I've got two questions about the Woodward book that may not seem serious, but actually kind of are:
Why are books?
What if this thing that everyone says was a secret was actually not a secret?
By the first question I mean two things: Why would it ever be good to print a new idea later as a book rather than print immediately in a newspaper? Also, why does the incentive structure favor waiting for books?
By the second one I mean this: Trump actually said the thing we're angry about Woodward saving for his book at a press conference in April. But even without it - it wasn't a secret the advice Trump was extending was not based in science. And it was impossible he didn't know that.
Given the actual environment - not the marketing of the book claiming that this was a blockbuster new thing - was he actually withholding something that would have changed peoples' minds?
And, if he was, could a reasonable person in his situation think otherwise?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm going to say something that a lot of you won't like.
If you stay on Twitter to make fun of Elon, you aren't fighting the man. You're doing the thing Elon wants.
He is the main character driving user engagement. Posting space Karen memes isn't a protest. It's the product
I posted this on another site. It's true here, too.
If you stay on this site, even to make fun of Elon Musk, advertisers will come back. Advertisers don't care why you're here, just that you see their thing.
The same thing is true about arguing with people who paid for blue checks. They want you to engage with them.
One of the reasons sites like Gab, Parlor and Truth Social never took off is that the core appeal of Twitter is gawking at adversaries and hoping they notice.
This would actually mean Elon Musk is dumber than he looks.
High school sports is a monopoly. If you go to Jefferson High, and you don’t like the coach at Jefferson High, you can’t move to City High, where City High will also give you a raise.
Musk had recently complained that too many employees were working remotely.
Managerial tip: If you fire half the staff, and then some more members of the staff, and are still unsure your employees won't sabotage the company, you fired the wrong employees.
Cybersecurity has a lot of really weird internal drama. I'm going to skip rebroadcasting the latest one, except for one claim: A guy said someone who only had a bachelor's degree couldn't critique his PhD-level research.
This is a thread about cybersecurity and the institution.
Moreso than any other field I'm aware of, law enforcement, investigation, crime prevention and national security tasks are shifted to the private sector.
Almost all research happens outside academia and - until very recently - nearly all training did as well.
To that latter point, and to the point of that one researcher quickly building a reputation for being wrong and incurious about why he's wrong: Nearly all the most accomplished cybersecurity researchers learned the craft outside of the academy.
I originally a posted thread about how the article was disingenuous. I took down that thread (save the above tweet) because I suspect there was supposed to be a line about it that was removed by accident.