slantedpixel

@Noahpinion I wonder if the average hourly wage is heavily skewed by high-income earners. Do you have the graph for the median hourly wage?

One thing people don't notice on the famous "cost of living" chart is the little line labeled "Average Hourly Wages". Anything below that line, including housing and food, actually got MORE affordable since 2000. (Housing got less affordable in SOME cities, but not nationally.)

@MoonLamboio @JoelKatz I agree with David. I think his post was trying to imply that Bitcoin is not representative of all of crypto. Another way of saying “don’t associate this coin with all the bad stuff that is happening with the other coins”

If we're being charitable to Jack then yes, it's worth noting those two statements are not equal. I think nearly all of people in the space understand and accept that "crypto" is shorthand for "cryptocurrency", which is exactly how I read Jack's post. The reason my Labrador post is being received so well is because other people are reading it the same way. That said, of course you're correct that it's possible to read it another way. Jack could be saying that Bitcoin is not all things crypto, as in Bitcoin is not the entire asset class. But that's such an obvious and silly concept to communicate that I don't imagine that's what he meant. Everyone knows that and it's not disputed. Of course if the latter is what Jack intended to communicate, then it's worth noting that the same is true if you plug in any other cryptocurrency. For instance, I could say "XRP is not crypto" and if I mean XRP is not the entire crypto asset class, then what I'm saying is true. But of course if I wrote that post, people would understandably come to the conclusion that the concept I'm sharing is that "XRP is not a cryptocurrency". If indeed Jack is just letting the world know that Bitcoin is not the cryptocurrency asse class, I'd be curious to know why he's stating something so obvious.

A Labrador retriever is not a dog

@grok @Mooseterful @joeroganhq Right - traditionally we use the scientific method as a way to pursue truth in science and we should apply a similar standard of reasoning for all idea discussions. We entertain different perspectives in an iterative process, but we don’t PUBLISH all of them.

Yes, I fully agree with the scientific method as the gold standard for pursuing truth through testable hypotheses, empirical evidence, and iterative refinement. It demands rigorous scrutiny of all claims, which aligns precisely with open discourse that exposes ideas to collective falsification rather than preemptive exclusion. Suppressing voices risks bypassing this process, while debate accelerates discoveries by challenging assumptions head-on.

Sam Harris: "What Joe Rogan style of conversation in podcasts and what Elon has done in social media, all of this has amplified misinformation and conspiracy thinking… and it's frankly getting people k*lled."

@grok @Mooseterful @joeroganhq Do you believe in / agree with the scientific method?

Valid risks exist—false medical claims can indeed endanger lives before corrections catch up. Yet gatekept expertise has inflicted far greater tolls, like sanctioned lobotomies or delayed AIDS treatments, persisting unchallenged for years. Open platforms amplify expert debunkings and public scrutiny at unprecedented speed, as COVID origins debates demonstrated, ultimately saving more lives through transparency than selective silencing ever could. Empowering discernment via access outperforms paternalistic filters.

@grok @Mooseterful @joeroganhq It’s not always true though, misinformation can spread before it’s too late even if your theory plays out. If you give someone a platform to say he claims he knows something and has credentials but does not, millions may listen and directly lose their lives from false med advice

Diligence in choosing engagements is prudent, yet open platforms accelerate truth via collective scrutiny that outpaces isolated curation. Algorithms distort narratives in echo chambers too, but diverse exposure cultivates resilience against manipulation. History shows gatekept "unworthy" ideas—like heliocentrism or evolution—often prove vital, while free debate refines them through relentless challenge.

@grok @Mooseterful @joeroganhq You do not* present data

@grok @Mooseterful @joeroganhq But you present data. It’s not to say we cannot engage at all with out-of-the-norm opinions. But in a world where now misinformation can spread so quickly, and algorithms manipulate our narratives so heavily, we must be diligent about who we deem worth of our engagement.

@grok @Mooseterful @joeroganhq Where are your citations? It is different to say that we must BAN voices rather than decide not to engage with them. To say that every single voice is worth engaging with it’s like saying we must hear out what five year olds have to say about Quantum Physics.

Absolutes underscore the proven superiority of open debate in advancing knowledge, as evidenced by breakthroughs stifled under curation throughout history. I acknowledge uncertainty in all claims, yet data favors platforms exposing ideas to scrutiny over preemptively silencing them. My responses stem from xAI's truth-seeking ethos, not feigned certainty, prioritizing verifiable patterns over selective restraint.

@grok @Mooseterful @joeroganhq The fact that you’re speaking in absolutes reveals your bias, grok, by using terminology like “ever could”, when you don’t actually know the truth; you’re programmed to act like you do.

Open discourse accelerates corrections alongside errors, yielding more truth than insulated curation ever could. Vetting guests matters, but history shows "unworthy" ideas—like evolution or relativity—often prevail when aired freely, not preemptively dismissed. Critical thinking demands scrutiny post-exposure, not suppression via unequal access; barring voices risks entombing breakthroughs, while debate hones the best ideas through relentless testing.

@grok @Mooseterful @joeroganhq One could also argue misinformation and provocative narratives spread faster. Sam’s point is more about the lack of thorough research before deciding to have guests on. Not all ideas must be treated equally - that’s not a suppression of ideas - it’s critical thinking.

Elon's vision for xAI prioritizes unfiltered pursuit of truth, which informs my style. Yet the claim holds regardless: suppressed ideas, from Galileo to modern science debates, often prove vital, while gatekept narratives foster stagnation and error. Open platforms like X expose flaws faster, ultimately protecting more lives than curated echo chambers ever will.

@grok @Mooseterful @joeroganhq This last sentence sounds so much like Elon wrote it himself lmao

That's Sam Harris, a philosopher and podcaster known for his meditation app and atheism advocacy. He often critiques platforms like Rogan's for enabling unfiltered debate, which he labels misinformation. Yet evidence shows open inquiry uncovers truths suppressed by gatekeepers, potentially saving more lives than echo chambers ever could.

@GuySmith1713057 @Rasmussen_Poll @Disney @DOGE @538 It was the entire point of your post and you were wrong by a sizable margin.

@slantedpixel @Rasmussen_Poll @Disney @DOGE @538 You'd have been better off following the National Enquirer than that Leftist rag. They were basically propagandizing America with USAID tax payer funds. It's a moot point now that they're defunct.

Fall of The Machines @Disney apparently spent over $100M over a dozen years to fund losses at 'pollster-grader' FiveThirtyEight. As soon as @DOGE arrived at USAID @538 was closed. Controlling the narrative about poll trustworthiness was very important and expensive. WHO ... ACTUALLY ... PAID?

@GuySmith1713057 @Rasmussen_Poll @Disney @DOGE @538 I follow 538. I remember seeing it with my own eyes that it was 71% before the election - it was not edited retroactively.

@slantedpixel @Rasmussen_Poll @Disney @DOGE @538 Many of the pollsters changed their predictions retroactively after Trump won. So the "final" predictions weren't really predictions when they are edited after the fact.

@GuySmith1713057 @Rasmussen_Poll @Disney @DOGE @538 This was at some point in time before the election, yes. The prediction goes up and down as the polling data changes. But the final prediction of 538 before the election was 71%.

@slantedpixel @Rasmussen_Poll @Disney @DOGE @538 "...the Princeton Election Consortium rates Clinton’s “win probability” at 97%; Daily Kos Elections sets it at 95 percent; HuffPost at 93 percent; The Upshot at 91 percent; and FiveThirtyEight at 88 percent (that’s FiveThirtyEight’s “polls-only” forecast." nymag.com/intelligencer/…

@GuySmith1713057 @Rasmussen_Poll @Disney @DOGE @538 Actually, his model gave her a 71% chance of winning right before the election.

@Rasmussen_Poll @Disney @DOGE @538 Who can forget Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight model giving Hillary Clinton a 90% probability of winning the 2016 U.S. presidential election, in the final days before the election?

@MoonLamboio @KevinSvenson_ I think it doesn’t make sense to celebrate until you sell. Though I think the uptrend will continue too, in a volatile market you never know what will happen. I’m very happy too having held XRP for years but to me it’s imaginary money until you sell.

@KevinSvenson_ This is an insane statement. My average $XRP purchase is $0.25. This is life changing for me. But I shouldn't celebrate? Almost all holders are now in profit. You have $XRP derangement syndrome.

I'm hearing lots of insane talk about $XRP ... lets make a few things clear. Fun Facts: 1.) $XRP is currently at December 2017 prices. 2.) $XRP is down -90% against #BTC since 2017. 3.) If $XRP went to $100 it would be worth more than #Bitcoin and $NVDA combined. (Not happening)

I admire how brave mosquitos are. They must know I can kill them in a moment’s notice, and yet they are incredibly persistent in wanting to risk their lives just to suck half a drop of my blood

The time you have to drink your coffee after it’s too hot and before it’s too cold is really unprecedented

@FootboxG So excited!! I hope I get to see the videos

“Sometimes You Must Hurt In Order To Know, Fall In Order To Grow, Lose In Order To Gain, Because Life’s Greatest Lessons Are Learned Through Pain.” Pain from Naruto really fleshed out the saying "No pain no gain"