It wasn’t about video length, it was about the Twitter leadership at that time being categorically incapable of monetizing any of their products.
Combine that with the orders-of-magnitude higher cost of running Vine compared to the bird, and it was always either going to be sold off or shut down.
It’s easy to forget that this was back in the time when these companies thought they were changing the planet for the better and drinking their own Kool aid by the gallon.
Great summary, but I want to point out that the reality of why they’re doing this is to pander to racist voters who were told their opinion by a highly effective villification campaign against this woman in tabloid newspapers.
Once these things gain traction, politicians always kowtow to the loudest public opinions
Now listen here you little shit
Yes it’s called ‘You left your carbon footprints on my heart’
nothing purrsonal kit
I hope he takes this firing as a window of opportunity. With the right attitude he can really ground himself.
Woah, where does the US have preclearance? I thought it was nonexistent
Plato’s Rust cave base
Comparing a car to a private jet regardless of passenger count is disingenuous in the extreme
Full of people… Who only need to be there because of her.
This is like arguing it’s more efficient to put wheels on your house and drive it to work every day
The duality of man
The duality of man
Well they haven’t mass murdered me so how can I be sure?
Do you have any samples of their design work?
I’m hot on this case.
I tried to refuse pay for on call recently as it has tax implications that I didn’t want to do deal with, but my employer refused.
So, yeah, take it up with them you bunch of bankers.
You’re implying that I’m making a case for evolution achieving some sort of perfection, and linking that to a definition of success, which, again, isn’t what I said.
If you can’t have an honest conversation about it then I’m not interested. I don’t doubt that you understand evolution, you’ve said enough to demonstrate that, but you certainly do not understand the point I’m making.
And billions was an autocorrect.
Then call it reproductive success instead of dishonestly causing it evolutionary success. And I didn’t state that evolution requires or doesn’t require anything, you brought that up - we’re talking about whether it’s considered successful, which is a philosophical question.
Artificial selection is not a reflection of a species’ ability to survive in the natural world and to me that is not an example of success over the longer, think-billions-of-years, term.
Can you describe where natural selection occurs in a battery farming process?
Twice that many chickens are killed a year. It’s not what I’d call a roaring success in terms of evolution.
His actual goal is in the final sentence of the article and has nothing to do with moral intent.