It is a little of both[1]. The question typically is which audience reads it. To be fair, I am not sure publicity is the actual reason they are censored; it is the question of liability.
Whenever there's a beaching of whales I wonder if a submarine has sailed past blasting sonar so loud the whales have to jump out of the ocean to their death.
There's a million podcasts out there about negligent butcher doctors. To be truly shocked, listen to Dr Death from Wondery to make a start: Dr. Duntsch https://wondery.com/shows/dr-death/season/1/
AND beware getting emergency surgery overseas.
I know a surgeon who warned that if for example you get appendicitis they'll take out other bits from you to claim more insurance money. I also know a person who appears to be a victim of this.
If you can possibly avoid it, go back home ot get surgery - assuming you live in a country with a trusthworthy medical system.
This occurred in Florida. This is but one isolated incident, yet, I can't help but notice the two examples that come to mind (this and Christopher Duntsch) both occurred in states with leadership that champion deregulation. Even if deregulation was the ultimate culprit, it seems inexcusable to me that academic/medical institutions aren't self-regulating effectively despite that.
Ugh what a disaster. This is so Anthropic can enforce bans.
The future has arrived, in which you are only allowed to program a computer in any meaningful way requires total identification and permission.
What a tragedy that the amazing capabilities of LLM assisted programming come with such disgusting and reprehensible requirements and impositions.
So they can ban you from some minor infringement of their usage policies and you'll never be allowed to program again.
"Mr Anderson, it has come to our attention that you have been programming computers under an assumed identity. As you are aware this is a felony under the computer fraud and hacking act and you will be sentenced to four years in jail and may never use a computer again.". Yes laugh it up.
This looks like a motte-and-bailey. Your original comment, the bailey: "he posted much religious stuff from official Intel accounts". This comment, the motte: "he posted much religious stuff".
You could've just said, "I thought it was extremely strange that he posted so much religious stuff while CEO". That would've been a very defensible position. You didn't need the false part of posting from official Intel accounts.
Or, if it was an honest mistake, you should've written something along the lines of: "Sorry, I misremembered, it was his personal accounts. But when you're a CEO, I don't think the distinction matters much; anything you post will be read as 'Intel's CEO says'".
Of all the openly religious people, Gelsinger did the least to mix business and religion. Whereas an irreligious person like Peter Thiel says some really wacky religious stuff.
Tim Cook is openly Christian and he has neither written a book about how “Jesus is his CEO” (and should be yours too) nor has he ever (to my knowledge) led his company in singing a hymn.
I didn't know about the book, but I'm finding nothing at all to indicate that he's ever lead employees in singing hymns. At Intel his boss was a secular Jewish man, and so was his CFO. That leads me to doubt that it ever happened especially not at Intel.
Based on my brief interactions with him, and my overall experience with Intel as a project partner at the time, I'd say he has exceptionally high integrity. I'd bet he didn't even have his books ghost written.
He definitely didn't have the book ghostwritten. It does have advice on issues that go beyond faith. But I think it's much more useful as a guide to the faithful than the non-faithful. We interviewed him last year about the book:
From the quotes in the article it sounds pretty simple. These are words that everyone can understand. Of course, the fascist right is attempting to 'inform' the public at a level where even two-syllable words are a bit too complicated. But maybe the general public also should attempt to be at a level a bit higher than cattle.
I am not christian so pardon me if I am wrong but wouldn't that be the catholic (pastors?) who can preach this message in the the words people understand and I suppose (internet influencers/people online?) will come to sum it up.
Also Pope has to be diplomatic, he can't say for example things like "Trump sucks" words people understand but there is a subtle undertone in the message which convey that.
Hell no, we're already ruled by functionally illiterate [1] morons, dumbing down the discourse further is the very last thing we need. Stupidity should be made shameful again.
[1] Using the words of Trump's own biographer, Michael Wolff, here.
Was not meant ironically. I understand how in practice it's a political role (as most positions of power are) but I think it's applying the wrong standard to expect religious leaders to communicate like politicians.
I know people hate LLM writing but at least it gets to the point and gives some background context. I have no idea what this guy is talking about. It's an article aimed at people who know him personally, it seems.
reply