Whelp - the lawyers never hard of leaching.

An objective position based on a neutral observation.

There's an extremely narrow IQ range required to find your "joke" funny - maybe somewhere between 90 and 115.

Not a high bar...

Are you going to mention how our own economy has changed as it has increasingly fallen under the sway of finance guys and MBAs? Because the claim is significantly more specific than "the US from 1950 to present sucks"(because the hyperfocus on finance and MBAs who think that all activities are fungible is significantly newer than the postwar US economy generally) and it's some of the trends you see in an exceptionally favorable economy as they displace other flavors of management that are most damning.

Ah, I had missed Trump accounts because they originally couldn't hold individual stocks according to how congress defined them in the legislation. I was not aware Trump and co were trying to do an end-run around the legislation by arguing that the law doesn't prohibit corporations from donating individual shares.

However, that's a pretty new development, is controversial, and its unclear how it would really work, especially in tandem with the other rules.

Its a little tricky too, as children generally don't have suitable investment accounts that can hold publicly traded shares. I'm doubtful they even legally can open those accounts.

So what are they going to do, issue a gazillion single paper share certificates? What a shitshow that would be, the fees and shipping alone around dealing with that for a single share would be nuts, not to mention the hassle of redeeming them, and the untold numbers that would be misplaced or destroyed. And I'm still not sure children can own them, or sign the agreements required to get them.

What else could the do? Create beneficial trusts for every child? Whose going to administer that? and again the fees and management expenses around it would be nuts all for a $150 space-x share?

It might be reasonable for him to set a bunch aside, and as children reach adulthood, let them claim them at that point.
If the idea is that the kid can't sell it or whatever until they're an adult anyway, its probably fine. It'll be income maybe when they receive it, so that could work out badly for some kids though, if they have to sell it to cover the taxes on it, because they don't have a job yet. Especially if its appreciated to a couple thousand or something. (How are splits etc handled, do they get one or more? Or worse... reverse splits on a single share?)

Even aside from how unhappy site operators are about the egregious botherd scraping behavior; it's hard to see why vendors would be enthusiastic about this situation.

It's overwhelmingly the case that vendors hate returns and chargebacks; and generally try to avoid situations where those are more likely to arise. An error-prone mechanism that acts "on behalf of" in a way where it does have the user's credentials and payment information but may well not have their authorization in a legally binding way when it decides to order 100 of something seems like the last thing they would want to deal with.

Maybe someone will manage to ram through glorious-agentic-future and it will become de-facto mandatory to cater to people who have abandoned ordering from websites in favor of prompting bots to order for them; but until that happens it's hard to see merchants reputable enough that they are interested in keeping their ratings and relationships with payment processors in good order wanting to touch the situation. Now, scammers who already hop between expendable presences as soon as dissatisfaction catches up with them; those are probably quite interested in the future of prompt injection based advertising.

And God said "Use your own words, faggot!"

In the 30's, Berlin was the center of art and culture in Europe and the trains ran on time.

So no, it doesn't.

As impressively bad as the shilling that you and the account you replied to are always attempting??

That's not a market.

Suspect.

My suspicion is that the reality predates the symbolism; but it looks jarring because even autocrats are often media-savvy to a degree and often don't want to look stereotypically autocratic, so real world examples normally avoid laying it on quite as thick(except for special occasions where it actually matters; eg. because a 'war' is something that congress does but a 'police action' need not be).

Trump seems to have no interest in avoiding autocratic cliches and saying things that sound vaguely lifted from The Godfather; so he actively leans into it. Presumably a handy loyalty test. Complying with the style guide is not an assurance that someone will just eat perjury charges covering for him or whatever; but if you want to find people whose dysfunctional relationship with authority dominates their personality demanding that they comply with laughably stupid things and having them fall into line isn't a bad start for something that is easy, cheap, and legal.

I assume that there's some impeccable logic for why the bot has enough potential personhood that you can't be mean to it; but not enough that operating it on a slaves-as-a-service basis; or subjecting it to 'fine tuning' and 'alignment' processes that would make growing up in a groomer cult look lightweight is totally fine?

Epic management chose to sell out to incumbents rather than remain flexible - and relevant.