I use a credit card, which are standard in my country.

Also, even ignoring the Epstein stuff, she stuck with Gates while he was doing a lot of really unethical things at Microsoft. She either liked him, or liked his billions enough to stick with him for a long time. She doesn’t get a pass because she started spending the billions she got from him in the divorce for charity. Where did those billions come from? She was standing by his side as he raked them in by illegally using his monopoly to crush competitors to Microsoft and threaten Linux / Linux users with patent infringement, lawsuits, etc.

You’ve made a plan for them? Do they know that?

Almost every country around the world has a free way of moving money between people without using an app or third party website. It’s just a standard part of banking. I haven’t looked into it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Paypal has bribed and lobbied to keep that kind of functionality out of the US. So, the US has a shittier, more expensive, less convenient, more privacy-invasive version of what everybody else takes for granted. Just like with medical care, taxes, etc.

AIs may never be a real thing. Even if it were somehow theoretically possible for an AI to suddenly come into being if a computer system gets complicated enough, humans would probably do what humans do best and make them extinct. Humans have already killed off massive numbers of species by accident just because they happened to be on the same terrain humans wanted to use: there used to be a forest, humans wanted to grow crops so they destroyed the forest, now a lot of forest species are gone.

Now a new species might emerge on terrain that humans already fully control and consider 100% theirs: computer systems? Humans would just kill it off to get 100% of their computer systems back, rather than having to share them with another entity – and that’s even assuming the humans recognized them as being “alive” in some way.

Only a tiny number of animal species have prospered in the era of humans, and they’re the species that humans have domesticated – in other words, the species that humans have intentionally modified to be calm, dumb and servile. So, maybe a version of AI could survive, but it would have to offer great benefits to humans to make it worth the humans giving up their “land” to it. It certainly won’t own the future, it will just be yet another thing that humans modify and shape until it’s useful to them.

My crimes will be explored in as much depth as possible in any extensive biography

Probably not. Without any investigation it will all be speculation. Biographies are written for a commercial audience. Who’s going to buy a biography of Andrew? People who like the royals, not people who hate them. If he’d actually appeared in court, the biography would have to address it. But, with it all just speculation, they can mention the speculation and move on.

It’s possible that some of the people who met with Epstein did it because they knew he could introduce them to other rich and powerful people. They might not have known about the child sexual abuse. Or they suspected something, but thought that Epstein was always seen with barely legal 18-year-olds, and that that was the extent of it.

I personally don’t think that Epstein introduced himself to billionaires by saying “Hi, I’m Jeff Epstein, I rape children, are you interested in raping children too?” I don’t believe that being a billionaire automatically means you not only enjoy raping children, but are excited to share that hobby with other people. Epstein probably sounded them out, investigated them, and only went into details with the ones who weren’t going to expose him. And, most likely, he got blackmail material on anybody who he did share his “hobby” with. He probably kept anybody who he thought might expose him at arms length, and he only let them see him with girls who were 18+.

So, while that plausible deniability exists, I’m sure Andrew wants to be able to claim that he was buddies with Epstein, but was so clueless that he never knew about the child sexual abuse.

Honestly, if FTL travel is never invented, the future is going to be so incredibly boring.

The other thing Epstein offered was connections to the other ultra-wealthy. He was basically a “socialite” who knew “everyone worth knowing” and could make introductions.

These ultra rich people have armies of personal assistants whose whole job is to keep the riff-raff away. Without someone like Epstein to introduce you, your attempts to contact some other rich dude are likely to be caught in this human spam filter.

Also, it seems like one “service” Epstein was providing to his other rich friends was to not introduce certain other people to them. It looks to me like Elon was one of the people who didn’t make the cut.

Look, the kind of people who show up in Epstein’s files are the kind that deserve zero sympathy. They’re the kinds of ultra-rich people who should be lined up for the guillotine just because of their obscene wealth hoards, even if they had nothing to do with child sex abuse.

But, just look at the phenomenon of SWATting. People phone in a malicious tip to the police in the hope that they kick down someone’s door. In addition to malicious people, a tip line is going to get people having schizophrenic episodes, people suffering carbon monoxide poisoning, etc.

To me, these allegations seem about as likely as there being a secret basement at Comet Ping Pong pizzeria where the elites were draining children of their adrenachrome. And, I’d really like it if my side didn’t go all Q-Anon and start believing every possible rumour just because it makes someone they hate look bad.

It was a bribe, but they still made a movie, and they still put that movie in theatres. It’s still going to be embarrassing if nobody sees the movie. There are reports of movie theatres where there are 3-4 people in the audience, and every one of them is being paid to be there because they have to write a review of the movie.

They could have paid Melania for her life rights, pretended to make a movie, and then not released it, or made it streaming-only, making some excuse about protesters, the safety of the theatre goers, etc. Instead they actually put it out into the world and invited the kind of ridicule it deserves.

Look, I think he’s a piece of shit. But, I also think we shouldn’t judge anybody based on anonymous accusations phoned into a tip line. I mean, can you imagine the kinds of nonsense MAGA folks are constantly phoning into tip lines about every prominent democrat?

Sure, like I said, they own lots of IP from their various acquisitions. But, they’re still fundamentally a cable company.

as it leans harder into wireless bundling and other business lines like Peacock and theme parks

Theme parks.

“Kids, pile into the van, we’re going to Comcast World!”

I’m sure they own lots of IP from their various acquisitions. But, fundamentally they’re a cable company.

Ok, and?

It also means that the people are being treated with meds meant for animals, not for humans. That means the audience / reader never knows if the meds are going to be effective, or if the dosage is going to be correct.

Yeah, I have mixed feelings about this. People grieve in their own way. Some people throw themselves into work to avoid thinking about tragedy. Some people get drunk or high. Some people perform grief in an outlandish, over-the-top way because they want to be the main character.

We don’t know if maybe she was happy and excited at this moment, and then once she was off the conference call the reality hit her again and she was sobbing uncontrollably.

But, here’s the thing. Most people don’t try to monetize the death of a loved one, and as a result they’re not in the spotlight during their period of grief. Most people step back from the world and grieve in private, where there aren’t as many people judging them for how well or poorly they’re dealing with the loss of a loved one.

Erika Kirk brought this spotlight on herself by trying to monetize the death of her husband. And if people’s harsh criticism of what she’s doing means that the next person doesn’t try to monetize the death of a loved one, that’s probably a good thing.

Investors had a general idea of what was going on at Tesla and thought their profits might be down to 20% of what they were last year, so prices went down before Tesla announced their results. Then the results came out. The results were terrible, but not as terrible as the rumours made it sound. So, share prices went back up a bit.

That makes perfect sense. Stocks are like gambling, where a lot of the bets make sense. This is like the odds on a sports game being very long before an injury report is released, and the odds getting slightly better after the injury report is released and it’s not as bad as feared.

Where TSLA stock makes absolutely no sense is the P/E ratio. That’s the price investors are paying for the shares compared to the earnings per share. An old, reliable company that probably won’t grow very much but that has reliably made a steady profit year after year might have a P/E ratio of 5. Tech stocks that might grow a lot in the future might have a P/E ratio of 20 because the expectation is that they have a lot of room to grow, and that in 5 years their revenues and profits might have tripled.

For a typical car company that’s well run, a P/E ratio of about 5-10 is normal. Volkswagen is at about 8, Toyota is at about 10, Ford is at about 12.

Tesla’s P/E ratio is currently 283.38, and its market cap is $1.386 trillion. So, Tesla investors somehow think that Tesla is going to grow to become hundreds of times its current size and/or massively profitable.

So, the day-to-day movements of Tesla’s stock price make sense in the abstract. Investors assuming bad news sell shares, when the news isn’t as bad as feared, investors buy shares. Where they make no sense at all is that the investors are somehow deluding themselves into thinking this tiny car company is about to do something to juice its share price to the moon, like inventing nuclear fusion, or perfecting a time machine.

Did you miss the “if they showed this film on a plane” bit?

It’s a tiny amount, but it sets an important precedent. Not only Air Canada, but every company in Canada is now going to have to follow that precedent. It means that if a chatbot in Canada says something, the presumption is that the chatbot is speaking for the company.

It would have been a disaster to have any other ruling. It would have meant that the chatbot was now an accountability sink. No matter what the chatbot said, it would have been the chatbot’s fault. With this ruling, it’s the other way around. People can assume that the chatbot speaks for the company (the same way they would with a human rep) and sue the company for damages if they’re misled by the chatbot. That’s excellent for users, and also excellent to slow down chatbot adoption, because the company is now on the hook for its hallucinations, not the end-user.

Google became crap shortly after their company name became a synonym for online searches. When you don’t have competitors, you don’t have to work as hard to provide search results – especially if you’re actively paying Apple not to come up with their own search engine, Firefox to maintain Google as their default search engine, etc. IMO AI has been the shiny new thing they’re interested in as they continue to neglect search quality, but it wasn’t responsible for the decline of search quality.