Seems that way! Small detail, but I liked that the front display can be used for taking selfies with the main camera. Opens the door for slightly nicer selfies with the self or friends, versus stuck with front camera or shooting blind.
This is a good and bit surprising one. I have a hard time believing the CEO of Palantir has this many generational points I agree with, Zuck too, but I do.
> While our company has a special role in the lives of this generation, this is likely particularly important for how I show up because I am the most well-known person of my generation.
My god these people… I didn’t even know you could be that self-absorbed. It’s jarring.
Musk has ingratiated himself with parts of the political spectrum, or at least had since he later alienated them. I have no idea what his current standing is.
So for everything wrong with Musk there are at least some people who like him, amazingly.
> For Millennials, authenticity, agency, autonomy, idealism, altruism etc all seem to be top of their list of desirable virtues – for better or worse, they are difficult to reconcile with Silicon Valley these days.
(Nick Clegg)
For better or worse. Right. It is incredible that one can list those five words and say that with a straight face.
I read through it and had a few things I've flagged in my head - the ego fluffing, repeated usage of "Millennial" to the point of redundancy, and the framing of things in terms of "big picture", but can you elaborate on "deep brainwashing techniques"? I'm genuinely interested. This entire email thread feels a bit surreal to me
The judicious use of the royal we, is where he triggered my spidey senses. Mark seems to deflect it in his response, also using the royal we. But yeah, the ego fluffing, the fixation on terms, and the dialectic generalizations, this all adds up to some controlled attention-gathering ...
Notice how often the keyword repeats. It is not repeated to communicate information, but to communicate affective state.
If you don't understand how it works, imagine the above letter instead said "Trump", and read it again.
Don't focus on what the letter says, instead on how it feels. Actually go and read it again, start to finish. Don't read past this line until you did.
Do you see how each time the keyword repeats, it affects your emotional state just a bit more? Can you start to feel it?
I'm assuming you hate Trump, but if you don't, just pretend you do. Then read the same letter one more time, imagine it said "Trump" instead and that the Republicans, which you really hate, just got re-elected. Do read it one more time.
You must understand that the keyword is repeated for affective impression.
Now read the letter again, one last time, slowly. Pay attention to the keyword, and how you feel each time it repeats. Imagine it said really "Trump", and that you really hate him, and what he did to your government.
The keyword does repeat, but there is no redundancy. It is repeated for affective impression. It only feels surreal because you are emotionally disinvested.
If you actually read the letter over and over, and really imagine how it feels, as if it were of deep concern to you, then you will understand. You seem smart, so I'm sure you will understand.
This is true. Why would anyone not establishment liberal go to BlueSky? I'm playing with Nostr but these decentralized social media platforms are a no go for 90% of people. Now I'm wondering why we're talking about Twitter or political social media in general in 2026. That's long over with. Move on.
Excellent points. When Nelson was building Xanadu in the 60s-80s there was no expectation that the user would be the product. Which we have today, things like Google workspace, Office, YouTube, social media etc letting the user use software for "free" in the sense that their is no visible micro traction but an invisible harvesting of your habits and interests to sell to advertisers or whoever wants to buy it. Nelson simply didn't predict this.
People fall for "think of the children!" so let's also try "think of the elderly!". We're a society that ruthlessly opposes individual responsibility and individual outcomes.
reply