I don't know why I do this to myself, but I read through Meta's disclosure
Every single lobbyist I looked at worked in DC before becoming a lobbyist. I knew it happened a lot, but it's really depressing to see
Also, why do these disclosures not require companies to specify how the money was spent? There are only ~20 different lobbyists mentioned, and Meta spent 7.6M in a single quarter
ByteDance has a lot of money. Trump likes money. Trump's only leverage over ByteDance is allowing TikTok, so he'll do that in exchange for money
Zuckerberg and Meta are much more centralized in the US, which gives Trump far more options in terms of what he can offer them. Trump will give Zuckerberg something else to placate him. Probably lots of cheap H-1B labor
There are network architectures that do not uitlize a VPN. Zero trust, for example, should not use a VPN
NYC used to be much more dangerous. Really goes to show how mislead we can be by emotions that you feel it's only dangeeous now
Why does that article feel so disjointed? Tgis paragraph was especially random:
“I engaged once with a guy who had a different opinion. He was like, ‘I don’t think so. I don’t think it’s bothersome.’”
No explanation or attribution for the quote. Just sandwiched in there
I'm finding it fascinating that not a single person has agreed with you. Dozens of downvotes, and not a singke upvote for you
At some point, you have to realize when absolutely everyone disagrees with you, it may be you who is wrong
Are there test kits that could differentiate the two? Wouldn't they both just test positive for amphetamines?
Or are you suggesting it to check for other drugs such as fentanyl?
"Beyond any doubt" would mean abolishing it. It is an impossible standard
Any case held to the standard of "beyond any doubt" would be trivially defended. It is theoretically possible we're all in the matrix and the whole case was just faked by our all-powerful machine overlords. Is the doubt reasonable? No. Is it a doubt? Yes
I'm in favor of abolishing the death penalty. We shouldn't do it with roundabout semantics and sham trials though
Just because some people call it a wealth tax does not mean we should perpetuate the micsonception
It's an income tax on high earners, and objectively not a wealth tax no matter how many people call it that
They aren't saying it because they really want to pay more taxes
They're saying a system should be put in place where the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes
It's a subtle but important distinction
Sam was fired because the board stated he withheld information and misinformed them, not because he was a bad CEO
At least it will be really funny if Bluesky just becomes the new Twitter and Musk's 55B loses most of its value