harry retweeted
The BBC are truly awful
When Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May were flying high with Top Gear
The BBC tried to replace one of them with an "Ethnic Minority Presenter" for diversity reasons
harry retweeted
Senator Alex Antic nails it as usual.
If you want a clear explanation of why the Big Brother Bill is so dangerous, watch his speech in Parliament.
harry retweeted
Good morning, classic comedy from @JohnCleese, Graham Chapman, Tim Brooke-Taylor & Marty Feldman (with Barry Cryer) in The Four Yorkshiremen sketch from At Last The 1948 Show (1967)
Have a brilliant Sunday
harry retweeted
A reportedly drunk & possibly insane man attacked a member of parliament in Australia with his car. And so, naturally, a few vile politicians are exploiting the tragedy to demand mass online censorship. Decades of scientific evidence & common sense demolish their lies. THREAD
harry retweeted
You aren’t alone on the right! We’ve just stopped arguing with them. They cannot be reasoned with.
harry retweeted
Lina, you don't know the honest truth.
In the military, you got your POGs... Person Other than a Grunt. Guys who don't shoot anything. You need them, because you need all sorts of specialties, but you can't trust their big-picture judgement, because the overall mission of the military is shootin' people, and they don't do that.
In civilization, we have POMs.
Person Other than a Maker. Dudes what don't build things. You might need them. But you shouldn't take them too seriously, or listen to them too much, because on some fundamental level, they are never going to get it. They are never going to understand. The fundamental task of civilization is making things, and POMs don't do that.
"This is just a mash-up of existing technology" is the most POM-like typing you could ever hope to see. It's a tell that someone has never done a significant engineering project in a technical role.
Experienced engineers not only understand differently, we eat, sleep and breathe the basic reality that 99% of engineering challenges are "get mechanism to work with other mechanism". Without breaking, shaking itself apart or blowing up.
Every basic scientific principle behind the internal combustion automobile was understood by the ancient Greeks and Romans.
And yet they were not only unable to harness those principles to make a primitive steam-powered automobile, they were unable to conceive of the very idea, because their ability to implement and integrate wasn't advanced enough.
If you look at everything that Elon Musk has ever done, every company he has ever built, every technology he has ever brought to market, none of it was a purely new invention.
It was ALL taking stuff that already kinda worked, and making it do new things. And not just do them, but do them so well that they actually became practical.
SpaceX didn't invent the rocket. They made it reusable.
Tesla didn't invent the electric motor or the battery. They made them practical for ground transportation.
Neurallink didn't invent electrical nerve interfaces. They made them control a computer UI.
This shit is incredibly hard. If you try to use the known principle of a cold-gas thruster to make a car fly, you're going to crash and blow up a lot. You're going to have to make mistakes, and fix them, one by one, until you run out of mistakes and the thing flies.
Real engineers, real makers, know that this is what the word engineering means. POMs don't get it. Lina doesn't understand what she saw.
She thinks she saw a publicity stunt to impress yokels.
No. That was a publicity stunt to impress engineers.
It wasn't a demonstration of a flying car at all. It was a demonstration of the engineering capabilities of team.
It was a flex.
"Look," they said, "we can reify the Gernsback continuum. Give us your silliest, low-effort science fiction meme tech, and give us enough time, and we'll make it real."
The purpose of making a flying car isn't to let you do a jetpack leap over traffic. It's to learn all the little implementation details and balancing tradeoffs and gotchas that you have to master to make a car fly.
It's not the big scientific discoveries that build civilization. By themselves, they are nothing but curiosities.
What builds civilization is all the little discoveries that you make when you try to get the big ones to stop crashing and blowing up.
When someone does that on a unprecedented level, you either help them, or you stay out of the way and keep your ignorant POM opinions to yourself.
I'm not an Elon hater.
I'm just telling you the Honest Truth:
This is a marketing stunt.
The technology is quite old.
Just nobody ever thought of bolting it on a car.
Because it's pointless.
Porsche or Ferrari could also build something like this if they wanted, but they don't, because it's not worth it for them.
It's worth it for Elon though, because his entire brand is all about having the halo of futurism.
His marketing scales especially well with tech gimmicks like this, which is why he is financially incentivised to do them, while others aren't.
Again, I'm not hating, but actually educating yall.
This is not engineering genius.
It's marketing genius.
harry retweeted
Je discutais ce matin avec quelqu'un qui me disait que la concentration de pouvoir entre les mains d'Elon Musk était dangereuse.
C'est une vraie question. Mais elle est mal posée.
Regardez qui était tout en haut de l'échelle ces 30 dernières années. Les gens qui ont façonné le monde dans lequel on vit. Pour beaucoup, des profils franchement borderline. Et personne ne leur a jamais demandé de rendre des comptes avec la même intensité.
Bill Gates, par exemple. Sa vision du monde est profondément malthusienne : l'humanité comme un problème à gérer, une variable à réduire, une population à piloter. Ce que Musk appelle l'extinctionnisme.
Et c'est là que ça devient sérieux.
On est en train de vivre un virage civilisationnel. IA, robotique, énergie, espace. Le monde de 2040 n'aura rien à voir avec celui de 2020.
Et ce virage ne va pas émerger d'un consensus. Aucune grande bascule de l'histoire n'en est jamais sortie. Elles sont toujours portées par une poignée de gens avec une vision, et les moyens de l'exécuter.
Donc la vraie question n'est pas « est-ce que quelqu'un doit avoir autant de pouvoir ». Quelqu'un l'aura. La question c'est : qui, et pour en faire quoi.
Aujourd'hui, au sommet, il y a deux visions.
La première est collectiviste en surface, mais ultra-centralisée en réalité. Quelques méga-corporations, des dirigeants tout-puissants qui n'ont plus rien à prouver, et en dessous une lowerclass infinie, sous perfusion, gérée, apaisée, rendue inutile. Lisez le blueprint de Sam Altman, Moore's Law for Everything. Suivez le plan de Gates. C'est exactement là qu'on va.
La deuxième, c'est celle d'Elon Musk. L'expansion. Plus d'humains, pas moins. Plus d'énergie, plus de planètes, plus de conscience dans l'univers. Faire avancer la civilisation plutôt que protéger une hyperclasse.
Et ce qui est fascinant, c'est que même dans la Silicon Valley, même chez des gens qui ne l'aiment pas, la majorité finit par dire la même chose en privé : s'il y a quelqu'un à qui faire confiance dans tout ce bordel, c'est lui.
Est-ce que c'est sain d'avoir un single point of failure humain à l'échelle d'une civilisation ? Non. C'est dangereux. Évidemment.
Dans les 10 à 20 prochaines années, il faudra qu'émerge une forme de conseil, une génération d'entrepreneurs bâtisseurs dans cette lignée, pour que l'avenir ne repose pas sur un seul homme.
Mais aujourd'hui, quand on regarde ses projets, sa trajectoire et sa vision du monde, le choix est assez simple.
Bill Gates et Soros veulent maximiser l'intérêt de leur classe.
Elon Musk veut maximiser l'intérêt de l'humanité.
Le meilleur bet civilisationnel, c'est lui.
harry retweeted
Je vais dire quelque chose qui risque de déplaire à beaucoup de monde, mais tant pis.
Je crois qu’une partie de notre société est en train de perdre quelque chose de bien plus grave que sa compétitivité économique.
Elle est en train de perdre sa capacité à rêver.
Hier, Tesla a présenté une démonstration spectaculaire autour d’une voiture capable de quitter le sol. Un prototype, certes, pas encore la voiture volante de Retour vers le futur.
Mais quand même, bordel. On parle de technologies qui semblaient relever de la science-fiction quand nous étions gamins.
Et ce matin, en regardant certaines réactions françaises, qu’est-ce que je découvre ?
« Ça sert à rien. »
« Musk est un raciste. »
« Ça ne règle pas les problèmes de recharge. »
« Ça n’efface pas ses saluts nazis. »
Mais sérieusement, qu’est-ce qui nous est arrivé ?
À quel moment avons-nous perdu cette âme d’enfant qui nous faisait ouvrir grand les yeux devant une invention ?
Et le plus triste dans tout ça, c’est qu’on semble avoir oublié notre propre histoire.
La France, c’est le pays des frères Lumière, qui ont contribué à faire naître le cinéma.
C’est le pays de Louis Pasteur, dont les travaux ont révolutionné la microbiologie et la vaccination.
C’est le pays de Nicéphore Niépce, pionnier de la photographie.
C’est le pays des frères Montgolfier, qui ont envoyé l’être humain dans les airs à bord d’une montgolfière.
C’est le pays de Blaise Pascal, qui concevait déjà une machine à calculer au XVIIe siècle.
C’est aussi le pays du TGV, et l’un des deux pays qui ont donné naissance au Concorde.
Vous imaginez ce que représentaient ces inventions à leur époque ?
Des humains qui osaient accomplir ce que beaucoup pensaient impossible.
Des gens qui n’acceptaient pas les limites de leur temps.
Des visionnaires, des ingénieurs, des scientifiques, des entrepreneurs qui voulaient repousser les frontières du réel.
Nous avons été ce pays-là.
Alors comment avons-nous pu en arriver à un point où notre premier réflexe devant l’extraordinaire semble parfois être de chercher pourquoi il faudrait le mépriser ?
SpaceX récupère des fusées qui reviennent se poser sur Terre ? On parle immédiatement d’Elon Musk et de ses provocations.
Des robots humanoïdes commencent à réaliser des tâches physiques de plus en plus complexes ? « Ça va détruire des emplois. »
L’IA ouvre des perspectives gigantesques pour la médecine, la science, l’éducation et la création ? « Ça pollue, ça vole le travail des artistes, ça sert à tricher. »
Un entrepreneur annonce vouloir réaliser quelque chose d’incroyable ? « Encore un milliardaire qui veut s’en mettre plein les poches. »
Mais est-ce qu’on réalise seulement ce qui est en train de se passer ?
Nous vivons une époque où des fusées réutilisables se posent après leur mission, où l’IA accélère certaines découvertes scientifiques, où des robots apprennent à évoluer dans notre monde, où des personnes seules commencent à créer des choses qui nécessitaient auparavant des équipes entières.
Et devant tout ça, on serait devenus incapables de dire simplement : « Putain, c’est incroyable. Comment est-ce qu’ils ont réussi ça ? »
Je ne demande pas qu’on admire aveuglément les milliardaires. Ni qu’on ferme les yeux sur les conséquences sociales, environnementales ou politiques de leurs projets.
On peut condamner les propos d’Elon Musk tout en reconnaissant les prouesses des ingénieurs de SpaceX et de Tesla.
On peut défendre les travailleurs tout en trouvant la robotique fascinante.
On peut vouloir encadrer l’IA tout en étant émerveillé par ses possibilités.
L’esprit critique n’a jamais obligé personne à devenir cynique.
Et c’est justement ce cynisme qui me désespère.
J’ai parfois l’impression qu’on a remplacé l’admiration par la jalousie, le goût du risque par la peur de l’échec, l’ambition par la suspicion et le rêve par le sarcasme.
harry retweeted
Some immigrants are turning the American dream of flying cars into a reality.
Some are shouting "death to America" and changing the very fabric of the nation.
Guess which ones are having hit pieces made on them and are a target of leftists?
harry retweeted
Labor’s shocking censorship bill cannot be fixed. It must be abandoned completely.
Labor still wants the power to shut down what you are allowed to say, and to run swarms of AI-powered government bots to feed you propaganda and record what you do online.
You just cannot trust this lying government.
There is no amendment that can fix their Digital Duty of Care bill. It never should have seen the light of day. Bin the whole thing and never bring it back.
harry retweeted
DEAR AUSTRALIANS‼️
I love your beautiful, rugged and unique country and culture. Literally EVERY Aussie I have met ALL over the world has an open mind, is adventurous and trusting in the goodwill of humanity. It is a wonderful trait that I admire and envy greatly.
But your ELECTED LEADERS continue to ABUSE your TRUST and YOUR GOODWILL by STEALING AWAY your LIBERTIES; YOUR FREE SPEECH, YOUR GUNS, and THEN allowing the IMMIGRATION of people who HATE WESTERN CIVILIZATION and have NO INTENTION of ASSIMILATING to your culture.
This is even a greater BETRAYAL than what your TYRANNICAL Government did to ALL Australians during the cruel and inhuman (and unnecessary) Covid lockdowns.
It is my sincere hopes that the people of Australia will WAKE up and reclaim your rights and VOTE OUT these AUTHORITARIAN ASSH@LES!
Good on ya,
Love
Rob
THIS CRAZY CENSORIAL AUSTRALIAN BI-AHTCH @AnikaWells IS A CRAZY LIAR!!!
harry retweeted
Today Anika Wells introduced the Digital Duty of Care bill to Parliament. @shellenberger explains why we should be very concerned.
🚨 BREAKING NEWS: Wells Gives the Look While Denying the Sock Puppets Exist
CANBERRA — In a moment of pure leadership, Anika Wells reminded everyone that independent regulators do not spread government propaganda.
That would not be a tenable argument.
The unlimited educational sock puppets are simply here for the gentle correction of incorrect thoughts.
When the look was given, it was clearly one of solidarity, not panic.
The Digital Duty of Care™ will finally protect Australians from the trauma of unmoderated opinions.
We should all be grateful the Censorship Industrial Complex™ is finally professionalising the safe space for the gentle sunset of accounts that have not yet been educated.
@AnikaWells @shellenberger @AlboMP @SenSHenderson @abcnews @News24Aust @CamReddin @TheIPA @politico @Paul_Karp @tweetinjules @eSafetyOffice
harry retweeted
Wow, wow, wow. I just left the National Press Club where Minister of Communications @AnikaWells spoke. She repeatedly and brazenly lied about the fake accounts, claiming they were only for enforcement, even though the legislation says in black and white that the eSafety Commissioner can use them in unlimited ways for "educational" and "promotional" purposes.
One big moment came when a Politico reporter got up and said something about how mean people like @PaulineHansonOz were to eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant. Seriously. A supposed reporter was white-knighting for a government official during the official Q&A. The same reporter had come up to me before Wells' speech and asked if I had criticized Inman-Grant. Who needs government censors when you have Politico?
After he asked his question, Wells showed the most emotion, describing online criticism of Inman-Grant as "abuse." She also talked about her own staff's supposed suffering. I kid you not. The mask dropped, and you could see what really upset her: people — including a sitting Senator — criticizing government officials.
After gaslighting the audience about fake accounts, Wells repeatedly insisted the government wasn't trying to censor content. She said this after filling her speech with examples of content she claimed harmed people. You couldn't make it up.
This legislation is the culmination of decades of progressives equating words with physical violence. Wells cynically compared her legislation to prevent psychological "harm" to various laws that protect people from physical harm, like seat belt laws.
BTW, Wells never said what content it was that she thought caused eating disorders. Pictures of skinny women? Dietary advice? Who knows. Nobody asked.
Another important moment came when Wells explicitly said Australia would be pursuing censorship alongside other nations, including the UK, France, and Spain—all countries where governments risk losing power to populists.
I spoke with Julie Inman-Grant before the speech began and asked about the fake accounts. She insisted they were there just for enforcement, and when I asked why the law allowed them to be used for government propaganda, she said she might write an "enforcement memo," which, of course, would have no impact on the legislation.
After her speech, I went up to Wells and asked if she was seriously saying the legislation didn't allow the government to use fake accounts for government propaganda. She refused to answer. A man who said he was from the National Press Club stepped in front of me and said I could interview her afterward. But that wasn't possible because they rushed her out the back to avoid any difficult questions.
So there you have it. The pettiest people in Australia are seeking to silence citizens and their political opponents in the name of protecting children. These deeply intolerant and cynical people want to control what you can see and say online. And they're doing it with most of the media's support. Australia has reached a new low in its rapid descent into dogmatism, intolerance, and censorship.
The government today will introduce sweeping censorship that @AlboMP & @AnikaWells lie about. Below she claims the government wants to create a bot army of fake accounts for “research” when the bill clearly intends for them to be used in partisan warfare against fooled citizens.
🚨 BREAKING NEWS: Labor Regime Admits It Will Run Unlimited Fake Accounts While Banning Yours
SYDNEY — After decades of dangerous free speech, the Labor Regime has courageously decided that ordinary Australians cannot be trusted with their own feeds.
The Digital Duty of Care™ will allow unlimited government-run educational sock puppets to gently correct polarisation and extremism… the very threats the Prime Minister warned the UN about.
Previous attempts to stop anonymous accounts were clearly insufficient. Now the right people will control the anonymous accounts.
Critics who still cling to the outdated concept of “not being censored” are simply refusing to accept that safety requires a little 1984 energy.
One American visitor said the meeting felt like Soviet Russia. Officials immediately clarified it was actually a safe space for the Censorship Industrial Complex™ to practice not caring.
Anonymous accounts that disagree with the government will be gently sunsetted. Anonymous accounts that agree will be expanded. Equity™.
The craziest, most totalitarian piece of censorship legislation ever introduced in the West is now available for pre-order. 🫶💀
@shellenberger @AnikaWells @BenFordhamLive @AlboMP @2GB873
harry retweeted
Well, that was wild. I'm at the Australian Parliament and just left a meeting with two staffers for the governing party. They told us that the government needed more power to censor things like the upcoming US execution of Nidal Hasan.
When I asked why they needed to censor that video, one said it was to prevent copycat killings. Copycat killings by governments? I asked. Er, no, they said. Copycat killings like of a backpacker, several decades ago.
So, under that logic, I pointed out, the government should censor things like last year's Bondi massacre, where two Muslims killed 15 people, no? Well, that was news, they said. Didn't they realize their bill would allow the government to censor news? They didn't seem to know, or care.
They also admitted that they did not know that the bill would allow the government to create and operate an unlimited number of fake social media accounts to attack its political enemies and spread disinformation. Having presented them with information they had never heard about a bill they had clearly not read, they emphasized to us, strenuously, that they were moving forward with the bill.
So there you have it. The government wants the power to arbitrarily censor scenes of violent crime, or violence, for any reason. And it wants the power to use an unlimited number of fake accounts to wage offensive disinformational warfare against the Australian people.
Given that the Bondi massacre last year increased public opposition to mass migration, and support for the populist One Nation Party, it seems obvious that the government wants to censor such events in order to protect its political power.
It's quite telling how obediently governing party members insist such a law is needed without even knowing what's in it.



















