If the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, it implies that everything that can happen will happen - or has already happened. If time travel is possible, this would include every possible outcome of you traveling to the past and altering events.

What I think would happen is that nothing would change in this timeline. Instead, you’d simply travel to another timeline where you made those changes, and you’d experience the consequences of your actions there. However, it’s also possible that such a scenario doesn’t align with the laws of physics, meaning that nothing would happen because time travel to the past - and any related interference - might simply be impossible.

I think he’s an exceptional person in both good and bad. There’s a shit ton of people born into much more wealth than he did but they havent achieved anything even remotely close to what Elon has. Having access to recources helps but it’s not the only factor.

I am doing it but not on OnlyFans and not for money. I’d be more than happy to monetize it if it was that simple but I’m a guy making quite niche content so I’ll stick with the crowd of few thousand Twitter users following me.

I’m so glad I can escape all the politics to Lemmy

Complete waste of time with no positive health benefits you say?

And where has Elmo said he thinks that?

No, it’s actually not. It’s an LLM and it doesn’t have clue what it’s saying. It definitely cannot speak for someone else.

I’ve been doing heavy squats and deadlifts for the past 15 years and I’ve never experienced back pain. I can’t for 100% certainty credit lifting for this but I’d be amazed if it doesn’t play a factor.

EDIT: And hanging. You don’t even need to do pull-ups. Just get a bar from which you can hang daily. It decompresses your spine but also flexes your shoulders. We’re apes after all and hanging is what they do all day every day.

I still hear you implying that, in one way or another, AI content wouldn’t be as good as - or better than - human-made content. If that’s the case, I agree with you: replacing human artists with AI would be a net negative. However, my point is that when the day comes that AI content genuinely surpasses human-made work on every metric we care about, resisting it simply because it’s AI-generated doesn’t make much sense to me.

I still empathize with human artists who may no longer be able to compete, but I see that as part of human evolution - some professions inevitably become obsolete.

That said, as I mentioned, this wouldn’t prevent anyone from continuing as an artist for the joy of it. It would just make it harder to monetize their work.

What a cynical view to live under.

AI can only replace creative industries if the content it produces is better in which case it’s a win for the people consuming that content. When it comes to creators themselves, it’ll be harder to earn a living that way but on the other hand, none of the artists I know are making it for the money and they would continue making it even if AI was better. Myself included.

However, I don’t think it’s either-or situation. AI will just come alongside human made content. There’s a ton of content creators I’d continue following no matter how good AI would get.

Talk about lazy journalism. Apparently Grok AI is now treated as the official spokesperson for Twitter.

Before even reading the comments I predict it’s all negative and cynical because what ever Musk does needs to be opposed.

Maybe the people here feel personally threatened because negativity is all you have to offer.

I can tell you 100 stories of telling a man to eat more so that they wouldn’t be so skinny.

I don’t think it’s sexist. It’s just rude, no matter who you’re asking. I’d equate it to someone asking me to dress differently as if it’s my job to please them.

Nah, I poop when I wake up, then second time after having my coffee and third time before leaving.

Speak for yourself. I’ve pooped three times before I’m even out of the house.

It dies down when people stop posting but every post there receives replies.

All it really says is it can’t definitively say either way.

No it doesn’t. It clearly says there that the original claim made in the book, which is the same claim you’re making here, is false yet you keep spreading it.

Your claim: he shut down Starlink to stop a Ukrainian assault

Truth: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not

Elon didn’t disable anything. It was never enabled in the first place. Your claim is simply just false.

After the fact? After what? After the thing you’re claiming didn’t happen?

Do you see what you’re doing here? You’re using an article whose sole purpose is to debunk the claim you’re trying to make. You’re emotionally invested in this - you don’t like Elon, so you want this to be true. When someone points out that it’s not true, with evidence, you start making things up to avoid acknowledging you were wrong. This is cognitive dissonance. The reason you have this false belief to begin with is because Walter Isaacson wrote about it in his book. Now the exact same person has admitted that this didn’t happen yet you still keep harping on about it. You’re literally spreading misonformation.