Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is like telling smoker not to buy smokes? :)
Yeah, if you could get cigarettes without the tar and nicotine I might even take it up.
Tangential, but the nicotine is not as bad as people think.
Bouncer: Block "crypto", "rage politics", and more from your X feed using AI
101–110 of 138 posts
Re: Bouncer: Block "crypto", "rage politics", and more from your X feed using AI
#102Why, when you could just not use X though?
[flagged]
Apple has only a 15-19% market share in mobile phones globally https://counterpointresearch.com/en/insights/apple-iphone-ma...
Re: Bouncer: Block "crypto", "rage politics", and more from your X feed using AI
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
And when you are not there you are not there. We are way too obsessed with missing a thing. May it be a popular figure or someone we know in person. The reality is that it's actually not too bad to miss things and most information still gets through. Especially the one that's important. You might even miss out on a lot of crap that is filtered out when it gets to you. I am happy on my personal Mastodon instance and o…
The problem is that your definition of "crap" is probably a bit different from others. Everyone probably has a slightly different definition. Also, your feed is probably mostly stuff that was posted on X first and replicated over somehow. Network effect is real. That being said, there are clearly multiple active automated influence operations happening on X all the time. If Elon wants X to stick around, it would be i…
> Also, your feed is probably mostly stuff that was posted on X first and replicated over somehow.
Possibly. But if it reaches me anyways then there clearly was no need for me to be there. And if more people realize maybe the discussion might be able to move away from that place.
> The problem is that your definition of "crap" is probably a bit different from others.
I was talking about everyone's personal definition of crap. If it has not enough velocity to leave the sphere it might be only relevant for a small community or just not relevant enough to discuss. Or something different.
My argument stands. It is okay to not be part of every discussion. A lot of people think that they must be on X to stay in touch and be informed. I am not there and I am informed enough and in touch with all the people I want. If you can't be bothered to make an account outside X then we don't need to talk.
Re: Bouncer: Block "crypto", "rage politics", and more from your X feed using AI
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you're going to end up systematically misinformed on political topics that people find outrageous. That sounds... fine?
I would emphasize mis informed, not un informed. If Policy X has 30% of people politely supportive, 20% of people politely opposed, and 50% of people incandescently furious about it, you're going to mistakenly think it has majority support.
I'm not sure there are many causes that have "50% of people incandescently furious about it", except maybe heavily diluted positions like "corruption = bad". Even just based on voter turnouts. If you see this kind of activity, it's most likely representative of the terminally online class and not actual people.
Re: Bouncer: Block "crypto", "rage politics", and more from your X feed using AI
#105There would be absolutely nothing of substance left on X without crypto and rage politics
That's simply not true.
Re: Bouncer: Block "crypto", "rage politics", and more from your X feed using AI
#106What makes X usable for me is the keyword blocking. You can also block posts that contain certain Emojis, including in user profile. This _really_ helps get rid of a lot of crap.
Re: Bouncer: Block "crypto", "rage politics", and more from your X feed using AI
#107here I vibecoded an app to fix your twitter experience
sudo cat 0.0.0.0 x.com >> /etc/hosts
Re: Bouncer: Block "crypto", "rage politics", and more from your X feed using AI
#108Re: Bouncer: Block "crypto", "rage politics", and more from your X feed using AI
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would emphasize mis informed, not un informed. If Policy X has 30% of people politely supportive, 20% of people politely opposed, and 50% of people incandescently furious about it, you're going to mistakenly think it has majority support.
I'm not sure there are many causes that have "50% of people incandescently furious about it", except maybe heavily diluted positions like "corruption = bad". Even just based on voter turnouts. If you see this kind of activity, it's most likely representative of the terminally online class and not actual people.
Well, your heavily diluted position is actually a great example. One of the running threads of the current administration has been that they do not think corruption is bad and routinely engage in open bribery. Tim Cook gave the president a gold bar on national TV!
But people who criticize this are almost invariably enraged about it. And so I’ve encountered otherwise informed people with this kind of attitude towards “rage politics” who either don’t know about the issue or assume it must be exaggerated because people are so mad about it.