Thunderf00t has lost last of his marbles and remaining bits of credibility

[EEVblog]

I might not be up to date, but for some time Tesla only made a profit because it could sell emission certificates to other car makers.

AFAIK this was a long time ago but clearly it lives in the memories.

Yes I believe so. And as for the goverment loans Telsa got I remember Elon saying they have been paid back in full.

[EEVblog]

That's creepy. Youtube recommended me the same video, basically at the same time, despite me not engaging with anything TF related in quite a while.

Spooky.
I can understand for me, because I was just searching Thunderf00t videos.

[coppice]

That's creepy. Youtube recommended me the same video, basically at the same time, despite me not engaging with anything TF related in quite a while.

Does google fingerprint anything on the forums, and then can most likely match the same computer using youtube?

If you looked at this page, Google served you the video's start image from Youtube. So, even if you didn't play it they have an association between you and the video.

[EEVblog]

After 4 pages of off-topic car emissions stuff, I split it out:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/car-emmisisons-(was-thunderf00t-thread)/
Can we keep this to Thunderf00t or at least related Youtuber stuff please.

[EEVblog]

He's not doing well on X recently

[EEVblog]

As a reference, I've been losing batches too, but overall I'm still up on average.
I assume these are mostly people who have left X for Bluesky.

[Ice-Tea]

One of the weird things with TF's videos is how he looks at financials. I can't make up my mind about it: does he know how it works but misrepresents it because he hopes his viewers are dumb enough to go along with it or does he really not know the difference between marginal cost and price.

[coppercone2]

But thunder foot did his fare share of sinking some really stinky shit

[EEVblog]

But thunder foot did his fare share of sinking some really stinky shit

And therein lies the problem here, he has a huge number of viewers who have respecetd his debunking videos over the last 15 years. And that raises the expectations when you vere into and target other thing, in this case, Musk personally.

I get some of this too of course, I get people who say they have "lost all respect for me" because I said something on Twitter about politics or someone that they didn't agree with.
The problem with talking about polarising individuals like Musk (and Trump), is that it's practically guaranteed that half the viewership are going to side one way or the other, and do so passionately.
I've done my fair share of Elon related related videos calling out various things (Starship, FSD, Solar roofs, batetry fires etc, even a trump solar wall video), but it's never really been about Elon himself. So I've avoided a good lot of the hate.
TF's videos on the other hand, you could say, are more about Elon himself.

[nctnico]

He's not doing well on X recently

That is a loss of like 1% in a month. Doesn't seem alarming to me or is this an ongoing trend for a longer period? I could also be it is due people leaving X for other reasons which don't affect you but do affect Thunderf00t due to a different audience. This is a bit of a stretch though 

Edit: I just came across a news article about a German soccer club (Werder Bremen) leaving X and moving the Bluesky due to all the hatred, extremism and conspiracy nuttery on X (their words, not mine).

[coppercone2]

or since X is owned by elon he successful used his own platform to get people to leave that platform and its actually successful from a non financial prospective

I would imagine his end goal is policy change and leaving X seems like a good way to promote change

Its fascinating to me because usually a business owner absolutely cannot behave like an asshole while maintaining business . Most normal people are pretty tired and have no reason to get involved in anything polarizing. It seems to me like getting involved on some bullshit argument with people yelling on the street... its not going to be employed people coming home from work doing that

I assume he assumes that if he convinces someone elon musk is bad, they will switch to non musk related service to watch him

but essentially it seems like missionary work, judge hersey walking into the blasted lands

it reminds me of the 90's when things like the shows making fun of fox (on which they aired) actually seemed edgy


And I think its also really hard to get resources and stuff to debunk things, I think the track record is pretty good considering it does not have production values of a large professional organization, trying to go after musk is like big game hunting, but he used a certain logic to make rather correct videos before, its not clear to me if maybe he noticed something about the behavior of his businesses that elevates suspicion but may be hard to prove. It seems like usually he gets to it them when its in the hatchling phase but in this case its a fully formed dragon. I think he just needs backup

it kind of reminds me of those scenes in some movie where they like hamper a investigation by having physically too many records, files, claims, etc for a small law office to handle properly

[wraper]

or since X is owned by elon he successful used his own platform to get people to leave that platform and its actually successful from a non financial prospective

X had steady user traffic growth since Elon took it over (regardless of whatever user numbers were published). There was some exodus of butthurt crybabies after recent election result.

Its fascinating to me because usually a business owner absolutely cannot behave like an asshole while maintaining business . Most normal people are pretty tired and have no reason to get involved in anything polarizing. It seems to me like getting involved on some bullshit argument with people yelling on the street... its not going to be employed people coming home from work doing that

He simply did not bend the knee unlike others, and funnily enough big advertisers are now returning after the election. https://www.adweek.com/media/advertisers-returning-to-x/

[Nominal Animal]

I like to remind people that even Albert Einstein cheated on his wives.  People at the peaks of competitive domains are rarely morally exemplary, but that should not detract from their achievements.

I would absolutely not care/mind if Thunderf00t (or Dave, or anybody else) posted their opinions on social media like everybody else does; it would not affect my view of their technical reliability/informativeness/videos.  It is when it starts affecting their videos that it becomes an issue.

I'm just not interested in watching political commentary videos from technical people!  Discussion is a different thing, because that is give-and-take.  One-on-one interaction, more or less.  But videos?  Nah, mate.  I stopped watching TV a decade ago, and am not interested in going back to that.

[Psi]

Yeah, no one is perfect.

I really hate it when I see    "Person X did something bad, therefore everything person X does must be bad and must be analyzed to the nth degree to find where this bad thing is".

Usually followed soon after by the, oh so popular "Making shit up to validate ones position or viewpoint that person X is bad"

[tszaboo]

I like to remind people that even Albert Einstein cheated on his wives.  People at the peaks of competitive domains are rarely morally exemplary, but that should not detract from their achievements.

I would absolutely not care/mind if Thunderf00t (or Dave, or anybody else) posted their opinions on social media like everybody else does; it would not affect my view of their technical reliability/informativeness/videos.  It is when it starts affecting their videos that it becomes an issue.

I'm just not interested in watching political commentary videos from technical people!  Discussion is a different thing, because that is give-and-take.  One-on-one interaction, more or less.  But videos?  Nah, mate.  I stopped watching TV a decade ago, and am not interested in going back to that.

Talking about political opinions is one thing. Posting Schadenfreude videos, while the other party is practically winning is a whole other topic. I was also on and off following LegalEagle. Then he went on a series of videos where he was highly politicized. I just checked the channel and 7 of the latest videos are like that.
The thing is, when you do that, you come off as a jerk. It's in the tone of your voice. When you keep posting about it constantly, you come off as either a paid shill, or someone who has paralogical fixation on the issue at hand. None of which is fun to watch, unless you want to join in the dissing. There are specific channels for that, these low effort, "let's comment on someone else's video" channels.

[Andy Chee]

Talking about political opinions is one thing. Posting Schadenfreude videos, while the other party is practically winning is a whole other topic. I was also on and off following LegalEagle. Then he went on a series of videos where he was highly politicized. I just checked the channel and 7 of the latest videos are like that.

Law and politics has a fair bit of crossover, so I don't have any particular issue with LegalEagle.

That said, as conspiracy & fringe theories penetrate and gain a foothold in mainstream discourse, one would expect the overton window to oscillate like an undamped amplifier.  Indeed one could argue that the 'opinion' amplifier is already being driven hard into clipping, and generating the social equivalent of harmonic distortion.

[RJSV]

(Andy Chee and others):
   Regarding mention that some posts are doing 'nasty' references to political election losers.
I've heard of that happening before, of course,  but I've seen cases,  Political Bad Winners;  who kept telling the losing faction to 'Move out of Town!'
   That's a similar, and I guess not surprising outcome (sore winners).   The conventional thought is that the 'losers' don't get over it, soon......(They just get really, really old...dying in office, BTW.)

[Nominal Animal]

That said, as conspiracy & fringe theories penetrate and gain a foothold in mainstream discourse

Mainstream discourse is already so full of misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, fabrications, lies, and hallucinations, that it is impossible to tell what is a conspiracy or fringe theory, and what is rationally and logically defensible anymore.

If peer-reviewed science fails in a quarter of cases –– unreproducible results, incorrect statistical conclusions, incorrect application of a theoretical model, incorrect model –– causing papers to be retracted or shown bunk later on, what can you expect from mainstream media living or dying by the clickbait?

[RJSV]

   You don't have to even have a demonstratable bias, as Dave has mentioned, and in his case trouble came as a result of simply 'asking' and maybe in a way that created a 'theatening' tone or atmosphere.
   I've had that treatment,  due at first,  to being a curious viewer, of 'RT' channel, containing material critical of US official actions.
All I needed to do,  was watch that channel, and express curiosity.   Next thing I got questions about 'Hannity fans'.
   That's pure ridiculous BS to bring FOX news into the discussion,  so quick.   Hannity ?  Give me a break.

   Folks, (even here) wish to sling the 'antivaxxer' labels,  in an attitude that all this is proven fact.

[RJSV]

   Concerning BIAS,  we all have that,  but there are ways that a person can do a step away from applying some bias held.
   You can notice, how quick and convenient a label, like antivax,  how quick it gets applied,  plus you can notice,  how quickly the person talking switches right back off of the vax arguments, and (quickly) moves on into yet another, often unrelated shakey-facts smear.

   Anti-vax, Musk involved, misogynist (billionaire).   Heck,...that last 'smear' used to be the term 'millionaire'.   That, by the way,  is not an inflation driven switch.
   In my opinion,  the myriad of 'news' and talk show media hosts,  that are currently worth several millions, makes that too clearly a compromised talking point.
   Thus,  only 'billionaire' is used, as the smear trigger word.

Point being,  when you hear a grouping of trigger words, quickly and fluidly recited,  you could put personal bias aside,  and realize:
   "Hey...that guy talking sounds like untrue propaganda!"

Maybe doesn't matter,  what personal bias you hold,  if you can use the observational methods.
Not perfect,  but there are methods.  Might be a statistics type of dynamic,  to analyze without major bias.

[Buriedcode]

Point being,  when you hear a grouping of trigger words, quickly and fluidly recited,  you could put personal bias aside,  and realize:
   "Hey...that guy talking sounds like untrue propaganda!"

Which itself ... is a bias.  You can't really "put aside" ones bias, by definition its baked in, and its why the scientific method exists, and is so difficult to actually implement.

Try not to fall into the trap of imagining a world where you are persecuted - it primes the kind of extreme reflex response you mentioned - " you're just saying that because...".

[coppice]

Point being,  when you hear a grouping of trigger words, quickly and fluidly recited,  you could put personal bias aside,  and realize:
   "Hey...that guy talking sounds like untrue propaganda!"

Which itself ... is a bias.  You can't really "put aside" ones bias, by definition its baked in, and its why the scientific method exists, and is so difficult to actually implement.

Try not to fall into the trap of imagining a world where you are persecuted - it primes the kind of extreme reflex response you mentioned - " you're just saying that because...".

Biases are important to have. Thinking things through is a slow process. Biases are an important efficiency mechanism. We couldn't function well without them. The important question is can you turn them down when they fail you, and you need to properly think something through. That seems to vary a lot between people.

[RJSV]

Yeah, I know what you mean, about not expecting EVERYTHING to be arrayed against (oneself).  A portion of the process is actually by design going to combat the 'paranoia' with a methodology,  not perfect,  but still the tool is to observe the timing (of suspect remarks),  and fluidity of delivery.  Often, it's different.

[SiliconWizard]

Point being,  when you hear a grouping of trigger words, quickly and fluidly recited,  you could put personal bias aside,  and realize:
   "Hey...that guy talking sounds like untrue propaganda!"

Which itself ... is a bias.  You can't really "put aside" ones bias, by definition its baked in, and its why the scientific method exists, and is so difficult to actually implement.

Try not to fall into the trap of imagining a world where you are persecuted - it primes the kind of extreme reflex response you mentioned - " you're just saying that because...".

Biases are important to have. Thinking things through is a slow process. Biases are an important efficiency mechanism. We couldn't function well without them. The important question is can you turn them down when they fail you, and you need to properly think something through. That seems to vary a lot between people.

Yes, biases and prejudice are an efficient mechanism - at least a short-term one. Whether we favor short-term efficiency over truth/reality can become a problem though.
This effiency mechanism was meant to be built over long periods of time, and so had a root in reality - even if not a very nuanced one. That was meant to make us make quick decisions when facing an (apparently at least) well-known situation.

Problem is that we now tend to build biases very quickly based on little to no reality at all. And I don't think we can call "efficient" what is basically denial.

[RJSV]

Thinking about potential bias,  I suppose that my suggested process could be flawed,  in the sense that I may deliberately apply some filter,  thinking the person talking is 'suspect'.
   I guess that sequence of decisions could be resulting in biased outcome.
   That is because the 'filter' gets applied when I have decided to use it.  Just being cautious here.

   I do know,  that there is a virtual ARMY of minions out here, hired to gaslight the whole process.
   'Both sides do that, blah blah blah."

   Sure, both sides same...got it.
('Gaslighting' is probably the word, for characterizing 2024 affairs.)

- - Rick B.