The word you are looking for is "Sarcastic", not performative.
In general, whenever you think "performative" on the internet, replace with sarcastic. They are almost identical, except for the intended insult.

But I do understand that sarcasm is hard to express on the internet. You did not see my massive eye roll while typing.

Does the baby not get citizenship? Is the baby killed?

Or do all the penalties form on the doctors and parents that did it.

Technically Judges cannot do that directly. Instead the procedure is:
1) Report to Bar
2) Have a Hearing by the Bar
3) The bar can decide to take their license for X amount of time.

But I do agree that is what the Judges should be doing.

The judges can however hold anyone in contempt of court for any reason at any time. Do not even have to be in court. You can appeal it, but as long as the Judge was somewhere near reasonable, you will not succeed.

If however the Judge does something like hold the Umpire at his kid's baseball game in Contempt, then yes you will almost certainly win the appeal.

This means you

If they come within 3 feet of you whisper:

"Please buy something, if you don't they will fire me and my children will starve"

Franklin was not an underling. She was the competition. She did not work for Watson in any way.

She came up with the correct data 2 years earlier, she paid for the photograph to be made.

The man that stole the photo was her enemy.

The people that did the math had no legal access to the photo.

True discoverers do not have dirty laundry to air. Name one other nobel prize winner story that had this kind of dirty laundry.
Science is not perfect. There are scum everywhere. But this kind of a-hole behavior is pretty rare.

There are to my mind, 4 controversial nobel prizes, but this is by far the most controversial one, in my opinion.

The other three are:

Haber - who deserved the prize he got for Chemistry despite working for World War One Germany's poison gas program.

Obama - who did not deserve and did not ask for the Noble prize he got for being the first black president. He did a great job as President - not once having to send the national guard to deal with riot, not once having SCOTUS having to stop an investigation into him.

Arafat - who deserved the peace prize despite being a violent extremist before he earned it.

Translation1: Those companies are making a mistake by not giving him what he wants for free, in order for his company to become profitable.

Translation2: Those companies should not have put stuff on the internet for sale with a paywall if they didn't want people like me to steal it without getting permission.

In addition, the part of that money spent on computer centers will be useful even if AI doesn't pan out. It's not like investing in tulip bulbs. If AI doesn't pan out, it will just take a few years longer to pay for itself.

That said, AI will pan out. Even if there's no further development (HAH!) the current AIs will find an immense number of uses. It may well be "growing too fast", but that's not the same as worthless. (But expect well over half of the AI projects that are adopted in the next few years to fail. People don't yet understand the strengths and weaknesses. Unless, of course, AGI is actually developed. Then all bets are off because we REALLY don't understand what that woud result in.)

It's going to take more than one more efficient algorithm. OTOH, there've already been improvements in more than one algorithm. Nobody knows how far that could go, but the best evidence is that it could get a LOT more efficient. (Consider the power usage of a human brain...it uses a lot of power for an organ, but not really all that much.)

I'm guessing this is a summary:
Banks are legally allowed to loan more money than they have in deposits...to a degree. They've occasionally been found to go well beyond that limit. And they aren't carefully audited often enough.

Whether that's an accurate summary or not, it's true, if a bit shy on details. (I don't know the details this decade. But there probably haven't been any basic changes in the last few decades.)

He said the four top companies were "AI centric".
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta

These are NOT AI companies. Their business is not currently funded by AI, nor is it their main focus. They ARE very rich computing companies that think AI is going to become their business, so they heavily invest in it $360 billion.

That is NOT a big investment for those four companies - they are worth more than 9 trillion total. Spending about 10% of their value is significant, but not amazing.

The issue is that humans are bad at large numbers. We get so shocked and surprised about the large things that we do not know if that number is a lot or a little.

Example: $2 billion dollars spent on socks a year. Is that the number for France, the number for the US, or the number for the entire world? If you do not know then you cannot tell if that number is high or low. It happens to be the number for the US. But you have no frame of reference to know if it was for the entire world or for France.

When a reporter tells you how big something is, chances are they have no idea if that number is too large or too small.

Crick and Watson were on the wrong track until Franklin's personal nemesis, a man named Wilkins proved them wrong by stealing Franklin's work and showing it to Crick and Watson.

Watson instantly realized DNA was Helix in 1953 after seeing Franklin's photograph taken in 1952.

Which was an amazing insight considering Franklin had already called it a Helix in 1951 - before she even had the photo in question.

Looking at other people's work and realizing they were right does not make you a discoverer. It makes you a thief.

Crick and Watson did figure out the specifics of the helical structure, but that was more of a proof of Franklin's discovery than anything else.

Are they vagrant if they aren't moving around?

You are wrong.

1) China emissions has not PEAKED. It still grows.

2) Per capita is not the only way to measure it and it sucks when dealing with country like China with huge number of people in poverty and a few wealthy.

Better ways than per capita include, but are not limited to:

Per GDP
Per Gwh of electricity produced

Any of these makes far more sense. Going per capita is something a Chinese bot would spread as reasonable without thinking about how it radically favors China. Just as the US could come up with Per $ of exported goods because it favors them.

Per Gwh makes the most sense because it measures production better than GDP which includes profits. Moreover, it makes change much easier to see. If you put in coal factories it makes it worse no matter what.

1) Growth. Here you are growing and hiring. You have figured out how to make money and are doing it as fast as you can. Even if someone is bad at their job, they already know how to do it - so you simply let them keep it while everyone else is promoted. They have to really screw up to get fired. Business wise, every decision has to be profitable - but if you got a good product that can be easy to do because you have no real competition.

2) Expansion. Here your business has thrived and succeeded, but it needs to expand beyond the original offerings. Business wise you can take risks. You are now competing with other companies but hopefully have some edge. Maybe you add new products, maybe you go international. The difference between growth and expansion is that you are trying new things, not just teaching everyone how to make money your way. You might actually fire people here, but not a lot. If people keep there head down, they are pretty safe.

3) Mergers. Here you start buying innovation rather than starting it in house. Your expansions are no longer working, perhaps because they do not fit the brand you have created. Decisions are now accounting based. X companies has a greater return on investment than yours does but is small enough for you to buy out. You often fire people after a merger - either your old employees who are not as good as the people you bought, or the people you bought who are as good as the ones you already had.

4) Cost Cutting. Over time your growth and expansion moved so fast you developed some expensive practices. You got your business down, but now it is time for some corporate decisions. Buy the cheaper packaging. Raise expectations - and fire those that cannot meet them. Which expenses are truly necessary and which can be replaced with cheaper options. If you cut the wrong costs, you destroy your brand quality and reputation. If you cut nothing, your competition starts stealing your lunch.

Almost all companies go forward, from 1 to 4 rather easily. But it is very hard to go back a phase - with one exception. If you have grown large enough and saved enough money after a cost cutting phase, you can go back to mergers.

The worst part is when some idiot thinks they can go back to expansions - come up with in house ideas that are better than other companies. This almost NEVER works (unless you fired one of the founders - then you can hire him back and pretend it is not a merger). Why? Because you are already a big company - with all the bureaucracy the Mergers and Cost cutting created. This slows you down and a new expansion has to be incredible to make a difference to your large balance sheet.