Well doesn't this take the cake?

He has nothing better to say.

Musk is defining the walkout of advertisers as blackmail. He may have missed the memo but no one owes him anything.



Yes, of course. Never a thought to say “Well, hey, sure. It’s a free market after all. They can take their money else where.”


He missed the pool and splatted on the concrete next to it.

X wants to sell advertising. The owner of X demands advertisers buy ad time from X.

The problem, of course, is X is losing advertisers because X no longer provides the better grade of customer who formerly used X. Those customers “went away” when the better grade of customer “went elsewhere” due to the “free speech” implemented by X. Free speech means people can (and do) “go elsewhere” when the old product no longer meets their desires. Advertisers follow their customers (old, new, and potentially future).

X is “in the past”. And the owner of X doesn’t like it. Real world, buddy.


Nah, The user stats have moved, but only slightly. The real reason is that advertisers care about the environment they are seen in. It took Playboy more than a decade to break into the big categories after they started (and that only thanks to the brilliant “What sort of man reads Playboy…” campaign. Even then a lot of categories refused to advertise even though the audience was perfect:

Some major companies still steadfastly refuse to advertise in the magazine, among them airlines, automobile manufacturers, Coca‐Cola and Gillette (a Gillette spokesman says the company has “reservations about its being an appropriate medium for our products”). The insurance industry is particularly leery about Playboy:

Some of the highest trafficked sites on the web are p0rn sites but you’ll never find a real advertiser there (or so I am told ;).

Musk turned Twitter into a cesspool. He even named it “X”. Add “XX’ and you’re right there in Times Square, 1972 with the druggies, weirdos, and scumbags. Thanks Elon. Genius.


And then there’s SpaceX. Are you up for a little weightless rumpy-pumpy?


I’d give it a go, but I need to check with Neurospouse first…

She’s a little less adventurous regarding location.

1 Like

Astronauts have confirmed over the past few decades that in space, the flesh is willing. But truth be told, we don’t even know if you can actually do the fun part of making space kids. While the moon and Mars provide some gravity, a vast majority of data on space physiology comes from orbital space stations, where astronauts hang in constant free fall.

Weightlessness is ideal for physics problems but not for [redacted]; a nudge toward you will send you flying backward with equal and opposite momentum. Without the familiar frame of reference provided by Earth’s gravity, concepts like “top” and “bottom” are without physical meaning. All of this will make the orientationless mambo awkward. The space popularizers James and Alcestis Oberg wrote in 1986 that those who attempt the act “may thrash around helplessly like beached flounders until they meet up with a wall they can smash into.”

Assuming this is undesirable, you’ll want something that keeps people together. The engineer and futurist Thomas Heppenheimer called for an “unchastity belt.” Another concept, pitched by Samuel Coniglio, a former vice president of the Space Tourism Society, is the “snuggle tunnel.” There’s also Vanna Bonta’s 2suit, which would keep a weightless couple connected via Velcro straps.

1 Like

My picture is of a large clam-shaped frame covered with netting…


1 Like

Insert tab A into slot A…

Most of the time, I see the directions as -

“Insert tab P into slot V”


I am sure that humans will be able to figure out the mechanics of doing-the-deed. But there are serious questions about continuing the species in zero G or low G environments. And then there are the problems that radiation creates.
Effects of Gravity, Microgravity or Microgravity Simulation on Early Mammalian Development - PMC.

1 Like