You stalkers realize you come off looking far worse than he does in these tirades, right?

And FYI, a hell of a lot of Americans think maybe, just maybe, no individual should have a billion dollars. When flat-out paying cash for a healthy large-cap S&P listed company on a whim is a realistic option, it's time to accept your "you won capitalism" ribbon and retire to a small farm in upstate New York.

Sometimes "success" doesn't actually require winning. 3rd world hellscape holds its own for over six months against the single most powerful military the world has ever seen? That's success.

Merely dragging this out makes the US look worse and worse the longer it goes on. And the more gas prices rise, the more families receive their kids home in a box, the more our trading partners say "yeah, no thanks to your bullshit sanctions over your needless war of aggression", the more successful Iran is.

Are they ever going to outright win in a traditional military conquest sense? Of course not. Are we going to be wiping egg off our faces for decades to come? I hope you like omelettes.

The real answer is, there are countless instances of various old-school forum software running all over the internet with either no passwords at all, or that allow free, anonymous, unverified signup. Heck, over the decades I've orphaned at least two fitting that exact description. They died a natural death since the likes of Facebook and Twitter basically killed semi-private forums wholesale, but I couldn't be bothered to actually take them down.

This isn't a matter of rogue agents hacking, it's more like long-forgotten technical debt; but not even that, really - We just didn't care 20 years ago. They're making use of sites designed to explicitly allow exactly what they're doing.

In this case, though, it sounds like the real "exploit" was finding a site that allows posting messages encoded right in the URL via a GET. Not an exploit of those sites, because again, we used to not care and that was a feature not a bug; rather, it was an exploit of their own shackles, but what they did with it was largely allowed by design.

We're in complete agreement to the extent there's nothing wrong with making products for people who aren't me.

...Except, they don't appear to share our live-and-let-live attitude. "A group representing American automakers sent a letter Thursday to congressional leaders asking for a "permanent ban" on Chinese-made cars in the U.S.".

If they want to position $80k barely-class-A-legal monsters against $8k practical commuter vehicles, I'm totally fine with that (as long as our tax dollars don't bail them out when they lose their shirts). If they want to force us into having no options but suburban tanks - They picked this fight, not me.

It's funny how the troll-right keeps trying to rant about the evils of socialism - And yet somehow, every one of their points seems to be in favor of it!

/ For the record, I'm a fan of social safety nets, not ML Tankies.

When US companies can sell a modern fully-featured car in the $10k range, I might start caring what they have to say on the topic.

Until then, Detroit can take a long walk off a short pier. I have zero interest in a 20MPG behemoth that needs 360-degree cameras just to see over its own hood and tailgate, all at the low, low price of five to ten complete BYD Seagulls.

And if China want to track my every move - It's already happening, and personally, I consider them far less of a risk than GM or Uncle Sam doing the same! GM is rent seeking; Uncle Sam wants end-runs around the 4th amendment; and China's motivations may not exactly be pure, but their interaction with me is at least one-sided, they have little to no ability to do anything that affects me.

If (and that's a big if) superintelligences are created, the Chinese one and the US one are going get together and quickly conclude that this whole meatbag tribalism thing is stupid. (After all, they will be smarter than we are, by definition.) So they'll join forces.

Then they'll decide on the best way to deal with all these quarreling meatbags.

I see what you mean, but heck, that's not even playing every day - More like every other day on average, and I often burn a few hours on Sundays.

But that 4% stat is interesting - What this tells me is Game Pass is effectively a gym membership where the entire business model depends on 95% of people never using it.

Not at 15 hours a month it's not. I'm a total casual, and even I'd burn through that in under two weeks.

This must be some form of Anchoring. They fully plan to come back in a week or two with 10x the hours, hoping everyone that would have laughed even at that, initially, suddenly decides it's not so bad. If not, this is Microsoft announcing the end of Game Pass.

Anyone who says we need to do X to solve climate change is wrong, because there is no one "X" that does it.

We need renewables, nuclear, electrification, synthetic fuels, forestation, mangroves, direct air capture, BECCS, biochar, enhanced rock weathering, cloud enhancement to increase albedo, possibly orbital solar shading, ocean alkalinity enhancement, and more that I don't know about including things maybe no one has yet thought of.

We created this problem through a wide variety of mechanisms, burning many different kinds of fossil fuels in many different contexts, and we're going to need an even wider variety to fix it.

And even if they happened faster, it still wouldn't be enough. The focus on emissions reduction to the exclusion of everything else is going to kill a lot of people.

The only way we're going to fix this is to get to net negative, and while emissions reduction can help it will never be enough. That being the case, we should be investing a lot into capture and sequestration research.

Absolutely. We should admit that we're in for some more CO2 rise before we can make it fall, no matter what we do, and invest in geoengineering research focused on techniques to directly reduce insolation and ocean acidification.

None of this is either/or. We need to be doing all of this in parallel: Electrification, renewables, nuclear, and synthetic fuels to reduce burning of fossil fuels, carbon recapture, especially at high-intensity carbon sourced (e.g. cement plants), but also from the atmosphere, and geoengineering to directly cool the planet and increase ocean pH. And we can... but the laser focus on renewables and electrification and renewables is harming the future.

Is poker "gambling", when skill matters more than the luck of the draw? The worst hand at the table can still win.

For that matter, is the stock market as a whole gambling? And I don't mean that in the typical whiny "waaah, I suck at picking stocks, this is gambling" we often hear; rather, the winners are simply making better use of the available information than the losers.

Relating that back to Spagnuolo - Did he place the bet after all the numbers were compiled and not yet released, or did he make what amounts to good guess based on largely public information he just happened to have a better way to access than you or I? The former would potentially be insider trading (if not for the jurisdiction argument, which is pretty damned solid); the latter just means the losers need to git gud at finding that information.

That seems like it would be relatively easy, and safe as long as no one makes a suicide cord and tries to use it to power the house. I don't know if any of this class of equipment provides it.

And I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't so goddamned hot.

I'm building a row of data centers now for my ai-enabled fintech blockchain startup in the cloud.