X.com, twitter’s new domain (1 Viewer)

[SDL]

To be fair, I agree with a lot of what people are saying however I think that's why this is genius. Everyone was talking about Threads last week, now everyone is talking about Twitter (or X) again. I don't think anyone will stop using the platform due to this change, it's been free marketing and anyone who knows of Twitter will quickly become accustomed to X.

 

[veloman]

To be fair, I agree with a lot of what people are saying however I think that's why this is genius. Everyone was talking about Threads last week, now everyone is talking about Twitter (or X) again. I don't think anyone will stop using the platform due to this change, it's been free marketing and anyone who knows of Twitter will quickly become accustomed to X.

Free marketing is great, but when the platform is full of literal Nazis it won't bring people back.

Considering Musk recently restored the account of someone who posted child pornography (and web monitors now say that Twitter is the worst for CSE material) I think I'll stay away. That's without all the other horrible stuff that now goes on in the Twitter ecosystem - all of which Musk personally promotes.

 

[Tracy]

I think I'll stay away.

Twitter logins on my site are disabled... and about to disable Twitter sharing also.



Twitter/X can go visit "Chef" and ask to sample his speciality.



There is a line one has to draw in the stand and refuse to allow it to be crossed.. and Twitter/X (with the Musk take-over) has crossed that line in many areas. Oh, and this is from a 40+ year voting conservative.

 

[Empire]

Makes sense since he loves the letter "X" and his own son's name is X - I mean why why, what a muppet. Commenters are right that it was an already established domain and grandfathered in. Some are wrong that Musk has retained it since the X/Confinity merger--he had to purchase it back from Paypal several years ago, likely for a considerable amount of money.

The good news for ol' Elon is that you can't trademark a letter, just a logo--and since the current X logo is literally a glyph from a font he doesn't own he can't trademark that, either. So at least he will save a lot of money on legal fees trying to defend something he can't own.

 

[Joeychgo]

Who cares. This whole thing is really just a tutorial on how to blow $44 billion and drive a business into the ground just to feed your own ego.

 

[Empire]

Who cares. This whole thing is really just a tutorial on how to blow $44 billion and drive a business into the ground just to feed your own ego.

That's The X way of doing things

 

[veloman]

Who cares. This whole thing is really just a tutorial on how to blow $44 billion and drive a business into the ground just to feed your own ego.

It's such an insane waste of money that could be used to fix so many of the world's problem.

So I did some random quick maths. $44bn could build roughly 40-50GW of offshore wind turbines, which could generate $2m per hour. If running at half capacity (on average) that would mean $180bn after 20 years ($140bn profit!).

Instead he buys Twitter, which is worth a fraction and now will never make a profit. And they call him a genius

 

[Tracy]

It's such an insane waste of money that could be used to fix so many of the world's problem.

A business's major concern is not to "fix the worlds problems", but to make a profit. You want to "fix the worlds problems" then you need to start hammering on the governments... they can handle that directly... even to the point of controlling those businesses.

could build roughly 40-50GW of offshore wind turbines

Now, did you take into consideration the reclamation costs of those turbines when they have reached EOL?

You see.. that's an "issue" that many have.. the "pie in the sky savings" from solar and wind that many push...but they tend to ignore the costs after that equipment reaches EOL. Last time I checked.. you burn coal/oil/NG.... there is no additional cost to "recover" the material. There IS an direct impact... but there is are also multiple impacts from that "green"energy.. what it cost in the production.. then the elimination.

 

[veloman]

A business's major concern is not to "fix the worlds problems", but to make a profit. You want to "fix the worlds problems" then you need to start hammering on the governments... they can handle that directly... even to the point of controlling those businesses.

Now, did you take into consideration the reclamation costs of those turbines when they have reached EOL?

You see.. that's an "issue" that many have.. the "pie in the sky savings" from solar and wind that many push...but they tend to ignore the costs after that equipment reaches EOL. Last time I checked.. you burn coal/oil/NG.... there is no additional cost to "recover" the material.

It was a back of the envelope calculation. But oil, coal and gas have the same problem - except that climate change also carries a massive societal cost. The massive healthcare burden of pollution alone dwarfs any additional EOL costs of solar and wind, let alone the cost to clean up accidents (I e. Deepwater horizon).

For example, in the town where I live the entire natural gas network needs replacing because of its age, so the current network itself is experiencing an EOL cost. Oil rigs, power stations, etc. all have to be decommissioned as well. When a turbine has reached EOL (20-30 years) it gets disassembled and recycled with no pollution.

Objectively solar and wind is cheaper to produce (thus the massive global growth). There are very few downsides. I've just invested £1000 in a local solar farm, and assuming a worst case scenario I'll save £2500 on my bills over the next 40 years (even after 75% goes on fees, taxes, loan repayments, etc.)

 

[Ken]

I don't use Twitter anymore, and most of all...

 

[Tracy]

except that climate change also carries a massive societal cost.

And generation of those devices (not to mention disposal) of them doesn't?

I recently saw a report where ONE business was trying to deal with over 67 MILLION tons of solar panels (limited to the US) that would normally go into a landfill (that does NOT county the number of panels that actually DO end up in a landfill) And that was only a SMALL portion of what is generated as a waste product.. Never mind the forecasted 43 MILLION tons of waste annually simply from wind turbine BLADES (not anything else, just the blades).
Like to acknowledge it or not.. ALL forms of energy end up with a "dirty" by-product, and most of them also "pollute" for the generation of their product. The only thing is you don't see solar/wind "puffing" smoke out of a stack... so it's easy to ignore.
That's similar to these companies that want to "brag" about how "green" they are because they use solar/wind... never wanting to acknowledge the impact that those solution have on our environment.. you want the "ultimate" in environment friendly... nuclear/fusion is the way to go. And even THEN there is a negative by-product in nuclear (we haven't reached fusion stage yet).

 

[veloman]

And generation of those devices (not to mention disposal) of them doesn't?

I recently saw a report where ONE business was trying to deal with over 67 MILLION tons of solar panels (limited to the US) that would normally go into a landfill (that does NOT county the number of panels that actually DO end up in a landfill) And that was only a SMALL portion of what is generated as a waste product.. Never mind the forecasted 43 MILLION tons of waste annually simply from wind turbine BLADES (not anything else, just the blades).
Like to acknowledge it or not.. ALL forms of energy end up with a "dirty" by-product, and most of them also "pollute" for the generation of their product. The only thing is you don't see solar/wind "puffing" smoke out of a stack... so it's easy to ignore.
That's similar to these companies that want to "brag" about how "green" they are because they use solar/wind... never wanting to acknowledge the impact that those solution have on our environment.. you want the "ultimate" in environment friendly... nuclear/fusion is the way to go. And even THEN there is a negative by-product in nuclear (we haven't reached fusion stage yet).

I'm with you on nuclear, but it's seen as a great evil by most of the public.

Re. Solar and wind, I'm not saying that there is zero waste - but it's use and disposal doesn't have the same impact on the climate as does burning fossil fuels. If you can link to a study that shows that solar and wind have a greater impact in terms of CO2e emission then maybe I'll be convinced. But for now, I think extra landfill is a decent trade off to prevent the planet warming beyond 2C - that's the greatest threat to humanity. I can ignore the other problems with solar and wind BECAUSE greenhouse gasses are the biggest problem we have, not the fact we have to landfill stuff at the end.

 

[Tracy]

If you can link to a study that shows that solar and wind have a greater impact in terms of CO2e emission

Currently.. what are the primary energy sources being used to create that equipment? Now, let's talk about the equipment being used to transport/reclaim/bury the by-product of solar/wind once it reaches EOL?
Seems a LOT of those blades are being processed to burn in cement kilns... remind me... what does burning something entail?
Is it better than fossil fuels... yep... but it ALL impacts climate/Gaia in one way or another.

 

[Tyrsson]

Seems a LOT of those blades are being processed to burn in cement kilns... remind me... what does burning something entail?
Is it better than fossil fuels... yep.

Actually, a lot of those blades are made with components derived from petroleum, so really, there's not much difference and burning some of them due to other chemicals that are added during the manufacturing process make it worse to burn them than the petroleum that are partially made from.

 

[Tracy]

Actually, a lot of those blades are made with components derived from petroleum, so really, there's not much difference and burning some of them due to other chemicals that are added during the manufacturing process make it worse to burn them than the petroleum that are partially made from.

Burning is burning... pollution from burning is pollution from burning, no matter what is being burned. The fact remains... ALL methods of power generation have a negative impact on the planet. The "so-called" clean energy isn't... it uses those nasty fossil fuels during the collection (and frequently making) of their components. Then you have the EOL left-over stuff that has to be disposed of... it's not 100% biodegradable.
I guess we could go back to the horse & buggy days... but then you have an increase in methane generation.

 

[Tyrsson]

Burning is burning... pollution from burning is pollution from burning, no matter what is being burned.

Absolutely not true. There are some compounds that when burnt, will almost certainly kill you if the concentration (PPM) is high enough and can cause serious risk to health if exposed to even moderate concentrations.

CBD-144. Toxic Gases and Vapours Produced at Fires - NRC-IRC

CBD-144. Toxic Gases and Vapours Produced at Fires

web.mit.edu

Hydrogen Chloride
Would be a great example.

 

[Tracy]

Absolutely not true. There are some compounds that when burnt, will almost certainly kill you if the concentration (PPM) is high enough and can cause serious risk to health if exposed to even moderate concentrations.

Applies to ANY product being burnt... as I said, ALL things burned are "bad" for the environment. The ironic thing is.. the pushers of "green energy" don't want to recognize how "ungreen" they actually are.

 

[Empire]

People still call it twitter Xd - SInce the new name, I have been less active and still not happy that the API is still not fully working yet. No more feeds going out via site and X and I can't even get new members to join or sing-in with the fast singing-in option via X since the API is still being worked on via X end.