I started Superego and am liking it a lot so far!
It’s problematic to combine really strong rhetoric with not doing much. It normalizes the rhetoric, and makes it harder to be listened to in the future if you ever want to actually do something about the problem. It’s hard to say “OK but now for real this is super bad” when you already said that over and over and didn’t take action.
It’s kinda like how it’s bad to make threats you aren’t willing to follow through on. He’s implying that action should be taken. But if you do that don’t follow through you come off as weak, imply the things you complained about weren’t that bad after all, and devalue whatever rhetoric you used.
Skimming the replies discredits crypto so much.
A couple examples of people being awful. I think awful stuff is more normal/typical than people pretend.
A post was merged into an existing topic: Elliot’s Microblogging
wow i skimmed the other broadcast with weaker players doing commentary and it’s so different Carlsen - Nepomniachtchi | Game 1 | World Chess Championship | Howell, Houska, Snare - YouTube
i haven’t watched the game yet but just skimming, the one i will watch is basically just watching the game and analyzing moves. the other broadcast is constantly interviewing people and doesn’t appear to have much analysis of chess positions. they have a stronger differentiation between broadcasts than i expected. one is has like none of the stuff i normally skip past and the other one is like 80% stuff i would skip…
the “deep dive” one currently has more views (470k to 320k) but it makes sense that the people watching live or early would be biased towards that one. i’m curious to check the views in a month. i also want to check for e.g. game 4 to compare with game 1. I figure a lot more casual viewers will stop watching after the first game or two.
(If anyone has information about how accurate this is that they can share, please share.)