The article felt a bit flat. Surely there's no such thing as "oops, monkey died, let me just grab the next one off the shelf". There's no real reporting into the why or how, just uncritical repeating of the complaint that the neuralink research is dangerous / unethical. The reporting is so flimsy that one starts to look at the page and ask "wait, what site am I on anyway?" Hmm, I wonder what sort of bias a site called consequence has.
So naturally I click around. It appears to be some sort of music blog, with articles that are primarily focused on celebrity outrage gossip. Well, that explains a bit. Still neuralink is a bit outside their wheelhouse. How did this article get on their front page. Scrolling around at the top we see that the contributor basically just paraphrased what he read elsewhere for clicks. "Via Business Insider and the New York Post, the news comes from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an animal-rights group..."
Ok, so its a report of a report of an animal rights group claiming they plan to file a complaint (but haven't done so yet). This is all rather tenuous.
Regardless of where the news was reported in the original post, the only thing of importance is whether or not it's true. Did you check some of the original sources?
This is worth looking into. First, it's using Tesla drivers as guinea pigs for automation. Then some strange experiments with boring holes under ground. Now torturing monkeys so we can transfer our consciousness. Someone needs to place this guy in check.
Neither of those are "the original source." Those are reports on what an animal rights group claims they have evidence of. The original source would be if you linked me to the "700 pages of evidence" which is supposedly going to be submitted to the Dept. of Agriculture.
I don't know the procedural rules around this sort of proceeding, but it strikes me as odd that they go to the press before submitting the paperwork. If they went after submitting the paper work, then you'd presumably be able to look up the 700 pages as a matter of public record and then I'd have egg on my face for not actually having looked into things. But as it stands, my face is firmly without egg.
He didn't killed the monkeys by his own hands, so... how is this relevant to this discussion?
Well, In fact the only source of this news, is less than impartial and has an agenda to fill for profit, so... maybe we should hear the other part also first (instead to assume things by default).
2 days ago Tesla Fremont was sued for being a racially segregated workplace. Like really, in 2022, in California. On very dubious grounds based on teslas blog post reply.
These are opening shots in the musk vs woke war. We can’t have him standing up to warren and sanders, posting red pill memes and selfies with Jordan Peterson…
Well good luck. I look forward to musk fighting them. He’s not your average corporate CEO who would rather bow and apologize. He fights. Hard.
So naturally I click around. It appears to be some sort of music blog, with articles that are primarily focused on celebrity outrage gossip. Well, that explains a bit. Still neuralink is a bit outside their wheelhouse. How did this article get on their front page. Scrolling around at the top we see that the contributor basically just paraphrased what he read elsewhere for clicks. "Via Business Insider and the New York Post, the news comes from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an animal-rights group..."
Ok, so its a report of a report of an animal rights group claiming they plan to file a complaint (but haven't done so yet). This is all rather tenuous.