It doesn't win wars, but it provides the necessary equipment for carnage and stalemates all over the globe. Remember war is just a pretext, the objective is always profit, so as long as a lost war is very profitable it's a success in their books.
IMO the last real war the US participated in and helped to win was WW2 giving it a massive ego. And even then it was drawn in via Pearl Harbor. After that it was a bunch of "wars" it fabricated to satisfy its ego with various (often poor) outcomes.
I don't think it's fair to characterise the Cold War was an ego thing. Global authoritarian communism wouldn't have been a good time for the vast majority.
If everyone has the same conclusion, how is it an argument? Nobody thinks the US won in Iran except the morons that started it. Maybe bigOil feels like its a win as their profits are soaring???
If it leads to the US staying away from future wars then it in one sense it could be a win - for regular Americans. But I doubt that very much. The US state is a machine geared to war and exploitation in too many ways. More of the good people in the US need to be aware of this - it's painfully obvious to the recipients of US foreign policy.
There was a time, maybe 15 years ago?, when a journalist "on the ground" of something happening would post it to Twitter within seconds of it happening; and it'd be picked up by major news cycles only next day or something.
It may have lasted for a couple of years, a few at most, and the news clearly adapted. We (the reader/consumer) adapted.
Check out how long it takes for someone to post on Twitter they are leaving OpenAI or google or (...) and for non-Twitter users to find that out. It's minutes at best. Seconds, usually.
That moat is dry and filled in and has been for a decade
Twitter is indeed the greatest communication techonlogy if you do not count the telegraph, the telephone, the television, radio, almost every single aspect of the internet, etc.
It beats shouting from your window in reach and carrier pigeons in needing less birdfeed, though.
None of those let a random person Hawk Tuah their way to reaching millions. Seriously: x disintermediates and offers distribution in a way no other communication tech does.
Granted you can always post a blog or whatever, but X's ambition to be the "town square" is a valid one and it does achieve it in notable ways, even if there's still 100 years worth of improvement needed.
The town square concept has never made sense. The idea that you have a place where everybody goes and scream at each others insults non stop is completely insane in the real world
> None of those let a random person Hawk Tuah their way to reaching millions.
Uh neither did "X"... She originally went viral on Tik Tok [0], and then built a following on Youtube and later in podcaster circles. As near as I can tell, she doesn't even have a twitter account. So it's pretty weird to credit Twitter with building her career.
In fact, I really can't think of anyone who originally went viral just from twitter. Lots of famous people have used twitter as a microblogging platform after gaining notoriety but by itself I wouldn't say it drives much popularity amongst the larger internet.
> None of those let a random person Hawk Tuah their way to reaching millions.
I take it you didn't watch much daytime television? Or YouTube?
X is not designed or moderated in a reputable, accountable or unbiased fashion - and neither was Twitter. X's ambition to be a "town square" is a solipsistic delusion that even Dorsey managed to avoid (despite all the mistakes he did make).
100 years worth of improvement isn't enough, X's centralized design is inherently abusive and many communities have already moved on. As Terry Davis would have put it, X glows.
Daytime television was intermediated by tv producers.
Youtube's algorithm prevents big channels (or even little channels) from saying scary words like "suicide" so they play games like saying "somebody un-alived" themselves.
I'm surprised HN hates X so much as a cess-pool of wrong-think: that's what you get when you let people say anything to anybody. The great challenge that X has taken on is trying to surface the useful stuff for people. Maybe they're not that good at it, but they're improving.... which is well in line with the hacker ethos.
Personally, my x feed is a pretty good mix of things I want to see and things I didn't know I want to see. Maybe 10~20% of it isn't relevant at all.
It's not even about wrong-think. So many people I know just drifted away--or cut contact and nothing equivalent replaced it. It was a fairly important type of social media to me and many of the the people I knew/know but it really isn't anymore.
I think your assumption that HN hates X "because of wrong-think" is clouding your judgement. There is a long list of reasons to hate X.
For example, paying users get top spot in replies to tweets, which instantly meant spam bots with paid accounts posting completely unrelated replies on anything popular while real users who aren't trying to make money off twitter disappear at the bottom.
This isn't even complicated 4D chess user interaction design. Anyone with 2 neurons to rub together could see the obvious and immediate effect of such policy. If it's dropping the ball with something so obvious, how can you trust it to handle any situation more complex?
I agree with the other commenters here - your assumption that all of us hate it for "wrong-think" is precluding your judgement here.
Twitter was also not a good social media, in my opinion. Jack Dorsey was a pretty clueless leader and ostensibly talentless businessman. The platform was mostly loved ironically by jaded millennials, and the entire thing became a laconic quip-off between minor celebrities and brand representatives. It set the stage for LinkedIn-tier corporate cringe content that became a tentpole of late Twitter and now X too. Celebrities fled the site for personal use and left it as a political shit-slinging platform for C-tier online influencer personalities to rile up their audiences. The universal appeal that made Twitter interesting for bored idiots was completely abandoned in favor of this new ragebait paradigm. Worse yet, X is just as debt-ridden as Twitter was, so Elon is walking around to political haymakers just like Chris Poole did when his forum was bleeding cash: https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/epstein-met-4chans-founder...
People like you existed back in the Twitter days too, insisting that it was valuable to ignore the site politics, trending topics, livestreams, crypto/NFT features and focus on the minority of positive content on the site. Those people were frankly deluded back in 2016, and you're equally as deluded trying to convince people that a cash-poor federal honeypot is tolerable now because the Hawk Tuah girl uses it to interact with her audience. You're the target audience for this slop, and you bit it hook line and sinker like a Facebook mom.
Maybe a naive take, but if there's one team in a large corporation that does not bend to "the CEO(-to-be) wants it", that is the Legal team. Particularly when the ask is a lawsuit of this scope and relevance, and potential costs (of all kinds). The head of Legal can just hint to the board how expensive (in all senses) the vendetta would be and the CEO is likely "not to be" anymore, or "to be temporary".
I'm imagining the Silicon Valley scene where the character Gilfoyle has set up a loud death-metal automated noise that plays whenever the price of Bitcoin meets certain conditions... except the trigger is some kind of code-quality metric, the effect is my machine shouting at me to become serene.
It's hard to believe how spot-on this is to what I've been looking for. I thought about coding something almost exactly like this, for the exact same reasons as the author describes.
I see this is from earlier in the year; I've certainly googled for this kind of thing a few times since then, and never got this as a result.
So I got it yesterday, and the toddler loves it. He's not quite there yet with controlling even the mouse movement, but I could already see some progress in his familiarity with it from the first session. Of course banging on the keyboard at full strength is still his preferred move, but that's fine.
I'll be gifting this to a few parents I know. @jfil let me know if there's a better way than to do N gift purchases. I'm worried my credit card provider might take issue with repeated purchases (hopefully not)
The blog post is clearly human written. One minor signal in the title is nothing and should not, I think, offend anyone to the point it seems to have offended you.
Besides, I refuse to accept that we are now meant to police ourselves and our use of language because AI copies it. Write the way you write, it will be apparent in your text (as it is for the author), and we'll deal with the unfortunate few cases in which a false-positive signal (like 'genuinely' in this title) the correct way: completely ignoring it
I believe it is possible for us - all - to adapt regarding the cultural impacts, changes to Art, and decoupling of practice from creation (for things like music, drawings, movies, etc.). In a crude but useful analogy, people still run marathons despite the invention and widespread adoption of cars, bikes, etc. So people will still make Art. People will still appreciate it.
The problem is that art-making-as-a-job is doomed; so are, in the long run, many other 'knowledge worker' jobs, although we can't for certain tell which ones are going to be replaced fully by AI first.
So the hardest problem is not the one relative to creative activity (for pleasure, self-expression, or catharsis), but economic activity. In your words, "Capitalism doesn't work anymore". We can discuss to what point whatever replaces our previous system will still be 'capitalism', but it is apparent that - if it works - it will be very different in many of the aspects we take for granted.
My personal (and likely naive) opinion is that a large part of the political discourse will shift towards trying to define what is -necessary- vs what is -luxury-, as the rewritten order will shift to ensure that all people receive all that is "necessary" and work (whatever it looks like) will be for "luxuries". I don't like it, but I guess that this will be ultimately the question dividing "left" from "right" for a large chunk of this century.
