The great Twitter panic of 2022

A fair number of people on Twitter have informed their followers that they have also set up on Mastodon just in case the world ends or some such. I don't doubt that Elon Musk could mess the whole thing up - but chances are things will stay fine in the Twitter world.

Okay, I may lose my blue tick, which would be sad. I was told I ought to get one by an Olympic martial arts competitor, the way you do. We were at some sort of careers fair in Devizes (don't ask me why - I can't remember) and no one seemed to want to talk to either of us, so we chatted for a while and she was adamant that having a blue tick would make all the difference to my social media presence. But looking over the people I follow on Twitter, a mix do and don't have one and it's never made any difference to me - I certainly won't be paying getting on for £100 a year to keep it.

That apart, the outrage seems to be because Twitter may allow various ~~dubious characters~~ individuals back on. But for me, this is pretty much irrelevant. I mostly follow scientists and writers - all lovely people. I've never seen or had any abuse on this social media site that some consider a cesspit. (Perhaps because I don't generally follow politicians or activists.) It's a great way to keep up with the people I follow and, I hope, for people interested in my writing to keep up with me - and I can't see why that should change. Moving off Twitter seems to be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

As for the obscure social media site Mastodon - why? I'd never heard of it before this all happened - and most people still haven't. The way it's set up with its separate, individually owned servers seems in some ways rather dodgy - and it certainly seems ti have very limited ability to prevent exactly the type of content that those abandoning Twitter seem to be worried about. For that matter, apparently, any server could be switched off at any time, losing all your content.

it's much more sensible, I would suggest, to stick with Twitter, keep up the networks you've built and ensure the content continues to be as excellent as it has been to date... certainly within my bubble.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope

Search This Blog