Rich people don't liquidate assets when they want to buy something.

They get a loan against their assets. At extremely good rates. And no, they never pay them back. The strategy is called "buy, borrow, die".

First, you need to understand that if the stock price goes up more than their (low) interest rate, they're still making money.

Second, the whole thing is rolled up only when the ultra-rich person dies. The assets are revalued to their current market price at the time of death, wiping out decades of built-in capital gains tax liability. The estate can then sell a portion of the tax-free assets to pay off the outstanding loans.

tl;dr: They don't liquidate assets, if they did they'd have to pay taxes.

The reason for that isn't socialism, though. It's incompetence and corruption. Politics attracts the most incompetent and the most corrupt of people, always has and always will. Basically: If you're shit at everything else, you can always try making a career of telling other people what to do.

In theory. In reality, that has always been bullshit. The various bubbles, crashes and other events prove that. Valuations on the stock market are based on expectations, and expectations always include an element that is not rational.

True, though both of these companies do have an actual business and actual assets. There's plenty of companies on the stock market whose entire business can just pack up and leave tomorrow. Many of those are extremely highly valued. All the middle-men companies (ride sharing, food delivery, etc.) all work on the principle of outsourcing EVERYTHING. They hold no actual assets and their entire business model can be copied in a lazy weekend. Each and every one of them survives due to brand recognition, habit and by being just a little bit better in some way than alternatives. All of which can disappear in a week.

Tesla and SpaceX are overvalued. But they have factories and a workforce and produce things.Their value is not entirely made up.

Well, yes :-) I was trying to correct the basic error without writing much...

NO. It is a crime to FALSELY shout fire in a theater. Huge difference.

Is that correct?

I'm trained as a righty (born ambi) so my fighting stance is left side out, left arm blocking, right arm striking, initially.

That results in hips and stance angled to my right.

I'm cross-eye dominant so I always second-guess, but I don't remember the other students in martial arts class being different.

I can read. Of course expected, that's implicit in "future" unless someone discovered clairvoyance.

So again, in other words: What do people base those expectations on when so far the company hasn't made any profit at all? In a profitable company, I can extrapolate. I can assume "with X additional cash raised, they can build Y more factories, selling Z more goods." - but for a company that is negative and is making a LOSS on every customer at the moment, growth does not equal profit, it equals more loss.

True Threats have a legal standard and specificity of person, place, and time are elements.

Criminal Threatening usually has a state statute.

The summary sounds much more like "muh feels" and conclusory pleading so it's probably not true to the legal standard.

How many arrests were made?

Also getting arrested for a social media post is a special kind of stupid on all sides
  Posts are almost always powerless and can just get you in trouble. Don't do it to blow off steam. Or for clout.

Not worth it, get out there and take action if you mean it. Don't blab about illegal fantasies.

like a bounty-seeker scorned.

Shoulda just paid 'em.

He sounds quite knowledgeable and it looks like he'll continue whipping Defender until morale improves.

It's worth noting that the black market would pay handsomely for most of his discoveries but retribution is sweeter than cash.

I get the sentiment.

Google's argument is simply a trivial permutation of that slob's "worthless clause" defense, with which he tried (and failed) to escape felony criminal conviction for fraud.

Perhaps more significantly, Google is now on record, testifying and admitting, under oath, that their LLM-generated summaries are garbage.

Criminals is the excuse, an AI Surveillance Police State is the point.

Everything in the rule is sensible for a dictator.

Look up what an "average" is

I searched the CVE and saw dozens of "One Character Flaw" articles.

I wonder who came up with that angle.

It appears journalists bit on that phrase for clickbait. It got an article here, eh?

At least for Debian if you're current it hasn't been a concern for months, going by the version numbers. So not actually news, actionable, or interesting.

Linux and ARM would disagree. Probably loads more too.

Yeah, but it's going to be quite a hunt to find an ETF that does NOT include any of the current obvious-cash-out IPOs.