Bard seems to be judging nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m. Read the last sentence.
Discussion
Except I didn’t sell
True
Tangential question - but are your writing only to orangepill relay?
This note was not found on nos.lol or damus relay or nostr.wine till about a few minutes back.
It probably is okay since it's you & by the time people reply & quote & repost it should be available on more relays but I was curious to find a note been seen only on orangepill, since that's a rarity these days
Why?
Now I may understand the issue of activist investors.
I would if I were...
So, you still own shares of Twitter (now X)? I would love to know why. But I understand if you don’t want to provide a response publicly.
I'm sorry for posting this. Hope you have a better day.
Why not?
And why wouldn't Jack take a pay ............years of his work
Even communists were paying for work. Not much....because during communism health care was free, education was free, public transportation free and the government handed properties- place to live to those who served
The idea of Twitter was genius
An interesting moment below this note that is worth pointing out. The note implies a factually inaccurate conclusion. The target of the implication corrects the record. And then the insinuator has to apologize. All of the exchange permanently etched into the nostr timeline.
In all of the other platforms, the comment would have been taken down and memory holed. But nostr is permanent, so the best thing the OP can do is admit wrongness and apologize.
This has a multivalent consequences, but a few that come to mind are that as this mode of communication is adopted and distributed, it will change the way we speak to each other on the social layer, hopefully making us more accountable, conscious and cautious about the language we use—which seems like probably a good thing.
But it will also create a permanent record that can be used to lock future versions of ourselves into the thoughts of previously iterated ideas by older versions of ourselves. This is problematic in public discourse because you can say something 20 years ago and someone might be reading it for the first time in the present moment—and thus rendering present moment conclusions about a version of you that has long ago changed its mind.
This is maybe an old and permanent problem of literacy, and certainly of literature, that the author's older work is not necessarily their best, but always nonetheless sets the bar for expectations.
What does it mean for our consciousness that writing is necessarily a kind of recording, and also necessarily a kind of fundamental lie—that the jumbled mess of thoughts, ideas and emotions that is always in flux un our sense of self could ever be represented and captured in a solid, stable way?
Well put. But "locking" me in to the "best thing I could do" is not at all accurate. I could have just let it lie there and hope that nobody else sees. Or, I could have concocted a brilliant come-back with deflectionary diversion ala Trump. I could have used a barrage of "is that so's, then if so, then how comes..."
Setting something into stone does have its limits - but you forego character, you forego weakness, you forego context, you forego intention, you forego circumstances that are not encapsulated in the moment prior to pressing "post".
That said, it is what it is. You may consider it vapid - or you may consider it a matter of public interest.
You may consider it insipid, or uninspired, but yet TV shows have been made about it . Lifestyles of the rich and famous, Crazy Rich Asians, etc. - the whole of civilization is premised on desiring, what one will never get. Or even Brewster's billions.
If an average American for instance, has an outstanding debt of $20,000, then $978,000,000 could potentially make life a little bearable for 48,900 individuals. There's something about big numbers that strikes the imagination. Before all of these, I am the author of a blog post that garnered me half a million views - in 2006 numbers, for some research I did wherein the keyword was "How much money does Bill Gates have?"
Back then, he was the only tech person worthy of note - and since then, my blog forgotten but the likes of Mashable, Forbes - have condensed, straightened and penned some work of a similar nature which leads us to the Forbes list of wealthiest individuals wherein - a crowd darling, Elon Musk, I believe, still ranks as number one.
Well said. And FWIW I meant only to use the case as a way of talking about the phenomenon in general, as a feature of the protocol and the technology determinism it may impose on us, not that this was a particularly egregious case—it was not. Like the AI, I myself had assumed Jack had sold his shares until someone recently highlighted this issue in a separate note. Also FWIW I felt you handled it as elegantly as possible. In general I think we owe each other—and maybe more importantly ourselves—much more existential slack with regard to the way our thoughts are iterated online. There's an impulse to circumscribe entire human beings—despite all the complexity of our lived experiences and internal contradictions—within the confines of our expressed and recorded ideas. As if we should all be only as evolved as our last most visible speech—or to nod at Lacan, as well put together as the image in the mirror.