> use waymo if youre too stupid to get a DL and too antisocial to talk to people".

-or- use Waymo if you don’t want to spend resources on owning and maintaining a car, and if you are part of the population that has or may feel too intimidated or unsafe to navigate a potentially adversarial conversation with someone more powerful than you, such as women.

Protecting user privacy and reducing surface area for litigation against the business can happen simultaneously. Not that it is, but just saying, politics and difficult to define thresholds muddy the waters.

Based on my experience, I assume Siri is not capable of anything more than setting timers or referring me to my phone to see the search results.

And that’s pretty much what they show in the demo, plus asking it for directions on Apple Maps (which it can also do already), and searching for pictures on the Photos app (which I just tried and it can’t do - so it looks like that’s the main feature)

If it's going to be anything like Gemini on Google Pixel, it'll be great at everything except for trivial tasks like setting timers :).

All valuations are “made up” numbers.

Some are more made up than others though!

Price discovery isn’t “making up” a number it’s discovering a number that meets a specific criteria.

Critically it’s not simply averaging a bunch of made up numbers. I may think gold is worth 1,000$/kg but if nobody is willing to sell me gold at that price then my “made up” number has zero effect on the market price.

>How is it working for the US to have every company mostly owned by the general public's retirement funds?

10% annual returns over previous 30 year returns for a fully liquid investment, 15% annual returns over previous 10 years.

Glorious for the beneficiaries of the retirement funds.

If the government mandates it under threat of violence, it’s called a tax.

It could also be classified as an insurance premium, but a government mandating it is the key characteristic of a tax.

But the fact that the government reduces the annuity amount by increasing retirement age and benefit purchasing power means it is not insurance either. It is wealth redistribution from the working to the non working.

Yeah, that's how insurance works: it is wealth distribution from those who have not become (yet) an insurance case to those who have not.

If you have a car, you need to pay car insurance. Is that also a tax?

The concept of insurance is independent of mandatory or not. That should be obvious, I wonder why it isn't to you. Maybe your ideology prohibits clear thinking and makes you vote Trump?

>Yeah, that's how insurance works: it is wealth distribution from those who have not become (yet) an insurance case to those who have not.

In the context of differentiating between wealth redistribution and insurance, insurance does not redistribute wealth, insurance redistributes risk since underwriting in a competitive marketplace ensures you only a premium commensurate to your risks.

For example, the government mandates only liability insurance up to $x, for which the premium for the same coverage can be vastly different depending on each person's driving history. While this can be considered a tax because the government mandates it, one can see how this is not wealth redistribution since the "tax" being paid is at least partly dependent on one's risk profile.

Contrast this with a government mandated defined benefit pension contribution equal to a percentage of one's earned income, with a known fact that one's contributions will reflect their benefit less and less as the years go on. That is far more "wealth redistribution" than "insurance".

Another example is in the US, health insurance premiums are more tax than an actuarially calculated premium based on health risk. This is because health insurers are not allowed to price health insurance based on health risks. It is explicitly a redistribution of wealth from the young and healthy to the old and sick, due to the maximum age rating factor and inability to underwrite based on pre-existing health conditions.

Something can be mandatory insurance AND a tax.

The rational thing is to analyze the opportunity cost of the investment, which is dependent on the always fluctuating prices.

Some businesses can grow, some cannot grow, some grow at different rates. The risk adjusted (subjective) prices determine whether or not an investor should walk away.

Would you live through the stress of a legal case with unknown legal costs and unknown incarceration time for that amount of money?

No. I'm just saying said amount seems fair from the monetary side of this case's specifics.

(And let's face it, the outcome here was guaranteed, and the inevitable settlement was always gonna include attorney fees or be done pro-bono.)

The outcome wasn't guaranteed; that's the scary part. If Trump had decided to take a hand then it could have been drawn out for months at a minimum.

At some point, barring him getting beaten to death in jail, this was always going to get in front of a judge who'd go "uh what the fuck?!" It's about as slam-dunk of a situation as you could come up with.

I could say that about a litany of court cases in the previous decade, yet here we are, our president winning immunity for all tax evasion, in the past and future, for his whole family, and getting seditious white supremacists paid while doing it.

It is my fervent hope that said fund will, when it encounters a judge, collapse for similar reasons.

Does Meta do business in either of those jurisdictions?

If the answer is “No”, then it makes sense they would not follow laws they do not have to.

>But let's not pretend we don't know why most corporations don't look into this kind of thing.

I assume almost everyone looks into spending less money than more money for equivalent goods and services.