David Moschella

@dvellante @sarbjeetjohal Just fyi, all the items in chart are physical objects; software is often adopted faster than devices, so the slowness Sam refers to is even more striking

It was interesting to hear Sam talk about the pace of adoption being slower than he expected. My colleague @dmoschella for years has that the pace of technology adoption is not really accelerating as much as the narrative implies. One could argue the first inning of modern AI started in 2017 with academic papers on diffusion and transformers. Would guess that 2025 was the year where US household adoption crossed 50%, so 8 years on - similar to mobile phones.

"What are the non-obvious constraints" (to AI) @jpatel41 asks @sama - Sam answered w/ the obvious constraints including security but it lead to a discussion of how software architectures will change. I see the frontier models as the next great software abstraction layer #CiscoAISummit

China's high tech success is much more about strategy than cheating itif.org/publications/2…

@zcwilliams Spot on, digital is pretty saturated, the physical world is underserved

Video Credits: - sleekautodetail - vermijlcardetail - electrician_musk - jbpressurewashing - kaihuanlaser1 - autoelitepcs - foxterradesign - bozobuilders - partypowers

In 10 years... People will look back and wish they owned a blue-collar service business. Here's a list of the 8 best options: 1) Mobile Detailing

@musk_news13 1

In 2001, US Federal Government spending was $1.8 trillion, or 17% of US GDP. In 2024, federal spending was $6.9 trillion, or 25% of GDP. If spending was still at 17%, we would have a federal budget surplus, not today's $1.8 trillion annual deficit. You’re doing what congress should do but doesn’t

@elonmusk In 2001, US Federal Government spending was $1.8 trillion, or 17% of US GDP. In 2024, federal spending was $6.9 trillion, or 25% of GDP. If spending was still at 17%, we would have a federal budget surplus, not today's $1.8 trillion annual deficit

Making govt waste an offer it can’t refuse

In 2001, US Federal Government spending was $1.8 trillion, or 17% of US GDP. In 2024, federal spending was $6.9 trillion, or 25% of GDP. If spending was still at 17%, we would have a federal budget surplus, not today's $1.8 trillion annual deficit.

@swardley Indeed, nice talking with you

@dmoschella Well, let us hope that Trump surprises all and takes the high road.

Gibberish. Whilst Donald Trump faced a predominantly negative coverage, this was to a far lesser degree compared to the sustained media attacks and distortion of facts surrounding Jeremy Corbyn ->

@dvellante Imagine the pablum that will come out of Bluesky if it builds something similar

Grok is really good and getting better. I find it more "honest" than other LLMs and I appreciate its more frank and less politically correct answers. Thanks for making it available.

@swardley That's a big question here. Will trump's justice department attack his opponents the way they have attacked him? Probably to some extent yes, but we'll have to wait and see

@dmoschella Do you think, given his experience, that Trump will change this? Will the press and judiciary be put on a more independent footing as checks and balances to power or will they be used as tools to attack opponents?

In looking at the cases, they were widely seen by many lawyers as nonsense, but they were in New York City where the judicial system is very liberal and hates trump just as the mainstream media does. There’s no need for coordination. One of trumps main prosecutors ran for office with a pledge to “get trump” before actually doing any investigation

@dmoschella Well, if the courts and press have worked together in concert to undermine a person then that's fairly monstrous. I do find that fairly difficult to believe of the US but then that's coming from a UK perspective. I've naively thought the US judiciary was fiercely independent.

@swardley I’m saying it hasn’t been the case with Trump, which is why his treatment has been uniquely bad by US standards

@dmoschella "biggest difference is that US media bias has often been fused with the legal system" ... that's an interesting point. The judiciary and the press are supposed to be two balances in a democracy, not two bodies working in cahoots. Are you saying that is not the case in the US?

What I was trying to say is that uk citizens aren’t made aware of anti corbyn bias nearly as much as US citizens are of bias against trump, but the biggest difference is that US media bias has often been fused with the legal system, Hollywood and academia which takes it to a whole other level and yeah best stick to US and Uk history on this topic

I wouldn't have expected US citizens to have been aware of the media bias against Corbyn. If the quote had said ‘greatest media psy-op in US history’ then maybe, certainly there was negativity & I'm not aware of past US history. But history doesn't begin and end with the US nor the UK. I'm sure Soviet Union elections, Joseph Goebbels & the Nazi regime, the 2004 Ukrainian elections that led to the Orange Revolution, and of course, pretty much every Belarus Presidential elections (again widespread fraud, media manipulation, intimidation etc) since Lukashenko took power could claim this "title".

@swardley I think the main thing you are onto is that Americans are very aware of media bias and how unfair they have been to trump, so they factor it in, but media bias against corbyn was much less discussed as far as I am aware

@dmoschella However, in both cases the treatment by the press was appalling and I certainly agree that the character of both was distorted. I think it's hyperbole to say that US media waged the ‘greatest media psy-op in history’ against Trump. In US history ... maybe.

Yeah I remember the way corbyn was described. Funny things is that labor got almost exact same share of popular vote with corbyn as they did with starmer. The mainstream american press were cheerleaders for the lawfare vs trump, and after a couple of days barely covered the assassination attempts and the unbelievable secret service incompetence. It’s the combination of media bias and lawfare that made the trump situation so extraordinary

Trump had negativity in 62% of coverage (according to Pew Research) but 75% of newspaper stories about Corbyn either distorted or failed to represent his actual views, 57% were directly antagonistic, 30% of stories ridiculed him, 22% calling him a danger or an enemy to Britain [LSE research]. This was the mainstream newspapers, you can imagine what the online world was like. The sustained attack continued from 2015 to 2019. According to the LSE report on the topic, he was regularly described in mainstream media as britain-hating, terrorist sympathiser, gormless marxist, commie spy, anti-semite, insane, loony radical, extremist, Putin's puppet, ... it's a long list. As the LSE concluded "Corbyn is systematically ridiculed, scorned and the object of personal attacks by most newspapers" Fair point however, UK newspapers did not try to "bankrupt, jail or kill him" ... I wasn't aware US newspapers had gone that far.

Raddatz: "The incidents were limited to a handful of apartment complexes... A handful." Vance: "Do you hear yourself? Only a HANDFUL of apartment complexes were taken over by Venezuelan gangs and Donald Trump is the problem??"

With all the conflict in the UK and the government jailing people for social media posts, our chapter on why social media is not the cause of political polarization is all the more relevant. @pmarca @peterschwartz2 @RobertMMetcalfe @dscheinm @DrTechlash amazon.com/Technology-Fea…

@Matt_Pinner I see a dog

Apparently, if you can see 2 people hugging, your'e left brained, and if you can see a dinosaur you are right brained. What do you see in the mountain?

These days technology is blamed for just about every societal ill. It's mostly nonsense. realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/…