No, but by definition, it would mean your child originated from an asshole.

Dame Victoria Madeleine Sharp is Jewish - what are the chances!

I think you misspelled "invasive" there...

To this day, I am still really sad Gina Carano not only acted like a total piece of shit online, but doubled down on it. I really liked her and wished she'd just swallow some pride, apologize, and earn a fuck-ton of money...

Its Hollywood. Its possible that some of Carano's positions stem from her off stage interactions with Disney execs, and she may feel that she cannot share them with the public. (For openers, they definitely have enough money that they can sue her, if she cannot validate her unrecorded public statements in court.)

I was under the impression that Google itself was just a big infrastructure company for Alphabet; Google just was a custodian for its hugely profitable established divisions (cloud, youtube, advertising backoffice), and a staff pool for Alphabet's startups. But wow, Sundar Pichai does not look like the CEO who can squeeze operating efficiency from established industry behemoths, and he sure as hell is no Satya Nadella. Google's probably the first case where a company needs to be broken up for its shareholders, not because its an industry monopoly.

More like the next IBM (and I mean that pejoratively). (What company twenty five years ago was the monopolistic monster of the computer tech industry, and today literally did not grow value as a company???)

Looks like the Alphabet board really needs a managerial shakeup, while nuking Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai; he is no Satya Nadella.

It is mindboggling how Google went from being an industry leader in cloud computing to like #3, behind Amazon and Microsoft. Google's nowhere to be found on the AI front. If one presumes Youtube as a separate entity from Google, what the F does Google do today, besides advertising monetization???

^quite^quite reputable^

Alphaville is a financial blog. It appears to have either been bought out by Financial Times (of London). Believe it or not, FT.org was, once upon a time, a quite financial paper. Or perhaps, Alphaville contracted FT to put up this stupid blog article, and then somehow got it posted on slashdot.org, which is the weirdest form of SEO I've ever seen.

Very bizarre form of advertising, I must say.

I blame Biden for supplying the artillery rounds and guided bombs to blow up Gazan children. And waffling when Israel attacks ambulances and medical facilities (war crime).

It doesn't make the latter more credible. Two lies are still lies. We're not reduced to believing either lie. Truth may lie in a third, yet unconjectured, possibility.

And every couple of centuries, scientists vacillate over the process of physical existence. "We had a 'big bang', there was no 'big bang', the universe will spread out infinitely as the stars burn out, no, the universe will eventually contract into a 'big bang', yadda yadda yadda".

Its quite likely that mammals could not have come into "prominence" unless the previous apex organisms on planet Earth (dinosaurs) were eradicated. Which then means you (mammal->primate) could have never come about. You hate your existence? Then why would you hate God for allowing you to come into existence? (Presuming of course, there is even a God...)

Maybe if you realize that all organized religion is based on stories, such as the Flood, which are untrue (thus bullshit), you wouldn't go about hating an entity for something it didn't do. You should be "hating" religion, and the people who perpetrate a construct of lies in order to manipulate the behavior of other people.

Atheism, by default, has to be a belief, not a fact.
Facts you can prove. You cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

Atheism *is* a religion; its a religion that believes there is no omnipotent being that created you or the universe (and optionally that such an omnipotent being would give a ratfuck about your opinion or how you behave). They can make arguments they believe demonstrates there is no God, but they cannot prove there is no God.

If you want to hang out with non-believers, its the agnostics that accept that we cannot prove or disprove that God exists. The scientific method is about accepting as truth only what you can demonstrate as truth.

Prove it.

Give Bezos a little credit. He may have not been "the coder" but he was not just the one who envisioned online purchase markets, he was the one who got venture capital while taking years of quarterly losses. He was a successful entrepreneur who could properly marshal investment capital into correct investment decisions, while the loser CEOs at uber, lyft, and other internet era startups just suck money away from people "capable" of losing it.

Bezos is probably correct on some level that Blue Sky "failure" stemmed from being overly cautious assuming that it would be a "non-competitive" environment (which was how he was able to grow Amazon into prominence). Also, not being an engineer, Bezos kept choosing to defer technical decisions to overly cautious, eminently qualified engineering managers at companies like Raytheon and Lockheed who also had no "real" competitors. Bezos doesn't want to produce a perfectly serviceable rocket ten years from now, he wants to be able to show a return for his investors yesterday. Perhaps he needs to accept that he can't even get his company into the lift services industry at this point.

As for Elon, you talking about an entrepreneurial "genius" who's lost at least 44 billion dollars of his fortune for a bullshit text messaging company. One significant Elon generated "setback" at SpaceX could give Blue Origin the time it needs to put out a more competitive product.

1) The US owns AI on the corporate sector. Its already a gold rush where anyone with any AI relevant talent has already been wooed by every cutting edge company on earth.

2) What does the US taxpayer get when they throw billions of taxpayer dollars into academic AI research? Well, the idealists and mediocrities in the academic sector can get public funding.

3) There is already a worldwide race for AI. Its about the "power" of capitalizing on AI advancements. What does publicly funding AI research do? Muddy the patent waters and give away taxpayer dollar research to the company with the best lawyers, and nations like China and Russia just "take" whatever comes out of taxpayer subsidized research. And maybe poorer nations like Israel, Iran, and Russia get to more quickly implement AI robot Terminators. US taxpayers don't get squat.

Leave US taxpayer subsidies to basic research, whether its space or biology, or some other field which can advance "peaceful" technologies.