Last week — in the ever-growing sector of the news cycle called “did I dream it?” — Twitter owner Elon Musk suggested to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg that they settle their, essentially trifling, differences in a cage fight.
Zuckerberg, rather than saying: “Elon, that’s insane, you’re 51 years old and the richest person in human history, and I’m not far behind,” ostensibly replied: “Sure. Where and when?”
For those of us old enough to remember, the circus rivaled the one that accompanied the 2002, celebrity-adjacent, boxing-adjacent contest between Ricky Gervais and Grant Bovey.
Dana White, the bombastic president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, revealing a surprising ignorance of the historic beef between the animal-loving comedian and Anthea Turner’s wrong’un ex-husband, predicted that the Musk-Zuckerberg clash would break all records.
“This would be the biggest fight ever in the history of the world,” he said.
Fighting used to be regarded as a way out of poverty. Manny Pacquiao, an all-time boxing great, grew up in extreme destitution in the Philippines (last year, he ran for president). So, how to explain why two men with a combined wealth of US$340 billion would choose to step into the octagon in Las Vegas and bash seven shades out of each other?
White talked of the “hundreds of millions of dollars” they would raise for charity, but no one was buying that. If Musk and Zuckerberg were really interested in philanthropy, they could drop billions without getting a black eye and a busted ego.
More persuasive is the theory that the fight was an extreme case of a pair of tech bros going rogue. In many ways, this made sense: Musk and Zuckerberg have amassed unimaginable riches and both have, presumably, had to stare down the question of what a meaningful life entails.
For Zuckerberg, this led to a year of eating wild boars that he killed with a bow and arrow. Recently, he has become obsessed with Brazilian jujutsu, winning a couple of medals at a competition in California.
He is not alone among high-profile men in testing himself this way. The actor Tom Hardy made a surprise appearance in a Brazilian jujutsu tournament in Milton Keynes, England, last year, winning all his bouts.
There is also a simpler explanation for what has happened: Musk was clearly joking and whoosh, it flew straight over Zuckerberg’s head. You might expect the men who between them control Twitter, Instagram and Facebook to know better, but social media is an atrocious place to have any kind of discussion, which is why it so often descends into a trash fire.
Sarcasm is the first casualty of digital conversations. Musk even put “lol” at the end of his initial response to the idea of a cage fight.
The Musk-Zuckerberg spat mainly shows how far social media has fallen from its original ideals. In 2010, Zuckerberg was named Time’s Person of the Year and praised for his efforts to “tame the howling mob and turn the lonely, antisocial world of random chance into a friendly world.”
Alternatively, you can just settle your disagreements with a fight in a cage.
Tim Lewis is an Observer columnist.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS