It's funny how upset people are that disabled people are getting new tech to help them simply because bad Twitter man owns the company.
Musk has a history of cutting important safety and regulatory jobs to reduce costs. He runs extremely lean businesses.
Maybe it will be different with a biomedical business but I think people are right to be skeptical.
I think mainly people are upset about the animal abuse occurring because of the research at the company.
You mean the animal abuse that occurs during research and development of practically every Type III medical device? I don't hear a lot of people demonizing pacemakers though.
I've never eaten meat in my life or worn fur, I've had the conversstions a lot snd know how people react to animal cruelty, sadly it's normally indifference.
If it was just the animal cruelty then it would be more then just nuralink people are mad at. The only reason it was a news story and none of the other things peta rage about are news stories is because people hate Elon, I hate Elon and I think they should all he news stories but I also try to live in reality.
If we're going to torture animals for food and medical experiments then giving control back to people with one of the most debilitating and distressing medical conditions is probably the best examples of justification to be made.
Let's be honest here; it has very little to do with that and everything to do with the anti-Elon sentiment. People absolutely despise the man and actively look for reasons to shit on everything he does. The response is purely emotional.
I'm actually all for the anti-Elon sentiment, I support this because I fucking hate animals.
/s
This is an ad-hominem fallacy. You are mistaking arguments against the company as attacks on Elon Musk. There are valid reasons to be concerned that humans are being used as guinea pigs and risking their lives with untested technology. There is the valid fact that people have already been playing games on Twitch "with their mind" using EGS.
Just because Elon Musk is a piece of shit that doesn't invalidate these arguments. It's possible to both hate Elon Musk and have a valid argument. Defending a billionaire does not dismiss these concerns.
The people especially on platforms like Lemmy have a strong general bias against everything related to Elon Musk. That's a fact. There are valid reasons to question the safety and morality of his products but to me it's clear as day that it is not the primary source of concern for people here. It's motivated reasoning: they don't like Elon so they apply extreme scrutiny and different standards to him compared to other equivalent companies with less controversial CEOs. There are people in this thread openly wishing him to fail.
The people especially on platforms like Lemmy have a strong general bias against everything related to Elon Musk.
And what are their reasons for the bias? Is it because he's shown to be a chronic liar who over hypes his technology (Elon has promised filly self driving cars "next year" every year since 2014: https://futurism.com/video-elon-musk-promising-self-driving-cars), is bad at thinking through the long term consequences of his decisions (Twitter), refuses to listen to criticism, and shows no concern for the value or quality of human life?
This is like saying "People are only applying extra scrutiny to Johnny the Necrophiliac working at the morgue because they don't like him." They don't like for the exact reasons why there should be extra scrutiny on him for this. The dislike of him does not dismiss the valid concerns based on past behaviour.
I mean yeah, but with good reason
To put it another way, people don't trust Musk with anything remotely important
I mean he's not a bad twitter man, he's literally spreading white supremacy and transphobia to millions on his rigged platform, I absolutely want him to fail the same way I'd want Henry Ford to fail in his time, I'd want a horrible fate to fall on them both regardless of what engineers at their companies end up accomplishing.
It's funny how upset people are that disabled people are getting new tech to help them simply because bad Twitter man owns the company.
Musk has a history of cutting important safety and regulatory jobs to reduce costs. He runs extremely lean businesses.
Maybe it will be different with a biomedical business but I think people are right to be skeptical.
I think mainly people are upset about the animal abuse occurring because of the research at the company.
You mean the animal abuse that occurs during research and development of practically every Type III medical device? I don't hear a lot of people demonizing pacemakers though.
I've never eaten meat in my life or worn fur, I've had the conversstions a lot snd know how people react to animal cruelty, sadly it's normally indifference.
If it was just the animal cruelty then it would be more then just nuralink people are mad at. The only reason it was a news story and none of the other things peta rage about are news stories is because people hate Elon, I hate Elon and I think they should all he news stories but I also try to live in reality.
If we're going to torture animals for food and medical experiments then giving control back to people with one of the most debilitating and distressing medical conditions is probably the best examples of justification to be made.
Let's be honest here; it has very little to do with that and everything to do with the anti-Elon sentiment. People absolutely despise the man and actively look for reasons to shit on everything he does. The response is purely emotional.
I'm actually all for the anti-Elon sentiment, I support this because I fucking hate animals. /s
This is an ad-hominem fallacy. You are mistaking arguments against the company as attacks on Elon Musk. There are valid reasons to be concerned that humans are being used as guinea pigs and risking their lives with untested technology. There is the valid fact that people have already been playing games on Twitch "with their mind" using EGS.
Just because Elon Musk is a piece of shit that doesn't invalidate these arguments. It's possible to both hate Elon Musk and have a valid argument. Defending a billionaire does not dismiss these concerns.
The people especially on platforms like Lemmy have a strong general bias against everything related to Elon Musk. That's a fact. There are valid reasons to question the safety and morality of his products but to me it's clear as day that it is not the primary source of concern for people here. It's motivated reasoning: they don't like Elon so they apply extreme scrutiny and different standards to him compared to other equivalent companies with less controversial CEOs. There are people in this thread openly wishing him to fail.
And what are their reasons for the bias? Is it because he's shown to be a chronic liar who over hypes his technology (Elon has promised filly self driving cars "next year" every year since 2014: https://futurism.com/video-elon-musk-promising-self-driving-cars), is bad at thinking through the long term consequences of his decisions (Twitter), refuses to listen to criticism, and shows no concern for the value or quality of human life?
This is like saying "People are only applying extra scrutiny to Johnny the Necrophiliac working at the morgue because they don't like him." They don't like for the exact reasons why there should be extra scrutiny on him for this. The dislike of him does not dismiss the valid concerns based on past behaviour.
I mean yeah, but with good reason
To put it another way, people don't trust Musk with anything remotely important
I mean he's not a bad twitter man, he's literally spreading white supremacy and transphobia to millions on his rigged platform, I absolutely want him to fail the same way I'd want Henry Ford to fail in his time, I'd want a horrible fate to fall on them both regardless of what engineers at their companies end up accomplishing.