e-dawg was dipping into that overflowing fountain of made-up money that would have probably vanished before too long anyway.

Barely any links load, ever. So many dead links, login requirements, infinite spinners of death…

Tell me: Is it safer for People of Color, LGBTQ individuals and such to be there? Because that used to be a huge circus.

I killed my "Oh, God, this was a bad idea" personal account and haven't yet figured out what to do with the account I have left. So I don't really know.

Which is to say the question is sincere.

Lol, no. Musk unbanned all the Nazis and says that "cis" is a slur, to give a small taste.

Consider "homosexual woman" and "heterosexual woman". Both describe an aspect of "woman" - her sexual orientation - without changing what "woman" means.

Compare "cis woman" and "trans woman" though. The former refers to a female and the latter to a male. This changes "woman" away from the sex-based definition that the vast majority of people understand, to one where a subset of men claim to be women.

So by using "cis", this implies an agreement with this world view that men who call themselves women somehow actually are women. A view that most people don't actually hold.

This is also why in radical feminist circles they prefer terms like "trans-identified male" instead of "trans woman", to avoid adopting the linguistic contortions of the oppressor.

> So by using "cis", this implies an agreement with this world view that men who call themselves women somehow actually are women. A view that most people don't actually hold.

You'll have to prove that most people don't hold this view, until you do it's pure conjecture. And you will also have to explain why banning the word isn't a bad thing for trans people who do subscribe to this world view, as that is the topic we're talking about.

To further explain my linguistic point though, it's really down to an ambiguity as to whether "trans woman" and "trans man" are meant as compound nouns (in the open form, as the closed form, e.g. "transwoman", doesn't have this ambiguity) or noun phrases.

As compound nouns, these have the sense of a man or woman who wishes to be the opposite. That is, a "trans woman" is a man who desires to be a woman, and a "trans man" is a woman who wants to be a man. They may even end up believing themselves to be so, based on that desire.

As noun phrases, these apply the adjective "trans" as if a subset of the group the noun is describing. So a "trans woman" is understood as a male woman and a "trans man" is a female man. But this only works if you also believe that "woman" and "man" are "gender identity" categories that one can identify into, rather than based on the material biological reality of adult humans who are, respectively, female and male.

Introducing "cis" removes that ambiguity, implying noun phrases rather than compound nouns, and thus implies acceptance of the "gender identity" belief. When people object to the terms "cis woman" and "cis man", they are expressing a rejection of this belief system.

Please don't paint with such a broad brush.

I'm not a huge fan of the term "cis" and use it somewhat reluctantly because it's the term I know to be in use to make this distinction. I also was very supportive of a trans youth for about nine months some years back.

I'm not interested in debating this with you. But for the record, it's possible to not like the term and also not be someone who outright rejects the concept that some people have a biological identity that doesn't match the identity in their brain.

I don't know what the solution is. I think the LGBTQ community sees high levels of trauma due to social rejection and abuse, often from people very close to them who are supposed to protect them, not hurt them, and I think this complicates working out solutions.

But I think some of what gets done is probably not really in their best interest and it's hard to discuss that because any critique of current practices gets interpreted as "You are one of my enemies!"

You have made this statement twice now, but that is not proof itself. Can you share the polls you are referencing?

> To further explain my linguistic point though, it's really down to an ambiguity as to whether "trans woman" and "trans man" are meant as compound nouns (in the open form, as the closed form, e.g. "transwoman", doesn't have this ambiguity) or noun phrases.

> As compound nouns, these have the sense of a man or woman who wishes to be the opposite. That is, a "trans woman" is a man who desires to be a woman, and a "trans man" is a woman who wants to be a man. They may even end up believing themselves to be so, based on that desire.

This is not objective truth, it is your subjective opinion.

> As noun phrases, these apply the adjective "trans" as if a subset of the group the noun is describing. So a "trans woman" is understood as a woman who is male, and a "trans man" as man who is female. But this only works if you also believe that "woman" and "man" are "gender identity" categories that one can identify into, rather than based on the material biological reality of being, respectively, female or male.

Yes, it only works if you use the words as they are used by others.

> Introducing "cis" removes that ambiguity, implying noun phrases rather than compound nouns, and thus implies acceptance of the "gender identity" belief. When people object to the terms "cis woman" and "cis man", they are expressing a rejection of this belief system.

Can you now circle back to the original topic - "cis" being defined as a slur? Because if the reason for Musk to define it as such is a rejection of the "belief system" of trans people, it seems pretty obvious that it's transphobic.

Did this go through comms? There’s a typo (you can use a double-hyphen instead of an em-dash but not both), two slogans where one would do, and an all-caps shout.

Above all that though, I’m not sure what blaze your glory means. Am I blazing a trail or path to my own glory? Am I setting fire to my glory?

To those who reply: do you agree?: speed your comments!.

> To our passionate, growing communities of movie buffs, sports fanatics, tech trailblazers, and the world over

That sentence can't be correct.

"the world over" means "everywhere on the earth", e.g. "the love for music connects people from the world over" or "the Olympics unite athletes and fans the world over".

But Linda seems to use the phrase here to mean "everyone", as in "movie buffs, sports fanatics..., and everyone", which is just, well, incorrect. How did this pass the most basic review??

Also, the day part of the dates are a mixture of single-digit and zero-padded:

  6/1 | DoubleVerify brand safety
  …
  7/01 | Video feature update

  7/28| Ads Revenue sharing

I assumed the boss made another 420 “joke”.

In all seriousness, do you want a company that spends its time and money vetting feature announcements, or do you want a company that spends its time and money building the thing that it is supposed to be building?

I would much, MUCH rather do business with, or buy products from a company with poor marketing and a fantastic product than the seemingly thousands of companies out there now that spend more on marketing than actual products [1]

[1] Note: I may have PTSD about this. The Telco I formally worked for commonly spent 10x on marketing a new product a service compared to what it cost to roll out, which was also many times more money than the product was ever forecast to bring in in revenue.

p.s. it's "every day", not "everyday"

Right, they enable people to communicate with each other. It simply doesn't matter how "they" communicate.

Like Ford's job is to build cars for people to get from A to B. Who cares how well the executive team at Ford can drive, that has nothing to do with making a good car.

I think you will find that the people who work at Ford are, by and large, "car guys" (/gals/thems).

The dude also has Asperger's.

And personally, when I'm getting stuff done I don't really care about punctuation and spelling in the email I send to the VPs saying I got the system backonline and saved $10M in billing for the month.

> I think you will find that the people who work at Ford are, by and large, "car guys" (/gals/thems).

My meeetings with major OEMs in the US has sadly been the opposite. All the car enthusiasts were replaced with Marketing people long, long ago (which again emphasizes my point that actually doing is much more important than marketing that doing)

You could forgive a founder for poor writing on the assumption that they are bringing something else to the table, but as I understand it Yaccarino is in this role as a professional exec.

Although, I would like to see humans make it Mars within my life. So c'mon, Elon, just keep your trap closed for a bit, let Linda do the talking for you, and continue to be the egotistic, megalomaniac manager in the same vein as Steve Jobs, and just make really good products, please.

I also agree that the real source of the drama seems to be Musk. People are annoyed at him so they have to say "Twitter bad" as a matter of principle.

> I appreciate the efforts Musk has made towards pushing back against the censorship of language that it seems like everyone nowadays wants to enforce, regardless of their background.

Musks censorship is well-documented. There are only two ways one could sincerely make this argument:

- by fully ignoring Musks censorship

- by accepting it as good

Neither option makes the commenter seem honest or well-meaning, hence the downvotes.

Censoring mentions of Mastodon was indeed a terrible move, but he did backtrack on that.

Was there anything else?

If a transgender woman asks to not be referred to as a man, I would argue that use of male pronouns can constitute a slur. It can be a slur even if it's technically correct that they are still a biologically male person.

Calling an openly gay man "a homo" is widely accepted to be a serious slur, even though it's a term derived from Latin and the factual imputation conveyed by the word isn't in dispute.

It doesn't matter if a person happens to fit the technical definition of "cisgender" because slur-ness is never about technical correctness, or whether a word has Latin roots. It's about the reasons why the word was chosen and the purpose it is serving in the conversation.

> The words “cis” or “cisgender” are considered slurs on this platform.

This does mention repeated, targeted harassment, but the "slur-ness" isn't predicated upon it. On Twitter, as it stands right now, "cis" is a slur, as Musk decreed.

The benefit of the doubt I extend is that being "considered slurs on this platform" is a no-op when the platform doesn't have a policy regarding arbitrary use of slur words. So whether a platform considers a word a slur is only relevant when there's a context — in this case, the context of assessing for repeated, targeted harassment.

I can understand this perspective from a non-affected person, but the signal sent to affected minority groups seems very clear to me, and this makes it relevant for any interaction of the minority group with the platform.

so with the release of ChatGPT on 2022-11-30 being the watershed moment for LLMs, you're saying that you've been using twitter for less than a year? if that's the case, i got news for you buddy--you've only ever known the shitshow twitter

Bird for sharing. Twitter down the bottom of the page. Primary light blue color.

Also, for some reason the X on the favicon for this site is orange???

If you go onto twitter.com without being signed in, it says "Join twitter today"

What a laugh this rebranding is.

But the question remains: what do you now call tweets? Such strong marketing in that verb.

Add Reddit to the list of lawsuits.

Rate limiting is literally a way to reduce bot attacks, which is a key tool in spamming campaigns.

https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/bots/what-is-rate-limiti...

Elon Musk said it was due to "data scraping and system manipulation":

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36552324

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8OnoxKotPQ

Elon Musk bought twitter with some of his own money, yes, but also by giving twitter a massive loan which it now has to (and can't) repay.

This is entirely his doing, and if he thought it was too hard, why did he do this? I mean, I know, managers do this sort of stuff without giving it much thought at all while pretending to play 5D chess, and I suspect Musk is no different.

Did they? I'm pretty sure I heard that was a real problem, and that employees were bringing their own.

https://daringfireball.net/2023/07/translation_yaccarino_x

8/02 | Twitter Blue users can now hide their checkmarks, completing our destruction of both what we mistakenly thought they were (status symbols) and what their actual use was (verification - now available in $1,000 + $50 × user flavor!)

This guy was going to take us to fucking Mars.

Every use I can think of around "blaze of glory" is about dying in a gun fight. I'm reading this as a threat.