I have no love for Musk, but I remember this not being as clear cut at the time. Unicef was tweeting at Musk to stir up some drama (I assume) not really expecting him to reply (I think the head Unicef guy later said something to the effect of "its a big deal they even got a reply"). So when he did reply and everyone started going crazy asking for details....they kind of floundered for a bit. When they eventually shared some details, It was basically just more of what Unicef was already doing. Not that's a bad thing, but it was far cry from 'solving' world hunger (at least it was compared to twitters interpretation of was solved meant). Unicef looked a bit silly for claiming that they could 'solve' world hunger and Musk walked away looking like an ass for being dismissive towards charity in general.
dyisty
joined 2 years ago
This doesn't take away from the overall messaging but, if you are a registered engineer (in good standing), getting registered in another province is super easy. Fill out a form and provide some I.D. easy (the review takes a week for P.Eng., up to 4 months for P.L.Eng).
fair enough.
You kind of split up my comment, but the 'I assume' was for the whole statement. When I first encountered this story, it was very much centered around a twitter thread. But you have point, this did unfairly frame Unicef in my comment.
Thank you for the snoops link. TIL
That said, I dont think the rest of my comment was to far off what people took away from the story at the time. The CNN page has a correction at the bottom for what the headline was at the time. It did say 'solve' (not 'help solve') at the time which would have fed into peoples opinion of Unicefs follow up and really driven the narative (which is unfortunate).
But your post (or wolf840's post?) definitly frames this as there was a defacto solution to end world hunger and Musk bought twitter instead. Which is also not a fair representation of what happend. Even the snoops page you linked says that.