Actually, he seems to be a guy who's just gallivanting all over the world and posting about it on social media, while others are doing the hard work.

Then again, all I have to go by is his LinkedIn profile...

Boss announces he will break the law.

Big corporations begging taxpayer bailouts and then using them on bonuses and dividends. It's a humongous waste of money that does nothing but enrich the wealthy. Most of the time it doesn't even save jobs.

If, as a large corporate, you want a bailout from the taxpayer, then the government/state will take a portion of your shares in escrow, equivalent in value to the amount of money you're asking for or getting. Those shares (in case of publicly traded companies) are withdrawn from the stock market, become non-voting shares and are frozen at their price at that time. Within a to-be-determined time period (five years maybe) the corporation, if it gets profitable again, can buy back all or part of the shares from the government at that price per share - thus returning money to the taxpayer. Anything that's left after five years, the government can do with as it sees fit - sell them at market price (thus recovering the spent money), or keep them use them to vote/control the company.

There probably is a lot wrong with this proposal. But something needs to be done to discourage big business from hoovering up taxpayer money like it's going out of fashion. Most of the time the taxpayer is getting absolutely no value from that spend.

The prices will stay the same. Manufacturers will just make more profit.

And the thing is, unlike someone's sexual orientation, which they are born with, someone's religious beliefs are actually a choice. A lifestyle, if you so will. They're not something you're born with, but something you're taught.

Generative AI is not 'influenced' by other people's work the way humans are. A human musician might spend years covering songs they like and copying or emulating the style, until they find their own style, which may or may not be a blend of their influences, but crucially, they will usually add something. AI does not do that. The idea that AI functions the same as human artists, by absorbing influences and producing their own result, is not only fundamentally false, it is dangerously misleading. To portray it as 'not unethical' is even more misleading.

'Born in the USA' did not 'fail to convey' what it was about. It was just wilfully misinterpreted.

Wouldn't be the first time he has 'crossed legal lines'.

However, wouldn't it be great if it was the last time?

These people never walk back their bullshit. When called out on it, they will double down. When proven wrong, they will change the topic. But they need to be seen as strong, and right. Admitting that you're wrong or even apologising is neither - it's weak, and it can create doubt. If they were wrong about this, then what else are they wrong about?

They radicalise their followers with lies and falsehoods, and they can only keep that up if they are not seen as being wrong about what they say. They spread their lies with confidence and zeal, and if reality disagrees, then reality is wrong.

It is surprisingly easy to not order things off of Amazon, too.

Irgendwie ist das doch absurd. Man hat Angst vor dem eigenen sozialen Abstieg, aber man will die sozial benachteiligten Menschen noch mehr benachteiligen. Macht man denn damit die iegene Angst nicht noch schlimmer?

There is absolutely nothing complex about this matter. A woman had a physical advantage over another woman, and is immediately suspected of not being a 'real woman'. This shit is as old as time itself, and it would never happen to a man.