Why would people learn that? Clearly what people are learning is it’s an effective tactic.

> he shot someone on the right, which are both strong evidence of left-wing motivation on their own.

I think the idea that there are two sides is one of the most toxic ideas in our politics. We associate with teams and anyone on our side must be good, and ignore things like the tyranny of small differences - the far left hates the center left more than they do the right. And there are similar dynamics on the right. Especially in obscure conspiracy filled corners of the internet.

This doesn’t mean all people on the right are bad, or the right is inherently violent! But to ignore the complex breakdown of political ideologies is to ignore the crazy ways things actually happen, not to mention the fact that generally speaking, people who commit random acts of violence like this are not coming from a politically rational place.

I should clarify that I don't think there's much merit in the guilt-by-association smearing that happens after such events (or the stripped-of-context quote-mining character assassination the article engages in), and by "left-wing motivation" I did not mean to imply blame should fall on the left as a whole.

Unfortunately such smearing is very effective propaganda, so most people, including journalists, only take this position when it is their side getting smeared.

My specific point is there are people in this world with “right-wing” motivation to kill Charlie Kirk, social media has been full of it in just recent weeks, just like if a prominent left winger died there would probably be evidence of left-wing motivation to kill them. Or maybe it’s more complicated than that even!

It would be productive to our discourse if we didn’t automatically see it as two sides.

Something I’m coming to realize about the free press is it’s really designed to make the world make sense. To tell a narrative the fits a certain world view.

And I remember when I studied the columbine shootings; what I learned is how broken those shooters brains were. That I think on some level, I imagined a rational anger directed at their classmates, and not the bizzare rantings of a confused adolescent (which of course they were)

So we of course don’t want to introduce the concept of groypers, or 4chan meme culture or the bizarre rantings of a broken mind that probably led to this tragedy, and instead use this opportunity as to continue to perpetuate this neat story that justifies everyone’s priors.

I’m curious if you’ll see more of this as the freshness of tech’s rightward turn wears off and the two sides realize they have very little in common. Money only buys you so much good will.

Right but got caught doing what - trying to build a manufacturing plant that will bring jobs to Americans? It feels like the real loser here is the Americans who would have had jobs after the plant opened. We’re cutting off our nose to spite our face, because people didn’t fill out the right paperwork.

Got bored, went to read a book instead.

You're argument is that you think it's a good idea to base your intellectual curiosity on the <inverse> priorities of a raving madman? Do you think that insanity is precise enough to understand the truly valuable ideas of the world, it just heads in the opposite direction? Better apparently than other methods of discerning valuable information?

I have lots of inputs to my curiosity.

A guy I've never heard of getting assassinated and it making to the top of news, while a bunch of other people cheer it on, is one input.

If I just randomly hear some guy was shot by the local schizophrenic, no I probably won't look up their videos.

Like if they, say, had a stroke?

This is exactly what many said during the Biden years and it was discounted as fringe conspiracy theories.

Discounted by who? His PR staff?

And it turned out to be true? They were wrong? I'm just saying if you were using AI in an attempt to distract from the fact that the president was not available, that would be a different thing from using AI to maximize the presidents message. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Everyone knows that Biden and Trump are held to different standards.

Not even being a pedophile or sex trafficker would harm Trumps support in any meaningful way.

996 is bullshit, what slacker doesn’t start work until 9? It should be 666

But we won’t get there unless the company integration failure rate falls below 95%

Eh, seems likely to me existing companies are structured for human labor in a way that's hard to really hard to untangle — smart individuals can level up with this stuff, but remaking an entire company demands human-level AI (not there yet) or a mostly AI-fluent team (working with/through AI is a new skill and few workers have developed it).

New co's built by individuals who get AI are best positioned to unlock the dramatic effects of the technology, and it's going to take time for them to eclipse encumbent players and then seed the labor market with AI-fluent talent