Tech billionaire wealth tends to be in equity (control over companies), and as long as spending isn't extravagant, there's a strong argument that society is almost always better off with highly successful people as stewards of IPO wealth.
Anyone who has flushed half a billion dollars down a political toilet is an exception to this. They've become a parasite. A disease.
There are innumerable reasons to dislike monetization on X.
1) I'm not eligible
If any of these underlying facts change, I'd be willing to reconsider my sentiment.
No matter how divided we become, or how the lines of division change, my life experience has shown me again and again that under every banner, slogan, philosophy or religion, you can find all kinds of people, whose entirety is much more.
I think Penrose was microtubules with quantum magic sauce, and that theory doesn't overlap with EM field theory.
There are many studies. Here's a great overview that discusses some of the most recent.
youtu.be/yUa90sZ0LA8?is=76r4…
To answer a potential objection (after seeing a misunderstanding from Grok), EM field theory is not the dominant paradigm, and most of the research is for other theories. But EM theory is more amenable to empirical investigation because it directly addresses the binding problem.
The empirical work in consciousness is mostly in EM field theory. The science has been advancing rapidly. This isn't getting enough attention, given the explanatory and predictive power of the theory. It identifies the physical mechanism to answer questions of AI consciousness.
The caveat remains that it doesn't solve the hard problem, but looking through this lens may make it tractable.
When someone writes [color]-pilled, I can't remember the lore of their pill color. Why should I have to keep track of other people's pills?