Most of it.

And yet, there's a long way yet to go.

Brexit happened on lies upon bloody lies by populist douchebags like Nigel Farage. The British people were once again screwed over epic style by the political class. Which made things even worse after Brexit, ironically.

We all knew Brexit would hurt, but holy cow, as much as we like to make fun of the Brits for doing Brexit, this is painful to watch. We feel you guys.

The UK mostly doesn't do voter suppression. However, they did for the Referendum. Basically, anyone who might not be racist was not permitted to vote.

Even then, 48% still insisted on staying in the EU.

One of the reasons the UK doesn't do voter suppression the way the US does is because (until very recently) the House of Lords had a lot of people in it who owed no favours at all to the political elite but did have a huge responsibility to making sure that things functioned in the long term. This has since been corrupted, so the HoL is no longer anything like as independent and politically neutral as it once was. Rather, the two main parties have stuffed it full of sycophants, which makes it useless. Which, of course, was the intended effect.

Because those in the HoL were partly hereditary (and therefore not under anyone's thumb and impossible to manipulate) and partly chosen on actual merit (they'd done stuff that was actually impressive and good for the country), the HoL were the true guardians of the Constitution and the nation. The House of Commons has always been corrupt and degenerate, so a parallel system that politicians couldn't control meant their worst excesses would always be curbed. The HoL has defended the common person FAR FAR more often than anyone in the Commons ever has.

This didn't make the HoL perfect, or even advisable to retain in its historic form, but it made it immune to the corruption that we were seeing in the rest of the system. What we needed was a replacement system that retained that immunity and improved on it.

Although there is a right join, no far right join has ever been defined and there's no signs that it would in fact be possible.

... a post-cyberpunk post-scarcity economy. If he only achieves half of what he's pushing for that wealth won't mean that much. It's precisely that he's acting that way that puts him in a position to be this wealthy. The final goal of capitalism is to make itself obsolete. We might actually be getting there just now. Musk being a trillionaire is just an intermediate step on that scale.

Only if you treat them like shit.

Effects.

Treating women like shit makes them not want to pump out babies. Now they have a choice, so they are doing a lot less of it. Literally all it would take to get a large portion (a majority IMO) of them to do it without support from a decent partner would be to gracefully and quietly fund the programs that ensure they will be able to feed and provide medical care for their children even if their circumstances change, but there seems to be a problem even meeting that bar.

But then your entire fucking point becomes pointless about 8 seconds later, literally before I could read it and roll my eyes about it.

Except it doesn't. It's shit all day. It makes people upset all day. This means it's costing productivity all day. See, in the real world with real humans, these user pain points have real impacts on those real people.

HTH, HAND!

Same for if it is made in America. If it's not FOSS, then it's not trustworthy, and even then it's limited to e.g. devices you can build your own firmware for.

Problem is that doesn't work either, since the asset 'value' is unknown until transacted, and also ignores the stock value entirely, which is generally not nothing.

For my net worth, you would absolutely count my stock holdings, because at that relatively mundane level, I can probably sell it at the extrapolated price. If you have even a couple million dollars of stock in a big company, you will barely move the volume of trades for the day, so the extrapolation works in isolation.

But when the amount becomes a significant portion of typical volumes, then the transaction will not pan out at 'market rates'.

So we have this awkwardness of something that is definitely worth some cash, but the extrapolated value can't predict the real value, and the other measures would fall short.

I love how it's so blatantly obvious that they are leaning into software development and the models are assuming you are going to write some C# to adjust brightness.

No idea if that's even close to right and I'm not inclined to check, but the fact the first answer is not "Well, find the brightness buttons and press them" is telling.

Yeeees and no. It matters in terms of loans he can get from banks. A trillionaire gets an awful lot better deal than anyone else.

So although he cannot liquidate a trillion dollars, there's a decent chance he can borrow at exceptionally low interest rates enough to do pretty much whatever he wants because he has the moniker.

It's not hard to be morally superior to a childish self-righteous socipoath.

He's not bright, he's not clever, he IS abusive, and he is exceptionally rich. However, only an idiot equates "rich" with "better".

I would say more than half of Slashdot can match or exceed his intelligence. And that's despite the fact that Slashdot has attracted pet rocks as users in recent years. Actually, truth be told, it's because of that. Back in the younger days of Slashdot, I'd say 95% of the regulars were smarter than Musk.

All Musk has is money. And I can understand you envying that. But here's the thing. Smart people don't talk their company's value down. Smart people invest their money. Musk throws it around, such as buying Twitter and destroying the userbase.

Musk is not your friend.

In a sane world, you might expect the Windows 'integrated' AI to be wired up to just... adjust the brightness..

But *fine*, you don't wire it up, you might then at least hope the AI to say "That capability is not enabled, but here is some help text telling you to do it".

But nope, "That sounds like something an ioctl would do, and I don't know the ioctl per se, but let's just submit random bullshit ioctls and *maybe* it will happen to do as user requested?"

The US solved this problem 150 years ago. First with the observation that immigrants acculturate. Second with the acceptance that elements of their culture are going to get melded in to form a new culture. Culture is never static, anyway, it always drifts and morphs. Immigration just changes it a bit faster. But it's good! This ongoing immigrant-driven culture change is what made the US a superpower. Embrace it.

Indeed is USED to work this way....and if so, sure, cool.

The trouble is...it no longer works that way, there is no more 'melting pot'.

For various reasons, one being we've let WAY too many in at once....they do not come here to become Americans and assimilate, they are here to take over and make a Mini-whatever country they came from .

They segregate, they do NOT learn the language and in Muslim cases, they try to change our laws to fit their religion.

In the old days, you didn't see protests with migrants waving flags of their home land, but instead were waving the US flag....

So, no that old way isn't working....and if we don't stop the influx....we risk losing our country even more than we risk losing it right now.