At this point I think it's just a competition between big tech CEOs to see who can get us plebs to pay for the best insult to us. Winner gets a seat on the first Mars rocket.

What if they, just for example, flew a cheap radio transceiver overhead with a balloon. Or a swarm of them?

Echoing the others' sentiments. Exploding pagers. Compromised cellular network hardware. Supply chain attacks like this are exactly the sort of thing on nation state actors' playlists.

No alcohol, very little sex. Mosquitoes love me though. Life is great. This is fine.

Assuming the results of the investigation are legit, what are the chances that they are used effectively by academic institutions, companies, government, or other organizations to actually mete out consequences? Like firing people, blacklisting them or their sponsors, etc.?

I read about how much work it took at Harvard to actually follow through investigating and taking action about a discredited researcher, and I suspect most places wouldn't choose that route, even if they had this sort of information about an employee or associate.

Amazon might have a leg to stand on in their clever redefinition of the word "buy" if they didn't also use the word "rent" in the same context. So much of their content that can be "bought" can be "rented" for much cheaper.

Amazon wants the court to believe that it's okay to redefine "buy" as "rented". Amazon knows exactly what it's doing, and I hope the court "buys" none of their excuses.

I'm not a fan of billionaire blowhard behavior, nor of big-tech monopoly-by-walled-garden and malicious compliance. I'm looking forward to seeing if we (somehow?) manage to get our well-intended but deeply flawed, elite-controlled systems under control, or if we get some kind of sci-fi dystopia nightmare. The next two decades should be interesting, for those of us aloof enough to observe things without crashing out.

Yep. Transparently says they are profiting from people using OneDrive, even for free. There's many ways they could be doing that, but I bet they all involve using the shared data in ways nobody would want.

We don't need to dox, name, and shame these people. That would not only be abhorrent, witch-hunting behavior, but may significantly disincentivize certain types of desirable, legitimate research publication.

However, I am entirely for a measured, rational, effective, and systematic approach to holding people accountable for proven, bad-faith research publication. The bad apples, few though they may be, do sufficient harm to justify spending effort to sufficiently disincentivize them.

Should be handled the same way as everyday malicious compliance. Lauded when in the public interest and with the judicious application of a bat to kneecaps when against the public interest. The only question is: whose kneecaps? Finding someone to apply the bat should be easy.

The video was posted May 11 (https://youtu.be/77ubC4bcgRM), and made its rounds through the news then.

The paper is fresh, and the news sites are using the chance to repost the video for more clicks.

Thanks! I'll read up on Bretton Woods system as well as monetary policy. In my mind will be the question of whether or not the benefits of a world bank or similar, centralized system outweigh the drawbacks. I'm sure I'll find an easy and obvious answer. ;)

I admit to bring very ignorant to monetary policy and economics, but there's a part of me that very much hopes for a well-designed L1 cryptocurrency to become a preferred global currency. Since controlling a currency is one that governments can exert power over their citizens, fund wars, or bail out banks.

I probably need to read about this more to not br so naive or ignorant. Any recommended sources, for someone who wants to learn without taking a whole economics class?

Does this mean making bribes, deals, or threats? Because I thought passing legislation was mostly supposed to be about reading, understanding, deciding, and voting.

Maybe "pushing the legislation through" is a sofa-related euphemism?