These bitcoins will show the information for the last person who handled this bitcoin before it fell into the hands of the scammers. The only decent thing to do is look that up and return it. Some of it won't be possible but many honest men and women bought this bitcoin from exchanges where they gave their identities in the process.

To solve world hunger, deliver a gift of lead to every despot, war lord, and every other evil bastard in power who thinks it's a good idea to use starvation as a weapon, as a way to keep people in line, or to motivate people. That's the only way.

I sprang for the $200 ChatGPT a few days ago. It turns out not to be better than the $20 one. This could be related to a change that happened some time in the last week that seemed to make the model lazier.

Under a principled reading of copyright, a character's style or appearance should not be protected at all. The Constitution authorizes exclusivity only as a means "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," not to fence off cultural building blocks. Characters are ideas clothed in minimal expression, and ideas are supposed to remain free. Extending it to style or appearance criminalizes inspiration and imitation, both vital to the creative progress.

There is also no need for copyright to protect style when trademark law already handles the commercial side. Trademark law exists to prevent consumer confusion about the source of goods or entertainment, not to police creativity. Copyright, by contrast, exists to encourage the creation of new works. Mixing the two systems produces the worst outcome: censorship of reinterpretation with no public benefit. By allowing registration of character depictions, Congress and the Copyright Office has quietly transformed the protection of expression into the protection of concept, eroding the barrier between idea and form that once defined the system's fairness. Forbidding others to write new versions of Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes stifles cultural dialogue. This kind of control limits creativity and weakens the public domain. Copyright law was meant to protect expression, not to freeze imagination. Limiting the reuse of character archetypes harms artistic development and public participation in culture.

If someone wishes to write about a wizard boy, a detective, or a talking mouse, they should be free to do so provided they do not mislead consumers through trademark misuse or copy the exact material. That balance preserves both artistic freedom and commercial clarity. Characters are part of the shared language of culture, and language must remain free for all.

You don't think policies like VAT on private school fees and pushing up business taxes instead of personal ones play well with the typical Labour voter?

They're cratering in the polls anyway for a host of other reasons, and I suspect Starmer is already toast anyway for a host of other reasons (though it's significantly harder in practice for Labour to replace a leader they're not happy with than it is for the Tories), but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that some of these policies are being chosen because of their political alignment.

1. Abuse employees
2. Get pushback
3. Say "toxic" means "not woke enough" to deflect blame and politicize it into a social issue
4. Watch the stock go up from short-sighted policies and woke-pushing finance funds
5. Profit!

They appear to be playing heavily on the politics of envy. Look at some of their education policies, for example, or the way they treat small businesses and the people who run them. They don't seem to want to pull up the less fortunate if they can be busy pulling down the more fortunate. It's not a good look if you actually want a successful economy, but it plays well to their base.

I agree with you that they seem to be all over the place in policy generally, and after trying to give them a fair chance in the early months, I now have a fairly low opinion of them (with the odd exception in Cabinet who does actually appear to be at least recognising the real problems and trying to do something about them, which I can respect even while thinking little of their party politicians and government as a whole).

You're right about the investment culture as well, but presumably if we're talking about entrepreneurs who have already been successful and are looking to move elsewhere, that's of limited relevance unless they're planning to start at least one more business after they arrive, so in this particular debate, I doubt that is such a major issue.

While we're hardly Russia, our democratic and stabilisation credentials are looking more shaky than ever as well. Our electoral system produces results very far from proportional. One of our two traditional main political parties is now essentially irrelevant. The other, which currently holds power, is breaking all the wrong records and is widely expected to suffer severe losses at the next election already, barely a year into their term. Waiting in the wings (and currently leading by a very wide margin in the polls) is the nascent far right populist party that has become the default protest vote. It looks scarily like that party might actually be pulling so far ahead (whether thanks to their own merits or, like the present incumbents before the last election, because the government of the day is so unpopular) that even with the usual reversion towards traditional voting patterns when a real election happens, they might still win. And the prospects of what happens next in that timeline are truly terrifying, particularly for anyone who isn't a white British citizen from birth.

As a Brit, I was surprised to see the UK as a destination of choice.

The current Labour government here often seems to be criticised for being ideological and not pragmatic. In particular, they seem to prefer policies that tax "the rich" and businesses in one way or another, yet not large, relatively wealthy groups like pensioners or the homeowners who have lucked out and now live in a million-plus property that most younger people will never be able to afford.

There's also quite a lot of red tape for businesses here, maybe not compared to some of our neighbours in Europe, but certainly compared to places like the US and probably parts of Asia too.

Obviously some of this is politics and maybe the policies are not so surprising coming from a party that in theory represents the working class. However, it is surprising that entrepreneurs would be attracted to a culture like this at a time when we expect to have this government for another four years still.

A Hollywood producer buying an Israeli cyber-arms firm from a Luxembourg shell to sell zero-click exploits once blacklisted by Washington.You can almost hear the hum of obsolete servers in some rain-slick basement and the glow of a corporate logo reflected off a wet street. All we're missing is a burned-out hacker mumbling about "market forces" while patching code for a warlord's private AI and a former Ukrainian drone soldier hired out for his expertise. The strangest part is how banal it all feels. The cyberpunk future didn't crash through the window in chrome and fire, it took a call from Beverly Hills, filed with DECA, and quietly signed the paperwork.

This is exactly like a group of private investors acquiring a missile cruiser. In Russia I would believe it more easily.

The studies Iâ(TM)ve seen report little to no change in company profits after adopting the app. That is not the same as saying the technology adds nothing to the bottom line. In many cases, firms have reduced staff as expected with automation, while maintaining profit and production levels. Mathematically, that means output per remaining employee has increased, even if total profits havenâ(TM)t. The AI is improving efficiency, just not enough (yet) to create visible growth at the company level.

If the tech continues to advance, early adopters will already be positioned to benefit. And if it stagnates, trying it out still wonâ(TM)t cost much. Only if the ecosystem collapses and AI use cost grows enormously will this be a problem. Risk>Reward.

It looks like the thing to do is use the farm as long as it's profitable, then leave them in place and build a new farm next to it. Nature builds on nature. A big patch of scrub can attract insects and tie down moisture and sand, which can make it stable enough for something bigger to grow, and so on. You're not going to get a jungle without more rain but you can shrink deserts and build habitats and diversity.

I didn't mean it as a characterization of your post. I meant it as a reply.

Long, pointless rant about politics picking out the words psychologist, dysphoria, and self examination. Complaint about a misunderstanding of your post. Pedantry. In conclusion, personal insult.