owners EA selling to Saudi Arabia, and InZOI owners Krafton going "AI First", there is room in the market for a very queer life simulator 3 months ago:
They reviewed our Indie game as “too woke” 6 days before I even had keys to send out. They literally don’t even play the games, just knee jerk to their audience 😂
