Tagged: Twitter

Per Axbom Twitter

8 African nations were represented by 13 athletes at the 2018 Olympics, but this year's games have only 5 African nations and 6 athletes, all in Alpine skiing and cross-country. A continental quota system established in 2016 was dropped in 2019, without any real explanation.

”Skeleton athlete Akwasi Frimpong: ”I have a vision of seeing more African athletes in winter sports. It’s something I carry in my heart. For me, it’s very important to be able to turn on the TV and see my brothers and sisters that look like me compete in winter sports,

and I was really hoping to see more African athletes at the 2022 Olympics. But we are half of what we had in 2018. We’re overlooked. We don’t have a seat at the table. Who is sitting at the table to represent Africa? Nobody.”

-Issue 74 of @thecontinent_

youtube.com/watch?v=PB7NnI…

🔗 Originally posted on Twitter

Per Axbom Twitter

So many articles and podcasts talking about Meta *threatening* to leave EU. You know I'm not a fan but this is lazy reporting. They had a bullet point in their 10-K talking about implications of EU law. Not really a threat. If anything, it's encouragement for the US to do better.

Here is the “offending” paragraph in the 10-K that is the source of all the “Meta is *threatening* to leave Europe” reporting. Second paragraph on page 9: d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001326801…

To clarify: I do not believe Meta want stricter rules in the US. My observation is that the biggest obstacle is US surveillance laws giving US intelligence agencies access to foreigners’ personal data without the tech firms able to stop that.

This affects many more than Meta.

🔗 Originally posted on Twitter

Per Axbom Twitter

"Government, academia, industry orgs... are too slow. They need to let go of the old. If only they could embrace new technology, stop fighting it and open themselves up to amazing new opportunities."

This is an example of a tech-centric statement rather than human-centric one.

That said, I try to avoid "human-centric" as a term. It fails to sufficiently acknowledge non-human wellbeing. But for the purpose of the distinction I wanted to point out, it works ;)

I favor: "Design for universal wellbeing."

🔗 Originally posted on Twitter