Wow I feel so trolled that he’s lighting more of his money on fire. Buy an extremely well known brand for 44 billion and replace it with something you spend 5 minutes of effort on.
Right, it may look like he's making dumb decisions left and right and doesn't have anyone telling him how stupid he is to get him to stop, but he's really playing 4d chess.
Reports of X11's death have been greatly exaggerated as far as I can see; it's still clinging stubbornly on, and efforts to kill it have tended not to go well.
𝕏 (U+1D54F) decomposes[0] to X (U+0058) meaning that if you search for 𝕏 your search string will likely be automatically converted to the equivalent X.
Of course, while a search engine could conceivably index and search the entire Unicode codespace internet wide, such a task would likely be somewhat unrealistic and provide only limited upside.
How do you decide which characters to index? The current Unicode release (15.0) includes 149,186 individual characters. I suppose you can probably ignore U+237C (Right Angle with Downwards Zigzag Arrow) seeing as nobody seems to know what it denotes.[0][1]
Most search engines for languages like English are indexing words as opposed to characters so choices as to what characters are indexed are made as part of deciding which words to index.
Search engines for CJK languages do tend to work at the character level so a search for “Sona” on a certain site run by (I think) Chinese people will turn up result for “Persona”.
I was involved with an A.I. startup where we had lots of meetings about what to do about all the strange Unicode characters and right now in Mastodon there is a lot of concern that screen readers will choke on 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐨𝐝𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 while it doesn’t seem that difficult to squash them down to ordinary characters or treat them exactly as <b>unicode bold characters</b>
Yea, kinda feels like X.org would have a decent trademark case if they wanted to pursue it. Both the name and logo are really similar, and it seems like both companies are operating in similar enough categories that its not too hard to imagine there being confusion between the two.
My first thought when simplicio mentioned trademark was that The Open Group -- which would seem to own the X Window System logo -- might need to try and protect their trademark. If they don't, it's easy to foresee how down the road the similarity could become their problem, not Musk's.
The X.Org Foundation might need to do the same for their X logo even though it's a bit different (and I'm not sure if it's trademarked in the first place).
IANAL, but you do need to defend a trademark in order to maintain it after all.
Of course fighting to protect it would probably be costly and financially risky even if they did have a case.
They can probably trade mark it for social media (unless someone already has), but are highly unlikely to be able to trademark it broadly, which clearly is the intention.
Yes, but those "classes" can be quite wide, there is for example no way they could trademark it for "Class 9: Computer and software products and electrical and scientific products."
Apple and windows are trademarks for software. You would be unable to get the trademark "Apple" for a company selling fruit, or "windows" for a window fitter, and neither could Apple or Microsoft.
𝕏 is a pre-existing symbol used by, and part of a standard character set for, software. You could probably get a trademark on it for a company selling apples, but I highly doubt you could for a software company.
I don't see a problem with this, it's a generic character used in mathematics. If nobody trademarked it before, it shouldn't cause any issues. If using greek letters like λ in brands is not a problem, then this should fly too.
They could also apply for multiple trademarks with small additions if they launch a new product:
Trademarks are against a "class", these can be quite wide. They would clearly want to own that exact symbol for "Class 9: Computer and software products and electrical and scientific products."
Unicode already contains exactly it, it's a mathematical/scientific symbol, even if they did get the trademark in that category (which I doubt) they will never be able to enforce it. With trade marks, if you don't successfully protect them, you loose them.
I think this would seriously confuse his core audience, so I doubt that’s the intention. Then again, I think rebranding Twitter to X is a terrible idea, so what do I know.
It is a problem, because if theoretically Musk were to trademark that character (improbable), Unicode would likely be forced to remove that character and break every instance of it across the internet. Not to mention that anybody using that symbol, which already has an established meaning in mathematics, would be infringing on that trademark.
Trademark should be possible, but a copyright will depend if the whole logo surpasses the Threshold of Originality. Ordinary typefaces, plus colors and effects, are below this threshold.
Are you sure? When I type https://xn--971h.com in it doesn't work, but clicking the link in your comment does because HN has made the href x.com. The browser converts 𝕏.com to x.com before going there too. Moreover, X and 𝕏 are treated as equivalent characters in this context, so whois 𝕏.com looks up x.com, and 𝕏.com's punycode encoding is x.com: https://www.whatsmydns.net/idn-punycode-converter?q=%F0%9D%9...
whois xn--971h.com returns the same thing as an unregistered domain.
HN automatically converts these urls to punycode, maybe this is a bug and it automatically converts everything to punycode even though it doesn't make sense?
I'm not sure. There was a short period when you could register one letter dotcoms before about 1994. He's owned it since forever that I know of. His first company was called X, which became PayPal.
I spent a long time in the mid-90s trying to persuade INTERNIC to let me register b.com.
I'm pretty certain you can register one-letter IDN .coms. I registered a bunch the day the IDN system went live, and I had no idea what characters I was registering or what they meant and I later let them all lapse.
In Latex, you get these symbols with \mathbb{}. They are most commonly used to represent to represent number sets, like the set of all integers Z (from the German), set of all natural numbers N, set of complex numbers C, set of all real numbers R, rationals Q (for “quotient”), set of quaternions H (named after Hamilton), or an unknown set F (for “field”). This explains why many of the letters in this series exist in the basic multilingual plane—because R is very commonly used, but A is not. You can find ℝ in the basic multilingual plane at U+211D.
I don’t know why people are interested in the X symbol. It’s just there to complete the alphabet. There are many other ranges like this used for writing mathematical formulas, like the range of bold letters, fraktur, script, etc.
Elmo (and specifically the value-extraction-by-merchandise craze CTW created around him) pretty much single-handedly destroyed the original ensemble cast spirit of Sesame Street, so it's actually pretty apt.
I think you missed the point: the domain has not been in Musk's control that whole time, as I had thought. His company X.com had it, then PayPal got it when it was created in the merger of X.com and Confinity, and PayPal kept it after Musk left, but then Musk got it back.
This doesn't contradict what you're saying, but note that the company was only re-branded to PayPal after Musk left it. I think it was just named Confinity after the merger.
This whole Twitter saga is like what happens when a cat catches a bird and doesn't know what to do with it so just slowly tortures it to death for the hell of it
Also people less likely to assume its the brand for a pornography site? Feel like people have developed a habit of avoiding (or seeking out) anything with a prominent "X" in the name on the Internets.
It sounds like Elon had the domain and it was burning a hole in his pocket. That's the only explanation, honestly.
Twitter as a brand becomes less valuable the more he alters it, since he's such a polarizing figure, so changing the brand to break continuity seems pretty counterproductive. It just reminds people that Elon is still fiddling with it.
> It sounds like Elon had the domain and it was burning a hole in his pocket. That's the only explanation, honestly.
I think he just thinks he’s getting his revenge and that everyone will see how his terrible idea of x.com was actually genius back in the day. Like a particularly expensive midlife crisis. A bit like some dudes who start playing guitar because they could not back in the day, when it was a useful tool to make friends and look cool.
I'm a PhD student in algebraic geometry and have seldom seen this. IME "X" is a generic name for all kinds of spaces (metric, topological, complex analytic, algebraic...), but I don't remember ever having seen "𝕏".
That said, in principal everyone is free to call their spaces how they like. It just makes it easier to read if one sticks to familiar notation.
Now that I think about it, most double stroked characters really represent "concrete" objects, not generic ones. Like ℙ for projective space, or 𝔸 for affine space. Also 𝔽 is often used together with an index 𝔽_q for the field with q elements.
On the other hand, Wikipedia[1] agrees with you, that 𝕏 is "occasionally" used for metric spaces.
My experience with 𝔽 is “vector space over a field 𝔽”, which is not a concrete object, but I have probably seen F written in a normal italic style more often.
As a counterpoint, 𝔽 when not fixed to a particular size is arguably still generic over "any field", and 𝔾 is most definitely generic for "any group", even if fixed to a particular size.
There might be small cultural differences at hand here. As a German, I prefer "k" or "K" for fields (as in "Körper"), and I think I've seen 𝔾 mostly as 𝔾_a or 𝔾_m for the additive and multiplicative group. shrug
I’ve also seen ⅆ as the differential operator and 𝔼(X) as the expected value of X. I think I’ve also seen 𝟙_x, and ⅈ, and ⅉ but I don’t remember for what.
I know 𝟙_X as the indicator function (also called characteristic function) of X in measure theory and probability theory, but I’ve also seen 1_X or χ_X.
ⅈ and ⅉ can be basis vectors or imaginary units although I’ve never seen them in blackboard bold in my lectures.
Can you please not break the site guidelines by fulminating, name-calling, snarking, and so on? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
You may not owe $CEO better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
The "bb" in "mathbb" isn't for "math, baby" (although accurate), but short for "blackboard bold". These letterforms don't originate with blackboards though, using outlines for thick verticals goes back centuries. They're sometimes called open face.
The "tabs vs spaces" debate of mathematical typography is whether these symbols should be used at all in printing, or reserved for actual blackboards.
In LaTeX you can have actual boldface letters, so you should write a boldface letter R to represent the real numbers and so on. Using "blackboard bold" in print looks terribly off to some (many?) people.
Funny. Coming from a non-math background, having only one symbol to deal with feels less confusing than switching around symbols based on the medium it happens to be written on. Did one of the symbols come "first"?
Summary: boldface came first, in print, and was widely used. Much later, some mathematicians started to write blackboard bold on blackboards (because actual bold would be very untoward to write on a blackboard). Then, the usage was backported to print.
I find it ugly, a sort of breaking "suspension of disbelief", I don't know how to explain why. Some sort of "anachronistic" feeling, like watching a movie about the roman empire and some soldiers wear watches.
EDIT: as for having "different symbols", this is not the case. They are exactly the same symbol, with different faces. Like when you write the letters "a" or "g" very different on a blackboard as they appear on print.
> I’ve literally never heard anyone advocate your position until you did, just now
Many mathematicians concerned by typography use real boldface. For example: Terence Tao's blog, Donald Knuth, Paul Halmos (author of "how to write mathematics"), and the famous journal "Publications Mathématiques de l'IHÉS" which is the undisputed gold standard in mathematical typography. They use real boldface for the number sets N, Z, Q, T, R, C.
I've never seen a boldface R to mean a set different than the real numbers.
People use both, for reasons of tradition, ergonomics, practicality, available toolset. Boldface is obviously common in places where BB is unavailable, more restrictive, more difficult. Web publishing is a great example.
BB is common, in my experience, in hand-written text where bold isn't really an option. It is, to my tradition, the most common and recognizable way to indicate the most common field sets and also generally is a good stand-in for any "large category" of interest.
Bold is used intermittently in my experience, probably due to its inability to be hand-written. To me, it tends to mean "vector" or "matrix" much more than set. In hand-written forms, I sometimes see "arrow hats" instead, especially for vectors.
> "Publications Mathématiques de l'IHÉS" which is the undisputed gold standard in mathematical typography.
It is? Do you have any supporting evidence for this claim?
I just had a look at a bunch of recent articles, and I would very much dispute it. I saw nothing extraordinary, and found the fonts they used rather ugly (though of course that is highly subjective). The use of bold face to highlight theorem/definition/etc. numbers is IMHO very questionable. The boldface letters you praise stick out like a sore thumb, feeling as if they were being emphasized and highlighted when they clearly are not meant to be.
> It is? Do you have any supporting evidence for this claim?
I don't have any evidence to support this claim. I always thought about it as self-evident, because it was in that journal that Grothendieck published his work, and the same style is used in by the legendary Hermann editor from Paris and by Bourbaki. But I cannot find any non-partisan source of my claim. As for non-neutral sources, you have for example the congratulations on the typesetting by Dieudonnée [0] (who was a member of the IHES), or a more recent article by Haralambous about the Baskerville variant used by the institute [1]. I will retire my claim of "undisputed" if you find a source that says that the pinnacle of mathematical typesetting is something else :)
That's pretty typical for how typography develops. Majuscule and miniscule letters were just two different styles of writing the same letter. But eventually, people started using majuscule (i.e uppercase) letters to give emphasis to the beginning of sentences or certain words, like names.
Italic typefaces were created by Italian type designers to mimic the cursive handwriting of the time. They weren't meant to be mixed with roman style typefaces. However, typesetters who had access to both roman and italic fonts started to use italic for emphasis when typesetting texts in roman type.
And of course blackletter is also just a style that originally tried to mimic earlier handwriting.
> In LaTeX you can have actual boldface letters, so you should write a boldface letter R to represent the real numbers and so on.
Almost [1] every single student absolutely hates that notation in scripts. Bold is used to draw attention, it should not be abused as being part of the variable/type. Just use the proper symbol.
[1] And I'm only saying "almost" to account for the possibility of there being like 5 super weird people on this planet that think otherwise. I don't know a single person who thinks this is a good idea, even the professors writing their scripts like that think it's stupid and are only doing it due to some nonsense fear of it otherwise not printing correctly due to one single bad experience with a shitty printer in 1950. Or maybe there's some other historical reason for this, but in 2023 I'd classify not using the better notation as malicious.
I hated when textbooks/papers did this. Half the time you can't tell if they meant to use the bold letter or if the printer was just being generous on that character. Made legibility quite a bit more difficult. BB letters are unambiguous.
I strongly disagree that the bold symbols are better, even though they’re what blackboard bold was originally conceived to approximate. The reason: Bold font draws attention (ask a typographer about type color), but usually, the bolder symbols are not the ones requiring that attention. (If I read a text about real analysis, I know that the domains and codomains will be the real numbers, for example.) The blackboard bold versions stick out much less when looking at the greater composition of the page.
I respect your opinion, and agree that with some particularly "thin" fonts (most notably, Computer Modern and its variants), the associated bold symbols are too exaggerated and produce and ugly effect.
But there is certainly some dependency on the font. For example, the Baskerville used by the Publications de l'IHÉS is a much thicker font, and the bold letters flow very naturally. Look for example here
The publications in the sixties and seventies, which are scanned, are very beautiful and the bold letters mix smoothly in the text. You cannot see them "from far away" as happens with Computer Modern.
Curiously, the modern pdfs look slightly different, with apparently thinner fonts. This may be an effect of printing, that smears the ink a bit and produces slightly thicker type?
Do you have a source for this? I have never come across this debate and personally find the blackboard bold convention to be useful, as well as very visually elegant.
It seems to me that it is part of the folklore. Note: not the folklore of math! The folklore of mathematical typesetting, which is a tiny community.
You can find many old and new math texts using either convention. Most often readers won't even notice. There are authors who are adamant against blackboard bold, most famously Donald Knuth and Jean-Pierre Serre. Others simply use regular boldface because of tradition, or because it's the default style of the journal. Most people don't care too much. But I have also heard people expressing strong opinions on each side, that's why I made the analogy with tabs-vs-spaces. Nothing too serious.
Elegance is entirely subjective. I have the opposite opinion: if we can do real boldface in print, which is the original usage, what's the point of using a black-board version? We have the real thing! But I also understand the opposite opinion, voiced elsewhere in this thread, that open bold lettering is a new case, like italics or fraktur, and we can use it freely in print.
They are an accessibility nightmare. I read a comment here recently from a blind person that had to give up on math education entirely due to all of the symbols not being supported by screen readers. It was pretty sad.
I avoid using oddball Unicode characters for this reason,[1] but I also feel like at this point the can of worms has been unleashed, and the screen reader authors are going to have to adapt to a more hostile environment.
It seems like one approach might be something like this, assuming none of them are doing it already. If this is TLDR, the key feature relating to the topic at hand is the point about handling mathematical symbols, so skip everything except that one.
* Pre-parse the entire page and count the number of characters that would be read using a multi-word description. While doing this, create sub-counts of characters that fall into each Unicode script (Latin, Cyrillic, mathematical notation, etc.).
* If the number of characters that would be read using a multi-word description exceeds a user-specified threshold, prompt the user for how to proceed.
* First, tell the user how many different Unicode scripts (and blocks if necessary[2]) are contained on the page. For each set, prompt using the following logic if the user hasn't already set a default:
** If a script/block/whatever consists of abstract symbols, like the mathematical set, offer to read it using the closest approximation in the character set it's derived from. e.g. for 𝕏, read it as "X" instead of "mathematical double-struck capital X". Read both 𝜸 ℾ as "gamma" instead of their lengthy "mathematical..." descriptions.
** If a script/block/whatever represents a spoken language, offer to do one of the following:
** Read it as if spoken by someone fluent in the language.
** Precede it with "the following [n] [script name] characters" and read each one individually, without any leading per-letter indicators, e.g. for "ΑΒΓΔ", "the following four Greek characters: alpha, beta, gamma, delta". Optionally include per-letter capitalization indication, but only if the user has previous enabled that option.
** Replace it with a count and the script name, e.g. "five hundred characters of Chinese script". Provide a way for the user to interrupt the narration and expand that section instead of omitting it.
* Allow the user to store all of the prompt answers as defaults and not prompt them again unless the user resets the option. e.g. "always read mathematical symbols as the closest Latin letter approximation".
* Maybe remind the user that it is an option in edge cases like "this entire page would be read as 'a series of 53,198 symbols you've suppressed reading'".
[1] One of my first full-time jobs, decades ago, was doing UI development with a focus on accessibility.
[2] Pretty unbelievable that the Unicode consortium has taken the position that an apparently unlimited number of stylistic variations on Latin letters should get their own Unicode renditions, but that basically every other culture's character sets gets merged into one style of character even if there are extensive historical reasons to have different renderings, and also has the time to keep adding corner-case emojis, but can't be bothered to provide a single way to easily differentiate "Cyrillic" from "Latin" as well as differentiate "mathematical notation" from "Latin".
That's on screen readers developers. And I don't know when that comment you seem to remember dates back to, but I have had several blind students in my math lectures over the past decade. They seemed did fine.
The central theme of this paper is the variational analysis of
homeomorphisms $h \colon \mathbb X \xrightarrow []{{}_{\!\!\mathrm
{onto}\!\!}}\mathbb Y$ between two given domains $\mathbb X ,
\mathbb Y \subset \mathbb R^n$.
Some logos can be copyrighted. Most logos however don't meet the threshold of originality. The Copyright Office will reject copyrights for stylized letters (see IBM logo), or logos of simple geometric shapes. With the modern aesthetic for logos to be as simple as possible this means nearly all the logos you see are not copyrighted.
Does this have anything to do with the cage fight/dick measuring content with Zuckerberg? I think almost everybody thought renaming Facebook to Meta was a bad idea, but maybe Musk knows something we don’t. ;-)
When it first happened I thought they were trying to evade Facebook’s bad reputation for privacy and politics and made a point to keep calling it Facebook.
After about a year “Meta” had the same stink of death around it as NFTs and I figured I’d be doing it no favor by calling it by its preferred name.
Given that Musk's obsession with the "X" moniker goes back to the 90s at least, I imagine it would be more accurate to say his son's name and this rebrand are both branches from the same tree (see: x.com -> paypal, SpaceX, Tesla model X)
This would explain things, if there was a credible suggestion for who's pulling the strings.
The theory of Elop destroying Nokia (consumer) makes sense, because he was at Microsoft, went to Nokia sold it to Microsoft at diminished value and stayed there for a good amount of time. But who would pay Musk for this? And how will he be compensated? Afaik, he's lighting a bunch of his own money on fire. Although, there has been a lot less news from him on Tesla and SpaceX, so maybe it was all a plan to keep him out of those spaces.
I've seen theories about Saudis paying for this in order to prevent the next Arab Spring, in which Twitter played a key role for the protesters to organize themselves. Seems a bit far-fetched, but these days, who knows?
The initially-too-high offer plus downturn in his stock value right after, meant a deal structure that damn-near doomed the company anyway (tons of debt).
Best-case (for him), Twitter as we knew it dies and he manages to turn the burnt-down ashes into something profitable enough to overcome that hurdle. Twitter per se cannot reasonably get out of the hole he's dug for it.
Though, arguably, the brand itself was a huge part of the value, and he just threw that in the trash.
You know a guy's going down a weird path when all defenses of his behavior amount to "I know the last twenty things he's done have looked insane and none of it's made any money, but he's got a secret genius plan, I swear! 5D chess!"
The US is already there, with an almost brain-dead 90-year old Senator being as good as gone, so that a privately-owned company doing whatever its largest owner thinks fit for the good of the company going forward doesn't even get close to that.
...which leads, of course, to the question of whether, with the application of a suitable sum of money, one can get one's chosen logo added to the unicode standard.
It's actually time for someone to adopt this character [1] at the gold level ($5,000), which is only allowed for the single entity and doesn't expire---so that X.com doesn't have a chance to sponsor the character at the same level.
>All sponsors are acknowledged in Sponsors of Adopted Characters and our public Twitter feed and will receive a custom digital badge for their character.
Who cares if x.com sponsors it? In fact they should because emojis are so popular on it and Unicode could use the fund. Why should someone try to get this? What is their benefit?
Thus far there is a positive correlation between “egregiously terrible decisions” (ETD) and attention. From a naive perspective the attention is caused by ETD. However it may be worthwhile to test the alternative hypothesis that ETD are attempts to increase attention. Maybe ETD fit within a larger set of “Attention Seeking Behavior” (ASB).
To the degree that ASB is “rewarded” with any feedback at all, even negative, then it will be reënforced.
Enjoying the attention of others is socially acceptable in some situations. However, an excessive need for attention can lead to difficulties in interpersonal relationships. However, as a tactical method, it is often used in combat, theatre (upstaging) and it is fundamental to marketing. One strategy often used by teachers and behavior analysts to counter various types of attention-seeking behavior is planned or tactical ignoring.
going out of your way and spending 5k$ to try make fun of him publicly is not how you make the attention stop.
This is the trump situation all over again. They hate him but they write articles about him every day and make sure we all know what he's up to even when we are actively trying to avoid him and twitter.
Anyone have any knowledge of how the new CEO and Elons relationship is regarding the business? I'd be curious how the conversation goes with her about this kinda stuff.
Not saying I agree with his ownership style (I certainly don't), but if you become a CEO for a company owned by Musk, and are not expecting him to undermine and interfere, than you are fooling only yourself.
He hired her a couple months ago. He has been public about building the X “everything app” for a while. Presumably she already knew about that when she took the role.
Musk can seem to do no right atm, I see a lot of hate out there with this name change and planned product expansion but I can’t quite understand why.
He’s taking an underperforming social network and trying to make it work. It might prove fatal, but it would have died a slow boring death in its old form. Perhaps its just that people don’t like his personality, which shouldn’t come into it.
Fwiw even prior to his defunding moderation it felt like one of the meanest places on the internet, I don’t see much of a change.
It's very hard not to take his personality into it since he chooses to force it in there. However, trying to be a bit dispassionate for a second, I'd say the haphazard nature of the changes are what really gets to people. Especially those who depend on Twitter as a tool, not knowing what it will be called tomorrow, how it will function, which parts will work and which wont, etc. is quite a deal-breaker.
Because he keeps having these late-night binges of bizarre, brand-destroying decision making. Twitter is underperforming as a result of his previous rounds of bizarre, brand- and product-destroying decision making. Twitter wasn't dying until he came along to "fix" it.
Yeah, his personality is plenty objectionable too, but it's mostly the way he's seemingly intentionally running the company into the ground that I object to.
Twitter was doing fine. By taking it private, he saddled it with massive debt its current revenue couldn’t service. And every decision thereafter has been half baked and poorly executed. So by trying to “save” it, he’s killing it much quicker than if it had just been left alone.
That is not at all what looking at their financials say. Twitter was a very profitable company which over hired like crazy in 2021. This could have been solved without gong crazy like Musk did. Just do responsible layoffs.
There are no articles to confirm that it was losing $4m a day prior to the acquisition. This is a number that Elon put out (post acquisition) to justify layoffs.
There are no articles to confirm that it wasn't, either.
As for justifying layoffs, Twitter (or X, or whatever it is) seems to be working just fine, despite the dire predictions that the whole thing was going to die within days.
Out of curiosity, why shouldn’t his personality come into it?
There’s no moral or ethical basis to not consider his personality when evaluating Twitter, and even if you have one I’m not obligated to share it.
You don’t have to understand things for them to still be valid! To me, he’s an offputting guy doing a bad job, and those two things are valid to consider when thinking of his company according to my moral values. That’s subjective, but it’s clearly a view that many share with me.
He's taken an okay performing social network, laden it with debt, absolutely obliterated its reputation and value by screwing around with it like a coke-addled toddler (with some kind of fascination for fascist-adjacent politics), and now he's destroying a globally-recognised brand to play out a decades-old fantasy that he should've grown out of the first time it blew up in his face.
> He’s taking an underperforming social network and trying to make it work.
Few would argue that it works better now than before
> Perhaps its just that people don’t like his personality,
I suppose it's more complicated:
- he promised "freedom of speech" and Twitter has rather become "freedom of hate"
- he is taking constantly controversial political positions, usually favoring dictators, and this doesn't resonate very well in the western world
Maybe people just wish he would have stayed the way he was: a sort of fascinating "Doc Brown" rather than yet another average billionaire pushing political ideas through his wealth and popularity.
> Few would argue that it works better now than before
Maybe in the social circles you stick to, but there are plenty of /other/ people (i.e. more than a "few") that are quite happy that the 80% of employees doing their jobs were let go. [1]
Is Matt Taibbi implied to be one of those happy people?
'Matt Taibbi, a journalist who worked on the “Twitter Files” series of articles about old business decisions at Twitter, has said he’ll no longer use the social media platform. Taibbi is apparently frustrated by Twitter’s recent decision to heavily restrict all links and tweets about Substack following that company’s announcement it would be launching Substack Notes, a short form social network and potential competitor to Twitter. Any Twitter user who even tries to retweet a post from Substack is met with a notification, “some actions on this Tweet have been disabled by Twitter,” a move that has angered many users, including Taibbi.
It is better for favoring free speech over censorship. Dictators don't favor free speech whatsoever. You've been gaslight into believing the opposite. Tyrants censor people with any justification they can get their hands on, including "hate speech".
We accept speech we don't like to avoid this very trap.
Oh, bosh. Don’t be absurd. Elon demonstrably isn’t “favoring free speech over censorship.” He’s just choosing different speech to favor and to censor.
Oddly enough, he tends to favor hate groups and dictators: “Twitter’s compliance with government demands for censorship or surveillance has risen [during Musk’s tenure] to over 80%, from around 50%.”
You answered your own questions really with "Musk can seem to do no right atm" - for some of us, it's just incredibly funny to watch the hubris of a self-proclaimed genius cause them to fail so often in such a short space of time. A seemingly endless string of stupid decisions because he's surrounded by boot lickers and sycophants with not one of them willing to put their hand up and tell him he's not a genius.
For me it's not funny so much as shocking, and sad. He had a hand, of some sort, in at least a few great things, and it's upsetting to watch it falling apart. I often think of the quote:
"You either die a hero, or live to see yourself become a villain."
Far too many icons outlive their hero phase, and it's kind of depressing.
Edit: Or rather, the hero phase fails to live long enough to outlive the person.
He’s produced a lot of value for a lot of people over the years, and many things some of us see every day (like Teslas) are only the way they are/have been successful the way they are because of his influence.
It’s always been more as a promoter and image seller, but he has also been willing to make big calls and take risks others won’t which has allowed them to grow. That is valuable. And he has been hands on in some areas sometimes in ways that have been instrumental in shaping things. For better or worse.
He’s far from perfect. But no one is, and honesty is important.
I suspect the big issue here is something typical of narcissists - he’s gotten older, and he can’t keep up his game convincingly enough anymore to fool a large enough percentage of the public, so he’s downward spiraling. And internally he can feel it, which makes it worse.
It would explain a lot, especially the often bizarre and destructive attacks on anyone who says anything he doesn’t like. The over the top edgy/controversial behavior to get reactions, etc.
Which is a natural state when the one in charge is insecure about their own actual weaknesses.
They’ll attack anyone who tells them the actual truth, and end up surrounded by those who either can’t see the truth (due to
incompetence or delusion), or are willing to actively lie about it (manipulators). By process of elimination, if not by active choice.
1) He's going to lose a TON of brand recognition overnight.
2) He seems to have gone from "I'm thinking about doing this" to "We're going live" over the course of a weekend. This is both rushed and more based on reaction than actual thought and research. I don't see any of his customers wanting this.
3) Morale for employees there already seems to be terrible. Having them implement a rebrand over a weekend on a whim makes him seem like a dictator.
4) From a practical perspective the name X is foolish. The word "tweeted" is a verb used every day on the news. Companies would kill to have that level of their product within the culture. Now they will say what? "exed"? No one will say that because the audience won't know what it means and it has the negative connotation of something you've moved away from (ex-husband, ex-girlfriend, etc.).
I'm responsible for this character being supported in Iosevka, JetBrains Mono, 3270, and Cozette, looks like. For arguments I wanted to stick to mathematical convention like f(x) without looking like a regular variable. While the lowercase 𝕩 (subject role) is more common, uppercase makes it a function and is useful in functional programming. More visibility for the character is helpful if it means wider font support, although the real sticking point has been lousy UTF-16 handling on Windows. Like most emoji, these characters need to be represented as a surrogate pair in UTF-16, and terminals in particular often don't handle it.
Misremembered about Iosevka: I requested support for a few other BQN characters after noticing it already had the double-struck ones (https://github.com/be5invis/Iosevka/issues/870). The other three were requests or contributions (drew 3270's 𝕏 myself!) explicitly in connection with BQN.
I wasn't familiar with BQN. Clicked through, reminded me of APL. "OH", I thought, "I see how you came up with the name." There was a (disproven) urban legend about Arthur C. Clarke's 2001, where "HAL" was secretly a reference to "IBM", where you transpose each letter by one.
H + 1 = I
A + 1 = B
L + 1 = M
Man, BQN is a clever name. Because,
A + 1 = B
P + 1 = Q
L + 1 = M...
...well crap. That theory didn't pan out at all. Needlessly disappointed myself upon hearing that it's short for "Big Questions Notation".
LOL, was literally going to try entering it on the new MS terminal, and realizing I don't have a windows system readily available to use. Why don't other OSes support ALT+(numpadcode) input for special characters? No idea how to do this on mac or linux.
Anyone else want to try to copy/paste into the new Windows Terminal? It does appear to work fine on MacOS under Tabby (terminal).
Can’t find it now, but originally it was reported that Elon got the logo from someone who replied to his tweet and that it was the lid logo for someone’s unsuccessful podcast.
307 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 288 ms ] threadJust look at the attention he is getting.
If you think Musk is somehow upset about this, you are wrong.
/s
https://x.org/wiki/
edit: using proper typography.
Of course, while a search engine could conceivably index and search the entire Unicode codespace internet wide, such a task would likely be somewhat unrealistic and provide only limited upside.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_equivalence
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31012865
[1] https://ionathan.ch/2022/04/09/angzarr.html
Search engines for CJK languages do tend to work at the character level so a search for “Sona” on a certain site run by (I think) Chinese people will turn up result for “Persona”.
I was involved with an A.I. startup where we had lots of meetings about what to do about all the strange Unicode characters and right now in Mastodon there is a lot of concern that screen readers will choke on 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐨𝐝𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 while it doesn’t seem that difficult to squash them down to ordinary characters or treat them exactly as <b>unicode bold characters</b>
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36845492
The X.Org Foundation might need to do the same for their X logo even though it's a bit different (and I'm not sure if it's trademarked in the first place).
IANAL, but you do need to defend a trademark in order to maintain it after all.
Of course fighting to protect it would probably be costly and financially risky even if they did have a case.
They can probably trade mark it for social media (unless someone already has), but are highly unlikely to be able to trademark it broadly, which clearly is the intention.
𝕏 is a pre-existing symbol used by, and part of a standard character set for, software. You could probably get a trademark on it for a company selling apples, but I highly doubt you could for a software company.
"used by" is pretty debatable. Its a fairly obscure character. I don't think being in unicode by itself is sufficient enough to count.
Or to any number of business domains. See the trademark registration for "Wagatha Christie":
https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00...
They could also apply for multiple trademarks with small additions if they launch a new product:
𝕏ₚₐᵧ
Unicode already contains exactly it, it's a mathematical/scientific symbol, even if they did get the trademark in that category (which I doubt) they will never be able to enforce it. With trade marks, if you don't successfully protect them, you loose them.
whois xn--971h.com returns the same thing as an unregistered domain.
related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDN_homograph_attack
https://www.verisign.com/assets/icannrestricted/idn-icann-re...
curl: (6) Could not resolve host: xn--971h.com
curl should especially live with a punycode version.
Unless the punycode from the OP is incorrect? From basic online tools, it looks like it simply converts to x.com
Would be funny to buy it and make a redirect to threads.net.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kha_(Cyrillic)
Also https://xn--vm8a.com which is on sale for $91M
edit - i looked up the whois, just because it's parked at godaddy doesn't mean it's for sale
Name: XN--U1A.COM
Internationalized Domain Name: х.com
Registry Domain ID: 106236037_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Domain Status:
clientDeleteProhibited
clientRenewProhibited
clientTransferProhibited
clientUpdateProhibited
I spent a long time in the mid-90s trying to persuade INTERNIC to let me register b.com.
In Latex, you get these symbols with \mathbb{}. They are most commonly used to represent to represent number sets, like the set of all integers Z (from the German), set of all natural numbers N, set of complex numbers C, set of all real numbers R, rationals Q (for “quotient”), set of quaternions H (named after Hamilton), or an unknown set F (for “field”). This explains why many of the letters in this series exist in the basic multilingual plane—because R is very commonly used, but A is not. You can find ℝ in the basic multilingual plane at U+211D.
I don’t know why people are interested in the X symbol. It’s just there to complete the alphabet. There are many other ranges like this used for writing mathematical formulas, like the range of bold letters, fraktur, script, etc.
Please do not sully the good name of the Muppet by associating him with the tech billionaire…
> On July 5 2017, Musk repurchased the domain name X.com from PayPal
They even took a little jab at him when it happened
> "We are delighted to sell the domain x.com back to its previous owner"
2017 is not 1999
We could even say "2017 > 1999", giving an ordering over these numbers.
Changing it to X is something some edgy teenager would do. I can't help but wonder if he's trying to destroy twitter on purpose.
Not even kidding. https://apnews.com/article/twitter-x-logo-blue-bird-musk-068...
> In response to questions about what tweets would be called when the rebranding is done, Musk said they would be called Xs.
Twitter as a brand becomes less valuable the more he alters it, since he's such a polarizing figure, so changing the brand to break continuity seems pretty counterproductive. It just reminds people that Elon is still fiddling with it.
I think he just thinks he’s getting his revenge and that everyone will see how his terrible idea of x.com was actually genius back in the day. Like a particularly expensive midlife crisis. A bit like some dudes who start playing guitar because they could not back in the day, when it was a useful tool to make friends and look cool.
Yeah I wonder if he "sold" it to Twitter, and if so, for how much.
That said, in principal everyone is free to call their spaces how they like. It just makes it easier to read if one sticks to familiar notation.
On the other hand, Wikipedia[1] agrees with you, that 𝕏 is "occasionally" used for metric spaces.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackboard_bold
ⅈ and ⅉ can be basis vectors or imaginary units although I’ve never seen them in blackboard bold in my lectures.
It's the new symbol for and domain name of the social? network formerly known as twitter.
You may not owe $CEO better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Heh.
The "tabs vs spaces" debate of mathematical typography is whether these symbols should be used at all in printing, or reserved for actual blackboards. In LaTeX you can have actual boldface letters, so you should write a boldface letter R to represent the real numbers and so on. Using "blackboard bold" in print looks terribly off to some (many?) people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackboard_bold
Summary: boldface came first, in print, and was widely used. Much later, some mathematicians started to write blackboard bold on blackboards (because actual bold would be very untoward to write on a blackboard). Then, the usage was backported to print.
I find it ugly, a sort of breaking "suspension of disbelief", I don't know how to explain why. Some sort of "anachronistic" feeling, like watching a movie about the roman empire and some soldiers wear watches.
EDIT: as for having "different symbols", this is not the case. They are exactly the same symbol, with different faces. Like when you write the letters "a" or "g" very different on a blackboard as they appear on print.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifteen_Decisive_Battles_o...
The point is to be understood.
Use blackboard bold when it’s what people are most familiar with and will engender the least confusion.
You call this the “tabs vs spaces” debate, but I’ve literally never heard anyone advocate your position until you did, just now.
Many mathematicians concerned by typography use real boldface. For example: Terence Tao's blog, Donald Knuth, Paul Halmos (author of "how to write mathematics"), and the famous journal "Publications Mathématiques de l'IHÉS" which is the undisputed gold standard in mathematical typography. They use real boldface for the number sets N, Z, Q, T, R, C.
I've never seen a boldface R to mean a set different than the real numbers.
BB is common, in my experience, in hand-written text where bold isn't really an option. It is, to my tradition, the most common and recognizable way to indicate the most common field sets and also generally is a good stand-in for any "large category" of interest.
Bold is used intermittently in my experience, probably due to its inability to be hand-written. To me, it tends to mean "vector" or "matrix" much more than set. In hand-written forms, I sometimes see "arrow hats" instead, especially for vectors.
It is? Do you have any supporting evidence for this claim?
I just had a look at a bunch of recent articles, and I would very much dispute it. I saw nothing extraordinary, and found the fonts they used rather ugly (though of course that is highly subjective). The use of bold face to highlight theorem/definition/etc. numbers is IMHO very questionable. The boldface letters you praise stick out like a sore thumb, feeling as if they were being emphasized and highlighted when they clearly are not meant to be.
I don't have any evidence to support this claim. I always thought about it as self-evident, because it was in that journal that Grothendieck published his work, and the same style is used in by the legendary Hermann editor from Paris and by Bourbaki. But I cannot find any non-partisan source of my claim. As for non-neutral sources, you have for example the congratulations on the typesetting by Dieudonnée [0] (who was a member of the IHES), or a more recent article by Haralambous about the Baskerville variant used by the institute [1]. I will retire my claim of "undisputed" if you find a source that says that the pinnacle of mathematical typesetting is something else :)
[0] https://expo-patrimoine.ihes.fr/?page=9&lang=en
[1] http://www.numdam.org/item/CG_1999___32_5_0/
You also have this semi-anonymous blog post [2], that laments the decline in quality when the journal in question was acquired by Springer. Quote:
> How good was the typeface? It was so good, some people submitted their papers to IHES precisely for the beauty of the typesetting
[2] https://www.galoisrepresentations.com/2014/08/15/the-decline...
Italic typefaces were created by Italian type designers to mimic the cursive handwriting of the time. They weren't meant to be mixed with roman style typefaces. However, typesetters who had access to both roman and italic fonts started to use italic for emphasis when typesetting texts in roman type.
And of course blackletter is also just a style that originally tried to mimic earlier handwriting.
See: the entire Latin alphabet.
Sans-serif symbols for screens, serif symbols for print.
Almost [1] every single student absolutely hates that notation in scripts. Bold is used to draw attention, it should not be abused as being part of the variable/type. Just use the proper symbol.
[1] And I'm only saying "almost" to account for the possibility of there being like 5 super weird people on this planet that think otherwise. I don't know a single person who thinks this is a good idea, even the professors writing their scripts like that think it's stupid and are only doing it due to some nonsense fear of it otherwise not printing correctly due to one single bad experience with a shitty printer in 1950. Or maybe there's some other historical reason for this, but in 2023 I'd classify not using the better notation as malicious.
Why use the wrong symbol, when you can just use the correct (ie, blackboard bold) symbol?
But there is certainly some dependency on the font. For example, the Baskerville used by the Publications de l'IHÉS is a much thicker font, and the bold letters flow very naturally. Look for example here
http://www.numdam.org/item/PMIHES/
The publications in the sixties and seventies, which are scanned, are very beautiful and the bold letters mix smoothly in the text. You cannot see them "from far away" as happens with Computer Modern.
Curiously, the modern pdfs look slightly different, with apparently thinner fonts. This may be an effect of printing, that smears the ink a bit and produces slightly thicker type?
You can find many old and new math texts using either convention. Most often readers won't even notice. There are authors who are adamant against blackboard bold, most famously Donald Knuth and Jean-Pierre Serre. Others simply use regular boldface because of tradition, or because it's the default style of the journal. Most people don't care too much. But I have also heard people expressing strong opinions on each side, that's why I made the analogy with tabs-vs-spaces. Nothing too serious.
Elegance is entirely subjective. I have the opposite opinion: if we can do real boldface in print, which is the original usage, what's the point of using a black-board version? We have the real thing! But I also understand the opposite opinion, voiced elsewhere in this thread, that open bold lettering is a new case, like italics or fraktur, and we can use it freely in print.
It seems like one approach might be something like this, assuming none of them are doing it already. If this is TLDR, the key feature relating to the topic at hand is the point about handling mathematical symbols, so skip everything except that one.
* Pre-parse the entire page and count the number of characters that would be read using a multi-word description. While doing this, create sub-counts of characters that fall into each Unicode script (Latin, Cyrillic, mathematical notation, etc.).
* If the number of characters that would be read using a multi-word description exceeds a user-specified threshold, prompt the user for how to proceed.
* First, tell the user how many different Unicode scripts (and blocks if necessary[2]) are contained on the page. For each set, prompt using the following logic if the user hasn't already set a default:
** If a script/block/whatever consists of abstract symbols, like the mathematical set, offer to read it using the closest approximation in the character set it's derived from. e.g. for 𝕏, read it as "X" instead of "mathematical double-struck capital X". Read both 𝜸 ℾ as "gamma" instead of their lengthy "mathematical..." descriptions.
** If a script/block/whatever represents a spoken language, offer to do one of the following:
** Read it as if spoken by someone fluent in the language.
** Precede it with "the following [n] [script name] characters" and read each one individually, without any leading per-letter indicators, e.g. for "ΑΒΓΔ", "the following four Greek characters: alpha, beta, gamma, delta". Optionally include per-letter capitalization indication, but only if the user has previous enabled that option.
** Replace it with a count and the script name, e.g. "five hundred characters of Chinese script". Provide a way for the user to interrupt the narration and expand that section instead of omitting it.
* Allow the user to store all of the prompt answers as defaults and not prompt them again unless the user resets the option. e.g. "always read mathematical symbols as the closest Latin letter approximation".
* Maybe remind the user that it is an option in edge cases like "this entire page would be read as 'a series of 53,198 symbols you've suppressed reading'".
[1] One of my first full-time jobs, decades ago, was doing UI development with a focus on accessibility.
[2] Pretty unbelievable that the Unicode consortium has taken the position that an apparently unlimited number of stylistic variations on Latin letters should get their own Unicode renditions, but that basically every other culture's character sets gets merged into one style of character even if there are extensive historical reasons to have different renderings, and also has the time to keep adding corner-case emojis, but can't be bothered to provide a single way to easily differentiate "Cyrillic" from "Latin" as well as differentiate "mathematical notation" from "Latin".
Do they? Why?
I don't see how it did any harm, and people are way more willing to admit an association with Meta than with Facebook.
After about a year “Meta” had the same stink of death around it as NFTs and I figured I’d be doing it no favor by calling it by its preferred name.
Though speaking of while trawling the wiki page on Alphabet....
> X (formerly Google X) is an American semi-secret research and development facility and organization founded by Google in January 2010.
They're both the results of a sad man's extremely public midlife crisis, so yes.
[0] https://nitter.net/elonmusk
Throwing 44 billion dollars on a company and then gutting it for everything that was valuable including a unique brand that had even its own verb?
But the sad reality is probably that a 12 years old narcissist edgelord in the body of a billionaire wanted a vanity plate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Revolution
The theory of Elop destroying Nokia (consumer) makes sense, because he was at Microsoft, went to Nokia sold it to Microsoft at diminished value and stayed there for a good amount of time. But who would pay Musk for this? And how will he be compensated? Afaik, he's lighting a bunch of his own money on fire. Although, there has been a lot less news from him on Tesla and SpaceX, so maybe it was all a plan to keep him out of those spaces.
Best-case (for him), Twitter as we knew it dies and he manages to turn the burnt-down ashes into something profitable enough to overcome that hurdle. Twitter per se cannot reasonably get out of the hole he's dug for it.
Though, arguably, the brand itself was a huge part of the value, and he just threw that in the trash.
You know a guy's going down a weird path when all defenses of his behavior amount to "I know the last twenty things he's done have looked insane and none of it's made any money, but he's got a secret genius plan, I swear! 5D chess!"
We're going to see a trend of companies using Unicode characters for their logo now aren't we?...
[1] https://home.unicode.org/adopt-a-character/about-adopt-a-cha...
Wait, do they mean their public X feed?
To the degree that ASB is “rewarded” with any feedback at all, even negative, then it will be reënforced.
Enjoying the attention of others is socially acceptable in some situations. However, an excessive need for attention can lead to difficulties in interpersonal relationships. However, as a tactical method, it is often used in combat, theatre (upstaging) and it is fundamental to marketing. One strategy often used by teachers and behavior analysts to counter various types of attention-seeking behavior is planned or tactical ignoring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_seeking
This is the trump situation all over again. They hate him but they write articles about him every day and make sure we all know what he's up to even when we are actively trying to avoid him and twitter.
Not saying I agree with his ownership style (I certainly don't), but if you become a CEO for a company owned by Musk, and are not expecting him to undermine and interfere, than you are fooling only yourself.
> Ms Yaccarino wrote on the platform that the rebrand was an exciting new opportunity.
> "Twitter made one massive impression and changed the way we communicate," she said.
Fwiw even prior to his defunding moderation it felt like one of the meanest places on the internet, I don’t see much of a change.
Yeah, his personality is plenty objectionable too, but it's mostly the way he's seemingly intentionally running the company into the ground that I object to.
It was losing $4 million per day.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/delisted/TWTR/twitter/ebi...
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/delisted/TWTR/twitter/num...
As for justifying layoffs, Twitter (or X, or whatever it is) seems to be working just fine, despite the dire predictions that the whole thing was going to die within days.
No matter what the actual number was, it's clear that Twitter was wasting one hell of a lot of money.
There’s no moral or ethical basis to not consider his personality when evaluating Twitter, and even if you have one I’m not obligated to share it.
You don’t have to understand things for them to still be valid! To me, he’s an offputting guy doing a bad job, and those two things are valid to consider when thinking of his company according to my moral values. That’s subjective, but it’s clearly a view that many share with me.
Few would argue that it works better now than before
> Perhaps its just that people don’t like his personality, I suppose it's more complicated:
- he promised "freedom of speech" and Twitter has rather become "freedom of hate"
- he is taking constantly controversial political positions, usually favoring dictators, and this doesn't resonate very well in the western world
Maybe people just wish he would have stayed the way he was: a sort of fascinating "Doc Brown" rather than yet another average billionaire pushing political ideas through his wealth and popularity.
Maybe in the social circles you stick to, but there are plenty of /other/ people (i.e. more than a "few") that are quite happy that the 80% of employees doing their jobs were let go. [1]
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394
'Matt Taibbi, a journalist who worked on the “Twitter Files” series of articles about old business decisions at Twitter, has said he’ll no longer use the social media platform. Taibbi is apparently frustrated by Twitter’s recent decision to heavily restrict all links and tweets about Substack following that company’s announcement it would be launching Substack Notes, a short form social network and potential competitor to Twitter. Any Twitter user who even tries to retweet a post from Substack is met with a notification, “some actions on this Tweet have been disabled by Twitter,” a move that has angered many users, including Taibbi.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/04/07/twitter-fi...
Not specifically. That's why I linked to content from him, and not his profile page.
We accept speech we don't like to avoid this very trap.
Oddly enough, he tends to favor hate groups and dictators: “Twitter’s compliance with government demands for censorship or surveillance has risen [during Musk’s tenure] to over 80%, from around 50%.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/04/elon-musk-...
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna81961
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/06/elon-musk-free-speec...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7zm9q/elon-musk-twitter-naz...
"You either die a hero, or live to see yourself become a villain."
Far too many icons outlive their hero phase, and it's kind of depressing.
Edit: Or rather, the hero phase fails to live long enough to outlive the person.
It’s always been more as a promoter and image seller, but he has also been willing to make big calls and take risks others won’t which has allowed them to grow. That is valuable. And he has been hands on in some areas sometimes in ways that have been instrumental in shaping things. For better or worse.
He’s far from perfect. But no one is, and honesty is important.
I suspect the big issue here is something typical of narcissists - he’s gotten older, and he can’t keep up his game convincingly enough anymore to fool a large enough percentage of the public, so he’s downward spiraling. And internally he can feel it, which makes it worse.
It would explain a lot, especially the often bizarre and destructive attacks on anyone who says anything he doesn’t like. The over the top edgy/controversial behavior to get reactions, etc.
They’ll attack anyone who tells them the actual truth, and end up surrounded by those who either can’t see the truth (due to incompetence or delusion), or are willing to actively lie about it (manipulators). By process of elimination, if not by active choice.
1) He's going to lose a TON of brand recognition overnight.
2) He seems to have gone from "I'm thinking about doing this" to "We're going live" over the course of a weekend. This is both rushed and more based on reaction than actual thought and research. I don't see any of his customers wanting this.
3) Morale for employees there already seems to be terrible. Having them implement a rebrand over a weekend on a whim makes him seem like a dictator.
4) From a practical perspective the name X is foolish. The word "tweeted" is a verb used every day on the news. Companies would kill to have that level of their product within the culture. Now they will say what? "exed"? No one will say that because the audience won't know what it means and it has the negative connotation of something you've moved away from (ex-husband, ex-girlfriend, etc.).
The meanest place on the internet is EJMR, the forum economists use to find job offers. Not joking.
The reason for this is unclear except that it's the most conservative social science.
Been looking what the "opf" in the `𝕏` HTML entity name of this kind of character means, and apparently it is "Open Face".
It is referenced at [wikipedia Blackboard bold] that mentions that "𝕏 Occasionally used to denote an arbitrary metric space. "
[w3.org Math Double struck]: https://www.w3.org/Math/characters/double-struck.html [wikipedia Blackboard bold]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackboard_bold
look at these beauties..
https://www.fontspace.com/category/blackboard-bold
transatlantic cruise is super swell
https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/fonts.html
https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/help/rightargument.html
H + 1 = I
A + 1 = B
L + 1 = M
Man, BQN is a clever name. Because,
A + 1 = B
P + 1 = Q
L + 1 = M...
...well crap. That theory didn't pan out at all. Needlessly disappointed myself upon hearing that it's short for "Big Questions Notation".
Anyone else want to try to copy/paste into the new Windows Terminal? It does appear to work fine on MacOS under Tabby (terminal).