Interviewer: "What if they pretended to have noble motivations in order to disguise their greed from both themselves and everyone else?"
Zuckerberg: "Damn, good point"
And in this case I think is quite correct
I mean - given all his throw outs in media and his apparent burn of nearly 80bn for a failed 3D world?
Horizon was horribly managed, but also we threw all of our unannounced projects under that umbrella to make it look better for shareholders when we finally cut it. The original LLM research, smart glasses, and a bunch of other projects were under the "Reality Labs" business expense.
I'm trying to counter my thesis here really, but let's allow myself to be wrong about a person.
The person I was responding to (who I recall was disagreeing with me on the more general principle) said something to the effect of "well you're wrong, in common lisp that's indeed how nil is implemented".
I was skeptical and asked for proof of this claim, and they responded clearly angrily with the link to the SBCL repo and said something like "the source code is right there. You can just look it up yourself instead of being so rude. I'm no longer going to interact with you and will delete these comments in 10 minutes."
I think I looked through the source code for a few minutes, but wasn't able to find any evidence of nil being pair of itselves.
He does not understand his own motivations? Like he doesn't want to automate away his entire very expensive workforce and bunker/yacht service staff with robots. There is a pretty clear endgame here.