Upon rereading, I don't like that wording of "sales to suppliers or manufacturers" because the final sale to the end user is still pending... Monopsony is about control over how the suppliers and manufacturers are able to reach the ultimate customers. It's also confusing because the way Amazon plays the game they may never even have possession of whatever is being sold. They are controlling the communications between the customers and the sources?

But it's now reminding me of some of Enron's creative accounting games. Perhaps the biggest one involved creatively booking gross values rather that net values. One of the ways they made Enron look much larger than it actually was...

Basically the ACK, but I think I mostly disagree because banks are regulated from outside. In theory, if the regulators have not been captured, they should be establishing safe limits linked to reality. I have yet to detect any safety or reality in crypto.

If Binance was a legitimate company then it is possible they might have other assets to use in "replenishing" the assets stolen from their customers, but I don't believe that is the case here. First of all, I don't think Binance would have said anything at all if the theft hadn't happened, and second of all the ability to make anonymous and untraceable transactions is supposed to be a feature, not a bug.

So my theory is that they are replenishing the stolen crypto with other crypto. The only trick is how to juggle the books to make the numbers look similar, and so far they have only juggled 90% of the way. Sort of like being 10% pregnant?

AC must have been Elon Musk trying to salvage his reputation by throwing racist shade elsewhere.

Oh yeah. The trick that never works: Feeding the trolls. Especially the AI sock puppets that are reputation farming (which probably doesn't apply to AC, even on Slashdot) or public opinion manipulators who are rage baiting (which mostly applies to sociopaths) or cowards who are just too embarrassed to put their name on it (which extends to Tesla owners who are pulling the Musk brand T-logo off of the hoods of their cars).

I have thought of a second case where anonymity might be justified. The obvious first case involves disclosing privileged information that "the public" should know. But without public testimony associated with real people and real evidence, the effectiveness of such an anonymous disclosure is limited. Basically the disclosure becomes a request for investigation. Many prominent examples where that hasn't worked out. Epstein files, for instance.

The less obvious second rationale is kind of weak, now that I think more about it. Sometimes the public introduction of a topic is deliberately used to change the subject. Sort of a jujitsu thing. First examples that come to mind are Jimmy Carr's "Accusatory Question as Confession" jokes. (But I saw Lyin' Ted Cruz recently, and I think I'm remembering cases where he uses such Sophistic tactics (among many).)

Mod parent funnier.

Of course the corporations aren't liable for whatever problems they cause. Didn't you read the EULA/ToS/<whatever> when you signed up? No excuse that you thought it was longer and more boring than War and Peace .

What we have here is a compatibility failure. The corporations have the singular motivation of increasing profit. No profit is big enough. No limit, and therefore any concern about harms is a limit on profits that must be circumvented. The new business plan is to create goods and services that the customers MUST have. If they don't think they must have them, then the corporation must buy more ads. But in exchange for buying the goods or using the service the customers agree to the game of "Heads we corporations win and tails you human beings lose." (And just too bad that exponential growth is incompatible with geologic time.)

Sometimes the law gets in the way. In those case the politicians must be bribed into submission or replaced with politicians who are cheaper to bribe. Never forget that profits must be maximized, which means the bribes count as costs against profits, so cheaper politicians are ALWAYS better!

Now powered by AI! It's an offer you cannot refuse! No one may refuse!

Which leads to my sick political joke of the week to come:

You're so cute when you think the dangerous AI in China is visible to the public. Ditto in America.

But I wasn't actually joking about Xi buying control of Taiwan. I do think they have military contingency plans with clouds of drones to enforce a virtual embargo, but much less expensive to just outplay the suckers. The "US Tech Stocks" are just collateral damage from that perspective. (If Xi could control the YOB the way Putin does, then I would guess about some American targets for the stop-loss triggers. Does anyone else have the liquidity now?)

Mod parent (FP) Funny, but I think you're missing the point. My hilarious theory is that China is crashing their own stock market in hopes of triggering a crash in the American stock market. When it crashes far enough Xi will suddenly jump in and buy control of TSMC. How to win without even trying (to invade).

File it under "celebrating the election"? And no, I don't really understand how "sell triggers" work. The stock market has become a game for bigger suckers than me.

Suits Reddit. Pretty sure I also tried to find some humor there.

How about a joke on google as the secondary target? Just collateral damage while the real plan is for Xi to buy control of TSMC as the AI bubble implodes?

Mod parent funnier, though I think the real target is elsewhere. What if the Xi could crash the American stock market (to celebrate the election?) and buy up enough shares to control TSMC when the price drops? How to conquer Taiwan without even invading?

Not just TSMC, but that's the juiciest target. The real key to such an attack would be how many shares in which companies are linked to automated sell orders when their prices fall to trigger levels...

My cue to add to the discussion, though I never spent that much time adding to Wikipedia and I never tracked what happened to any of my efforts. Also I suspect there are some folks who would accuse you of having one or more axes to grind...

But trying to answer the original question, I think it's because of the financial model. If money wasn't a factor, then why not let everyone have a Wikipedia page? It could even be a way to implement my mythical MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation) to solve all the trust and reliability problems we are drowning in. With AI to manage the networks of real humans and detect the attempted infiltrations of sock puppets and attempted exfiltrations of personal data.

Gimme Funny!

Enshitification comes to mind. Did I get a kudo?

Basically the ACK though I can't decide if I don't share your optimism or we share slightly different flavors of the same pessimism.