Thanks for this. I'm glad people have good, evidence-based responses to my comment.
This gives us a great idea of how likely a Crimean who considers themselves Russian would actually vote between the two and that while the correlation is strong, it might not be strong enough to suggest Crimeans would favor Russia and while Crimea is still clearly, the most Russian-friendly Ukrainian state, the decision between the two is much closer than I previously thought.
Edit: to add, I have talked with a Crimean who supports Ukraine, but they say the outcome of a vote would very likely be pro-Russia, even before they started shipping Russians in and pre-occupation.
What it probably shows, is that while the fraction of inhabitants of Russian ethnicity stayed roughly the same in there, the supporters for joining Russia, at the very least, are not the same exact set of people. And we don't really know their number because the vote didn't have any independent observers.
> but they say the outcome of a vote would very likely be pro-Russia, even before they started shipping Russians in and pre-occupation
I heard similar opinions too, but it might vary on who you ask. E.g. we talk about information bubbles on the Internet, but they exist IRL too. That is to say, hearsay is not proof. And even if it were true, one might keep in mind that the reasons for that might not be obvious. E.g. there had been a fair amount of anti-Ukrainian propaganda on the Russian state TV (which broadcasted in Crimea as well) starting with 2000s or so.
Or here's a thought exercise, from another perspective: would you say if US made a poll in Monterrey (Mexico) about whether the people in there wanted to join US, and >50% of them said yes, it would have been justifiable (in at least some practical sense) to annex it? Or Montreal/Canada, for example. It's close enough to the border.
I've also seen that exact incorrect explanation of what "TPM" stands for in several other places now. I'm guessing that someone authoritative made the error and now it's being propagated by people who aren't otherwise familiar with the terminology.
That's the first thing that came to mind. It's a pay-to-play move, which is not at all surprising. People seem to forget that fully-featured social media-centric corporations are run for profit, and if they can't get enough advertising to balance the books, then what's left but subscriptions?
Sometimes people buy media corporations because they're interesting in using them to promote their other more lucrative operations (think Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post) so they don't really care about profitability, but I don't think Twitter fits that model, but who knows?
The WeChat model is the obvious answer to that rhetorical question. Build paid services on top of your hellsite with millions of addicts using it daily. For example, Twitter could have easily been the gateway to OnlyFans, or to Patreon. Apple is another example of this kind of value-added ecosystem that leverages a foothold to sell other crap to people.
Or there's the TikTok model: gobble up all the data, sell data to governments, give MBS or Putin admin access to Twitter, build AI on top of the dataset.
Even a private equity chop-shop like Bain could do a better job of extracting value from Twitter than this mess.
This isn't a profit-seeking venture for Musk. This is about politics, about power, and primarily about revenge. Musk is giving Notch stiff competition for the title of most pathetic billionaire.
>This isn't a profit-seeking venture for Musk. This is about politics, about power, and primarily about revenge.
I strongly disagree; this is about Musk buying Twitter accidentally, and then running it as best he could without losing face as "real world iron man". He's fucking up left, right and center because he was completely unprepared to actually run it, and suddenly needs $40B to pay off his debtors.
It's also about politics, power and revenge, but it's primarily about Musk being a fucking idiot and constantly digging himself deeper.
> Wouldn't this basically convert any IDE into Emacs if the user wants it?
Emacs Lisp is only part of the equation. You need the all of the programmability that implements 90% of Emacs in Lisp (all of the standard library functions, the display engine, etc).
