The first human recipient of a Neuralink brain implant has shared new details on his recovery and experience of living with the experimental assistive tech.
It sounds like things are going well for this guy and that is great and all, but how much would we honestly expect to hear if it wasn’t going well?
Given how eager people are to pounce on negative news about anything Elon Musk-related, I expect we would be hearing way, way more about this if it wasn’t going well. “Elon Musk’s Neuralink Damages a Man’s Brain!” and “Elon Musk’s Neuralink Fails!” Headlines and such from every rooftop.
That takes an immense amount of fuel. We orbit the sun at 30 km/s, of which you have to cancel about 24 km/s to actually hit it. This is after escaping Earth’s atmosphere (another 11 km/s of delta V) and effective sphere of influence which takes even more fuel. We could use some gravity assists off the moon and inner planets to get there, but even then it’s not really economical. Our best bet would be to send him out super far using ~9 km/s of dV, and then use a very small amount to cancel out any remaining angular momentum and let him slowly fall into the sun. Unfortunately, as with all efficient space maneuvers, you pay for them in time, and this maneuver would take you 3 years. We’d have to somehow support the little bastard all that time but it might just be doable.
Yeah, exactly. People love to amplify any negatives they can find about Musk, it plays to the rage mobs and that translates into clicks and endorphins.
It kinda seems like you’re saying it’s a bad thing to report on things he does that are bad simply because there’s an audience that’s interested. But, that’d be kind of a weird take
I’m saying that reporting disproportionately negative news about someone is not going to lead to a realistic view of the world.
For example, consider Fox News pouncing on every possible headline that could paint Joe Biden in a bad light because Fox viewers already hate Biden and such reports draw engagement as a result. Nor a good thing if your goal is a realistic view of the world, right? Same idea here.
Sure, they should be reported on. The problem is in the focus and bias present in the reporting overall. If all you ever report on are the bad things that could conceivably be linked to a particular person who is popular to hate, the overall result can be an unrealistic portrayal of the world even if each individual story and each individual fact within them is true. History is rife with distortions like that.
Given how eager people are to pounce on negative news about anything Elon Musk-related, I expect we would be hearing way, way more about this if it wasn’t going well. “Elon Musk’s Neuralink Damages a Man’s Brain!” and “Elon Musk’s Neuralink Fails!” Headlines and such from every rooftop.
Can’t we just fling him into the sun and let someone else take over these companies?
That takes an immense amount of fuel. We orbit the sun at 30 km/s, of which you have to cancel about 24 km/s to actually hit it. This is after escaping Earth’s atmosphere (another 11 km/s of delta V) and effective sphere of influence which takes even more fuel. We could use some gravity assists off the moon and inner planets to get there, but even then it’s not really economical. Our best bet would be to send him out super far using ~9 km/s of dV, and then use a very small amount to cancel out any remaining angular momentum and let him slowly fall into the sun. Unfortunately, as with all efficient space maneuvers, you pay for them in time, and this maneuver would take you 3 years. We’d have to somehow support the little bastard all that time but it might just be doable.
We could just set him up for a one-way orbital rendezvous with his car and be done with it…
You mean like these articles doing the rounds a while back? https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-pcrm-neuralink-monkey-deaths/
Yeah, exactly. People love to amplify any negatives they can find about Musk, it plays to the rage mobs and that translates into clicks and endorphins.
It kinda seems like you’re saying it’s a bad thing to report on things he does that are bad simply because there’s an audience that’s interested. But, that’d be kind of a weird take
I’m saying that reporting disproportionately negative news about someone is not going to lead to a realistic view of the world.
For example, consider Fox News pouncing on every possible headline that could paint Joe Biden in a bad light because Fox viewers already hate Biden and such reports draw engagement as a result. Nor a good thing if your goal is a realistic view of the world, right? Same idea here.
…do you think that fucked up things like that shouldn’t be reported on?
Sure, they should be reported on. The problem is in the focus and bias present in the reporting overall. If all you ever report on are the bad things that could conceivably be linked to a particular person who is popular to hate, the overall result can be an unrealistic portrayal of the world even if each individual story and each individual fact within them is true. History is rife with distortions like that.