E l i s h a retweeted
No. Being empathetic in a world built and controlled by people who are psychopaths—a world where the emulation, idolization, and fostering of psychopathy is the problem. Having empathy is fantastic; living in a world where the least empathic people drive the train is the problem
E l i s h a retweeted
I mean, just an all-time TV segment. Making Chuck do Who He Play For multiple times in a row with the same players is a brilliant idea and I was legit crying laughing by the end, my god.
E l i s h a retweeted
We shot the aftermath first. Then redressed everything to shoot the 'before times' after. The ace steadicam operator was Paul Edwards. It was the first day of the shoot on the film too!
E l i s h a retweeted
This is awesome! And also so strange because (seriously) every part of this pertains to me, too. Movie. Co-writer. Same start date. First time. Same age. Are you me? Am I you? Anyway congrats, Josh!
E l i s h a retweeted
God dude shit like this lights my soul on fire. Never give into their framing. Never back away in the face of their overt bigotry. Talk them down and reveal them as the hateful morons that they are!!!!
E l i s h a retweeted
Wow, just saw this tonight. Do yourself a favor and read A LOT about it before watching. Research the movie and know how it ends and begins. Do NOT go in blind. Know the plot and ideally view the film beforehand. Arrive having had. Just... Trust me.
E l i s h a retweeted
I’m in love with this sentence:
“A person's capacity for growth is directly linked to how much truth they can handle about themselves without running away.”
E l i s h a retweeted
Probably the correct take on “AI can solve math now”
Well worth reading: proofsandprompts.com/2026/10…
E l i s h a retweeted
I see no issue.
A glitch on Instagram has caused the platform to repeatedly recommend the band's 1999 hit "Higher," regardless of what users are posting.
consequence.net/2026/10/inst…
E l i s h a retweeted
Jane Wickline admits she made a Quizlet to memorize the names of @nbcsnl staff and left it publicly available online 😅
E l i s h a retweeted
typically great piece but this section in particular stopped me in my tracks
Spent a few weeks earlier this year roaming a Hollywood almost entirely reoriented around the production of “microdramas,” which are kind of like soap operas except they’re short and completely demented and optimized for your phone. Started as one kind of sad story and ended as another, differently sad kind of story. You can read it now in @NYTmag nytimes.com/2026/10/06/magaz…
Legitimately among the worst announcers I’ve ever heard in a game lol, watching it live I was like “who in the fuck is this”
E l i s h a retweeted
incredible
On September 8, Jacob Coxon, a 27-year-old Anthropic employee, posted a resignation statement on X that ricocheted around the internet. He quit in protest of what he saw as the company’s suicidally reckless pursuit of artificial general intelligence. To the AI community, an Anthropic employee believing that the technology their company is developing might end the world is not exactly news. (Anthropic was founded by former OpenAI employees who believed OpenAI, if left unchecked, would do just that.) But an Anthropic employee publicly quitting in protest is.
Afterward, a debate broke out: If you’re a lab employee who believes in these risks, what should you do? Is it best to leave in protest? Or is it better to agitate from the inside, close to the seat of power? And how would the choice affect your friendships and community?
“For me, there’s quite a distinction between my rational beliefs and the things I feel in my gut,” says Coxon. “If you’d asked me to narrate my opinions when entering Anthropic and when leaving Anthropic, they would probably sound pretty similar. But in terms of the actual feeling between the start and the end, it just felt very, very different.”
Coxon joins a small set of employees of OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind who, over the years, chose to walk away.
For our Cover Story, in collaboration with Asterisk Magazine, we brought together eight of them. They don’t share the same concerns or the same p(dooms) — in fact, they wouldn’t necessarily agree that p(doom) is a coherent concept. But together, they provide a candid view of the AI race and the individual calculus many employees face.
Read their interviews in full: nymag.visitlink.me/HbG6LU










































