interestingly, $35 millions came from a single donation in $MELANIA memecoins
although, if Trump wants to take over sucking dick in a gay bar..... I mean, he does have a lot of experience with Putin and Netanyahu
but why am I soft in the middle? The rest of my life is so hard!
thank you for raising awareness on this, I had no clue
I want to boycott Lockheed Martin but man.... I was really looking forward to getting that Black Hawk helicopter for Xmas! No, but really, a few of the companies in this list are a relative surprise (Bcom, AirBnB), others are well known pieces of s*t, a few are literally in the military industry and are probably involved in every conflict in the world (or they are actively trying to)
Is Ukraine close to Putin's record at killing Russians?
Congrats then, you write better than a LLM!
Interestingly, your original comment is not much longer and I find it much easier to read.
Was it written with the help of a LLM? Not being sarcastic, I'm just trying to understand if the (perceived) deterioration in quality was due to the fact that the input was already LLM-assisted.
They are just checking if there's something in there that someone hasn't already sent to a journalist on a Signal chat, or blurted out in conversations with foreign government members
In order to make sure they were wealthy enough, I'm sure he personally tested them one by one, challenging to send him a big donation in cryptocurrencies.
That's what a committed President-slash-genius looks like!
60% success rate sounds like a very optimistic take. Investing in a AI startup with 60% chance of success? That's a VC's wet dream!
I don't know about running for President, but running for his life sounds like a wise choice
It was Anthropic who ran this experiment
Gives Putin a shot "I grant you immunity.... from the measles!"
Gives Putin a second shot "but alas... Not from Polonium"
translation from Russian: they will keep bombing schools and hospitals in Ukraine, but now it's going to be a "reaction" just because they were provoked
can he swing from a web
no, he can't, he's a pig
Quick recap for future historians:
-
for a really brief part of its history, humanity tried to give kindness a go. A half-hearted attempt at best, but there were things like DEI programs, for instance, attempting to create a gentler, more accepting world for everyone. At the very least, trying to appear human to the people they managed was seen as a good attribute for Leaders.
-
some people felt that their God-given right to be assholes to everyone was being taken away (it's right there in the Bible: be a jerk to your neighbor, take away his job and f##k his wife)
-
Assholes came back in full force, with a vengeance. Not that they had ever disappeared, but now they relished the opportunity to be openly mean for no reason again. Once again, True Leaders were judged by their ability to drain every drop of blood from their employees and take their still-beating hearts as an offering to the Almighty Shareholders.
The narrative was that Israel had gone behind his back and it made him look weak. Now it looks like Israel is winning and Trump needs to claim he was part of it. No, not "part of it", the reason why.
Particularly in foreign politics, he badly needs a win: turns out international trade is not as easy as imposing tariffs and waiting for countries to call him with big offers and Diplomacy (who knew) takes more than a "Vladimir stop" post on social. He needs something quick to show in-between golf games to get his popularity above "get my teeth drilled by the dentist" level again.
I get what you mean and it's a fair point. But I would still go with Meta as the most immediate threat in a war with the US.
As the ignorant I am, my understanding is that the phone manufacturer has a level of control on the way Android works and so it wouldn't be as easy for Google to access any individual Samsung or Xiaomi phone as it is for Meta with WhatsApp, an app they fully control with permissions to use (way too many) phone features regardless of brand.
Plus, getting both Google and Apple to cooperate and coordinate sounds harder to me than just going to one company, that is basically controlled by only one person.
They are basically at war with the US and there is this piece of US Tech that nearly everyone is carrying around and that can access their communications, precise location, microphone and camera.
It's also owned by a company, Meta, that has a history of being used as a tool to manipulate public opinion. I have no particular sympathy for Iran's leadership but I can understand why they would advice that (and I don't think WhatsApp is the only way for people to communicate with the outside world).
Most of our financial decisions are already algorithmically driven.
Now with this vision of the near future where e-commerce uses only AI-generated content on apps built by AI developers and AI-agents (soon?) buying it independently, money does not need a human in the middle any longer.
I have posted this on Reddit (askeconomics) a while back but got no good replies. Copying it here because I don't want to send traffic to Reddit.
What do you think?
> > I see a big push to take employees back to the office. I personally don't mind either working remote or in the office, but I think big companies tend to think rationally in terms of cost/benefit and I haven't seen a convincing explanation yet of why they are so keen to have everyone back. > > If remote work was just as productive as in-person, a remote-only company could use it to be more efficient than their work-in-office competitors, so I assume there's no conclusive evidence that this is the case. But I haven't seen conclusive evidence of the contrary either, and I think employers would have good reason to trumpet any findings at least internally to their employees ("we've seen KPI so-and-so drop with everyone working from home" or "project X was severely delayed by lack of in-person coordination" wouldn't make everyone happy to return in presence, but at least it would make a good argument for a manager to explain to their team) > > Instead, all I keep hearing is inspirational wish-wash like "we value the power of working together". Which is fine, but why are we valuing it more than the cost of office space? > > On the side of employees, I often see arguments like "these companies made a big investment in offices and now they don't want to look stupid by leaving them empty". But all these large companies have spent billions to acquire smaller companies/products and dropped them without a second thought. I can't believe the same companies would now be so sentimentally attached to office buildings if it made any economic sense to close them.