I think he's already lost and will keep paying more money to the lawyers for a long time. Whether or not he gets convicted has become moot when the actual goal is scaring people into compliance.

Actually the obvious next step is to criminalize the duress passcode and go after anyone who creates such software. Fundamental advantage on their side because trying to advertise such software has to include contact information... Losses in court are irrelevant to the creation of fear.

Silly to suggest a solution on Slashdot (but I rarely get any Funny mod points, and especially not for solution-oriented rants), but I think I have a simple solution approach for part of the SCOTUS problem:

If anyone is interested I can explain how it would work at some depth. Even some thoughts about a path to implementation. Now lets go for the biggest Funny of all: Or you could describe your better idea.

Another rich target missed.

Well, okay, but are you going to leave your brain to science for the research? (Or time to modify my own will?)

Disappointed. Large discussion, even larger potential for funny, but nada laugh in the house of Slashdot.

But propagating the vacuous AC Subject also makes it impossible to label the bad actors. Just a worm can of nameless faceless worms. Searching on "supporter" now... The scroll bar indicator indicates AC "won" by "conquering the Subject" of more than half of the fairly large discussion.

I can't #deleteFacebook because Facebook deleted me. One of the best events of my long life, though I still wonder why.

And so little interest, too. Oh well. At least the story isn't intrinsically Funny. I'm not seeing any low-hanging cannibalistic clowns that tasted funny.

Mod parent and FP branch insightful mixed with funny.

I would offer a solution approach, but that would be insane in this context. There is no way to un-evil YouTube without cutting into the profits, even if there are no profits and the entire YouTube thing is really a loss leader if you could only see the full books.

Root of the problem? Perhaps that normal people just want enough to live comfortably but the changes are decided by insanely greedy people who EVER have enough. Especially not enough money, which is especially hilarious since they are destroying the meanings of every notion of "money" and "value" and even "right versus wrong".

Y'all are making me feel weird. Or even more weird than usual?

Mod parent Funny, though "continues to be money" was a bit annoying or something. Or maybe my case is too weird or too ancient? Even worse, it was an open contract with no special incentives. (And none of that insane "Thank you for your service" garbage in those days.)

By being mindlessly propagated...

Actually not too bad in this case. Scrollbar metric indicates only about 20% penetration of the discussion.

Okay funny, but the joke I was looking for was rage-induced suicides. Some sort of road rage joke...

I'll check back tomorrow in hopes more funny has blossomed on this rich target.

*sigh*

s/more more/more money/

I propose a new metric for assessing the bloviated market value of AI companies. Not sure what to call it, but it's based on price to earnings ratio. As far as I know, the current leader is Musk's corporate cancer with a value over 200, whereas the same source said the other big AI companies including the google, Anthropic, and Microsoft were around 25 to one. My fuzzy memories of helping an MBA researching corporate bankruptcy included something about normal ratios of 10:1, but that was a long time ago. Of course my prediction is that this new Chinese company has a ratio comparable to whatever Elong [sic] is calling his company now.

But if the Chinese company stock price is significantly above 200 times earnings, perhaps approaching infinity, then China wins again?

Oh, wait. What about negative valuations of the ratio? Has anyone yet managed an IPO on a company that has no earnings yet?

Give me FUNNY. (Of course they won't) Or at least nominate me for a Nobel Prize in Funny Economics.

Disclaimer needed. I think Musk is a mass murderer, but it wasn't anything personal. He just desperately NEEDS more more than any sane person would ever want. One of the requirements for winning that kind of pseudo-nonrandom lottery is an insane level of greed. My new theory is that a "normal" lottery winner only suffers from excessive hopefulness or extreme luck. Good or bad luck, that is the question.