How accurate is the comparison with plant fasciation, for anyone who knows more? My experience with owning/growing fasciated succulents (usually referred to as "crested" by growers and collectors) has been that they're more challenging to grow in terms of risks of things like overwatering, but as far as I know that behavior doesn't necessarily impact their overall lifespan. Sometimes a crested specimen can also revert back to normal growth. Maybe that's tangential to the article itself, but it's something I'd be curious to find more information about.
I found a specific project that I really wanted to build, and copied online tutorials. After a few cycles of that (involving different sub-systems of the same large project) I developed increasing knowledge as a result of both the process itself and the information I found myself naturally encountering and reading along the way.
I'm slightly curious what this means about the condition of Twitter as a business if an organization of their size doesn't want to spend the time/resources on maintaining this.
I would guess that the kinds of people who 1. use Macs and 2. decide to download the app are probably among some of Twitter's more engaged and higher-income users.
Ads are there to convert (sell stuff). Low income users buy less stuff. Also less expensive stuff. Ads catering to high income users tend to budget more for ads because they can be more lax with cost per user acquisition - their product has the margin to support it. All this leads to more income for twitter.
As someone who went to top school/s but didn't major in CS (or business) and has trouble making friends, I certainly wish that credential was all it took. Then the playing field would almost be more accessible and meritocratic than it actually is. But presumably there's further layers of segregation and inaccessibility within those institutions.
This also of course raises the question of what the rights of the audience are in terms of their choice to listen or not. This becomes especially complicated with situations like the internet (where the barriers to engaging in conversation with other people are lower), or on property which isn't a completely open public forum all the time. Ex. free speech rights might be restricted in a library, even though it's government property, where that interferes with the ability of other people to use it.
You also don't have the right to go through a neighborhood at 2am with a bullhorn talking about your political platform in the upcoming election.
What's at issue is that most internet sites are privately held, and such things as "free speech", which is a prohibition on government interference, have no real meaning. Groups, including companies, also have the right of association, and that includes the right to kick people out.
The government has some ability to restrict that right of association, as with the various civil rights protections regarding businesses. However, none of that analysis applies to, for example, one's ability to post videos to YouTube. In the US, the government can't even prohibit private clubs from discriminating on basis of race.
