•  Krauerking   ( @Krauerking@lemy.lol ) English
    88•4 months ago

    The Internet as a whole seems a lot less interested in actually listening to anyone with credentials to back themselves up (Musk obviously included).
    Literally, people will just “nuh-uh” a piece of fact for purely emotional personal reasons.

    Maybe it’s that we made the Internet so full of disinformation that everyone is just automatically refusing to listen to others, maybe we have created a social group that just assumes they are more educated than everyone else cause they read some stuff in the internet.

    Maybe all the smarter people with credentials have done the smart thing and left the internet, cause if I hear one more person tell me I’m wrong and that people totally explode in the vacuum of space cause they watched a movie. (Someone even called me confidently incorrect after I provided the research paper I cited when working on decompression in a vacuum), I honestly will think humanity has no right to claim themselves master of any part of nature and I will praise the universe for wiping us out hopefully Armageddon style, with an asteroid with a bunch of oil drillers on it.

    •  VerticaGG   ( @VerticaGG@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English
      3•4 months ago

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF98ii6r_gU pretty sure this is the one [from the series] your post made me think of… My take away as relevant here is that it’s not overcomplicated: If your a marginalized person and you know your rights, all the facts and appeals reason will be dismissed by those who buy into the fear-based moral panic propaganda about you, solely on your intrinsic traits.

      That’s not a two-way street.

      Choosing not to engage with such people does not put me in an information silo in the same way that the population influenced by right-wing authoritarianism choose to stand on both sides of a contradiction and refuse to analyze the true root causes of their woes; that you can’t class traitor yourself onto the side of the ultra-wealthy, and that their Supreme Leader will throw them under the bus at the first incentive.

      A person who chooses to protect their energy from such a Facebook uncle, does not consitute a both-sides.

      Not that I went looking for anyone pressing a “both-sides” angle…hoping we can leave it behind in terms of “information silos”

  •  hsdkfr734r   ( @hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl ) English
    48•4 months ago

    I think that he should have avoided the interaction with musk, if he planned to convince Musk of something.

    If he planned to educate the general public, his approach is totally fine, though.

        •  Jallu   ( @Jallu@sopuli.xyz ) English
          1•4 months ago

          Glad you asked. To be clear: I agree with your original comment.

          I had this great, long, message drafted in my mind while in sauna, but I discarded (forgot) that one when I got back to the computer.

          Let me elaborate my first reply. We have in the OP image the following actors: Musk and the challenger.

          I think that he should have avoided the interaction with musk, if he planned to convince Musk of something.

          • (#1) According to my previous knowledge about Musk’s interactions wherever in the world of Internet, I have come to the conclusion he is not the one to be convinced even with proof.
          • (#2) If someone can challenge him during the interaction, he will most likely (always) counteract with snarky responses or just ignore the challenger totally. Like seen in the OP image.
          • (#3) The challenger tried to convince him with proof.

          If he planned to educate the general public, his approach is totally fine, though.

          • (#4) Whilst the challenger commenced #3, he was really proofing the point/educating the public of the #1.

          I like to think I managed to represent the Musk-like interaction in my previous reply; responding to your well built message with a snarky comment. Although, I think, I went too far with the dual interpretations.

          E: Why is your reply being down-voted? My previous should be the more down-voted one. I also made a little correction to this message.

          •  hsdkfr734r   ( @hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl ) English
            2•4 months ago

            Thank you for the clarification. These points are indeed very similar to my thoughts (but I wouldn’t have been able to describe it so to the point. )

            I like to think I managed to represent the Musk-like interaction in my previous reply; responding to your well built message with a snarky comment. Although, I think, I went too far with the dual interpretations.

            I didn’t get that. So this part needed some explaining for me.

            Why is your reply being down-voted

            Maybe it is because I missed the sarcasm/ humour in your response. It’s hard to know if it isn’t written down as a response. :)

  •  Monument   ( @Monument@lemmy.sdf.org ) English
    30•4 months ago

    I’m just imagining Musk banning his account once he realizes how much he just embarrassed himself.

    Followed by:

    Lawyer: What brings you in today, Mr. LeCun?
    LeCun: I got banned from Twitter.
    Lawyer: But I’m a patent attorney.
    LeCun: I know.

    Beastie Boys “Sabotage” riff starts playing.

    •  EarthShipTechIntern   ( @EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee ) English
      1•4 months ago

      The CEO of Neuralink? I’m betting he understands rocket science & e-vehicles about as well as he does deep learning.

      Capitalism: with driving seats for the most gloriously incompetent idiots & assholes. Narcissistic aspiring oligarchs? Welcome to the land of plenty.