Iirc, it's recommended to retest at 3 months post exposure.

1. Windows is a privacy nightmare. The OS is constantly sending data to Microsoft while being used.

2. Windows hogs resources. If you don't shovel money out for new hardware every few years, your computer will run like shit.

3. Windows is full of ads.

4. The majority of malware is written for Windows. Not really a selling point for me, but it's a bonus.

5. Linux is free.

6. Linux doesn't force updates. You update when you want to, and it takes less than a minute to do.

I always recommend watching the director's cut. It's like a totally different movie and gives more context.

Even paying users have a rate limit. It's a ridiculous idea, especially financially.

Spam/bot accounts easily gained more karma than average users. User history has always been the best identifier that an account is genuine.

His ego. He thinks he can run the whole website himself with huge improvements.

I'm not familiar with Twitter, but putting a cap on how much content you can view on a social media website doesn't seem like a smart move. If people are seriously doom-scrollers and hit the wall, they won't be happy. "Free speech absolutists" will be pissed when they see that there's a limit to their access to "free speech." Involving paid teirs also looks greedy.

All of that aside, there are better ways to fight bots rather than limiting their daily access. Bots will still be able to scrape a large amount of data daily. Why put a cap on how many posts you can view in a day instead of detecting accounts who are viewing posts at a much higher speed? I doubt most human users will interact at the speed of a bot, and the accounts who do can be verified as real.

Writing a code to detect bots is harder than putting a usage cap, though. That would require employees and Musk actually asking for someone to do something he can't.