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.

I wish I could say that it was a deliberate attempt to get the funny, but just another typo, new eyeglasses notwithstanding fumble fingers.

Not sure if my question was rhetorical, but I do think there is a serious question there. However on reflection I think a serious approach to answering the question would have to consider whether or not Amazon is involved in any military supply chains in America. I sort of think the answer must be yes, but would it rise to a level where some enemy national would attack Amazon's warehouses? It's not like Venezuela or Iran or maybe even Cuba aren't motivated to regard America as an enemy state, but still...

When I tried the original joke I was just wondering about the "moral dynamics" involved in that kind of intermediary role, sort of on the presumption that Amazon sells products to criminals, too. But now that has me speculation about some sort of moral contagion on the customers? "You don't have to be a criminal to shop at Wildberries (or Amazon), but..." (And I do wonder how many criminal investigations lead back to Amazon's sales records, but I'm not seeing any humorous angle there. Why shouldn't criminals be thrifty and concerned about speedy delivery?)

They won't get the 99% that Zuck promised to donate to charity!

Actually my newest funny theory is that Zuck knows what he did and decided that he should try to settle for 1% of the loot while he still has a big bag of loot. What is the REAL value of those Facebook shares? (To be contrasted with another cancer company where the shares have around 10% of that much reality?)

Actually almost all the AI-related SF I can think of seems to involve trust issues at the core of the plots. Funniest one that comes to mind may have been When Harlie was One by David Gerrold. Same guy who wrote "The Trouble with Tribbles". According to the AI I asked, he's still alive and recently published some more stuff that sounds funny, but I'm not sure if I trust that AI result.

AI 2041 by a couple of Chinese authors had potential for funny, but mostly fails to find any synergy. The stories violate Asimov's advice about being good stories, the commentary seems shallow and makes me wonder about that author's technical chops, and I even have doubts about the translation to English. I can't check against the Chinese, but now I realized there is a Japanese version and I could compare strained and strange English against the possibly strange Japanese...

Just asking for an imaginary friend who shops at one or both of their websites. But I was really disappointed the story didn't generate any Funny. So here's my two cents of humor? Is attempted humor a crime like attempted murder?

There's only one way you might be able to preserve your personal library for posterity: You need to become so famous that your library is stored as a historical artifact with reasonable expectations that future researchers will want to study it.

It's funny because it doesn't make any sense. Even your personal marginal annotations will be preserved by the destructive scanning process. Or are you imagining they will want to do ass spectrometry or chromatography on the ink to figure out which pens you used?

But I also brought Wildberries into it looking for some kind of evil contagion joke. That line of business just makes companies go all evil? Something about the level of competition involved in taking over the retail marketing business?

Not sure what sort of disclaimer is needed. I certainly have an emotional attachment to books and think Amazon has done more to destroy the publishing industry than anything else that happened since Johannes Gutenberg did his Bible. Or maybe going back to Bi Sheng four centuries before that? You ain't going to convince me eBooks are better. Even if I could get used to them, I still resent tracking my reading speed (and perhaps even eye movements by now) to detect my "level of engagement". My second and final Amazon purchase was decades ago.

'Nuff said?