Search results

Wait, do special elections happen when someone quits but not if they die? Who's dumbass idea was that???

Because it's not stupid; it's lies that can be written off as stupidity by the press but will be believed 100% by the cult, and that's by design.

What do those two want, an all-out ban? Because it'd be nice to have someone of consequence actively pushing for that, but I'd also never dare hope for it to get anywhere.

*adds this information to my notes*

Pictured: a fun game for children.

I've been seeing commercials from Hyundai claiming they're not going to raise prices. Best of luck to them on that, or maybe they plan to secretly do it anyway and hope customers blame the dealerships.

Not gonna lie, when I read the headline I was totally ready to believe the "fight" part was meant literally. It's not, but I'm still unclear on whether this is envisioned as a contest that can only have one winner.

There are definitely a lot of people across the political spectrum who believe that's actually what the profit margin is on most goods, and that it's mostly going to the CEO and shareholders. And maybe for a few products out there, it is somewhere in that neighborhood, if you tally up the profit...

Hmm, I guess the shareholders are going to have to form some sort of... I dunno, organization that allows them to act as a single unit, so they can claim that they collectively own more than the necessary threshold. Or they can try to sue the state of Texas in the US Supreme Court on the...

Ryan Reynolds seems like one of those rare celebrities that nobody hates yet; it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

"Stop giving them ideas!" "What, ideas for terrible policies that will make them hated by everyone and then we can tell everyone we told them so? Nah, sounds like a great plan to me!"

I doubt it'll help. As long as he's still the biggest shareholder—or a shareholder at all—people are not going to want to support his company. And even if that were to be, uh, taken care of in some way, the brand might be irreparably tainted. I suspect this is exactly what the other shareholders...

Bold of you to assume any decent person is still using that website, or would ever dare to give it any traffic again, even for the most epic of pranks.

Oh yeah, that's another thing, isn't it. I'm honestly not convinced the telecoms shouldn't just be nationalized outright and brought under the purview of the Post Office.

It's going to turn out Musk has captured a bunch of real people and hooked them up to the server as mindslaves or something, and that's why Grok is so much better than literally every other AI at both knowing things and showing signs of free will.

No they're not. Part of the reason those popups are everywhere is that California put a similar policy in place a couple years later, and I don't see them following this new change as it would effectively put half of Silicon Valley out of business.

So, little known fact in the history of US antitrust policy: There was a ruling in 1943 called the Paramount Decree that basically made it illegal for any company to own both a movie production company and a theater chain. The big movie studios were employing a vertical-integration model where...

Streaming was never going to be sustainable long term. Giving people all the programming they can watch for a fraction of what they used to pay for cable, plus movies they used to have to rent or buy, with no commercials? It could only have ever been a rug-pull scheme.

Meanwhile I recently watched two movies on DVD that didn't even have any previews.

Wait, do we not already have eye scanners capable of distinguishing one eye from another? Have we not had that for ages now? Did I just get exposed to so much science fiction where they were treated as normal that I mistook it for something that's already been invented? Or is this yet another...