I generally agree, but poker is an exception where, if skilled enough, you can actually make money.
I generally agree, but poker is an exception where, if skilled enough, you can actually make money.
They’ve been calling it for basically the last whole war.
In fact, it’s been done pretty masterfully by not making one huge step, but small steps where no single one would force him to do something, but just over time each small step eventually gets to the point where he said he would have to do something…and hasn’t.
When I was leaving college a quarter of a century ago I briefly considered going into game dev…even back then everyone said it was low paid and gruelling work, so I passed.
It’s shocking that people still go into it.
Sounds like something an idiot would brag about.
I think it’s fair to call The Useful Idiot a victim.
We need more people like you.
It certainly wouldn’t be surprising.
So the escalation stems from the disregard of an order that everyone was required to obey
You’ve got it backwards. Right in the article, it notes “The decision to freeze Starlink’s accounts stems from a separate dispute over unpaid fines X was ordered to pay due to its failure to turn over some documents.” The escalation of Starlink not complying comes from that, not the other way around.
ut the intertwined nature of both companies being controlled by Musk is both part of the reason why SpaceX would even consider not complying with local law in a country it operates in
Again, seemingly backwards. It was the government of Brazil that used their “intertwined nature” to freeze Starlink accounts, and Musk has, in turned, used that “intertwine nature” as leverage.
To be clear, I hate defending Musk, but I don’t see why it makes sense to freeze Startlink accounts if it’s X that hasn’t paid the fines. Can they go after any company that he owns stock in? Can they start seizing Teslas? How about MS infrastructure, if he holds some ownership in that company too? I’m just not sure the government of Brazil is on the right side of this, and not simply using their power to punish Musk. If people said “I don’t really care and I’m glad they are holding his feet to the fire” that would be one thing, but people are arguing that it’s actually Musk who is doing all of this, while it appears that it’s actually the Brazilian government that “intertwined” them and Musk just responding in kind.
You are.
Blatantly lying about what I’ve said just indicates to me that you have no interest in getting to the truth, so I won’t bother any further.
Nor did I say anyone was suing anyone. I was just drawing up an example of a case how they could go after both entities. In this case, it appears the fine was levied against X, and not Musk.
And no one is talking about “avoiding fines.” WTF are you even on about? We are talking about them seizing Starlink assets because of fines levied against X. Musk doesn’t even own a majority share of SpaceX (who owns starlink). You are confusing “the face of” with “the legal entity.”
You can limit liability by creating separate entities and this is absolutely the standard, at least in the US. You would have to be very ignorant, or have sought no outside counsel, if you have some kind of decently profitable business and haven’t done so. It’s the whole point of these legal structures, such as LLCs. I don’t know the particulars of the case, nor the particulars of Brazilian law, so I don’t really know if it the case here.
That being said, speaking from an only slightly informed US perspective, if they are suing Musk himself, then yes they can absolutely go after his assets, which would include ownership in Starlink and X. However, if they fined X, it wouldn’t even remotely be a stretch that they do not have the legal authority to lock down Starlink accounts, as they are two separate entities that are presumably linked only by common figurehead.
The decision to freeze Starlink’s accounts stems from a separate dispute over unpaid fines X was ordered to pay due to its failure to turn over some documents.
The issue of freezing star link accounts predates this shut down and was the result of some issue with x.
I’ve got no love for musk, but if the government is going after starlink because they have issues with x, it’s hard for me to disagree with him when he calls this dictator like. And thus it’s hard for me to fault him for using it as leverage.
He’s arguing that it’s illegal because they are separate entities.
If you whine about the pay increase, but pay it anyway (or continue to pay it now)…the feedback you’re giving is that it’s actually worth that price to you, and your words are effectively meaningless.
Wait, is this is a joke? While I agree there is a lot of “get gud,” the bulk of the rest of it is dumb memes, and beyond that it’s people whining about every little thing. The whiners far out number any shills.
We need clear good guys and bad guys, so if the IDF is the bad guys (which they certainly are) well that means Hamas must be the good guys (which they certainly are not) and thus this has to be some noble effort.
Intentionally trying to capsizing migrants so they drown isn’t the same as “being called racist”.
Did we watch the same video? They could have easily hit them multiple times before the collision that saying they intentionally did so makes no sense. Adding in that they were intentionally trying to drown them is also ridiculously presumptuous.
It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation
Notice the language here, he says “the reporting” was not disinformation, nothing about whether the laptop itself was part of any disinformation campaign. You’ve been very careful with your language, it’s surprising that you can’t see this deliberate use of language to sidestep any actual statement about the the laptop itself.
The damaging ones have.
So we agree that they haven’t all been verified, exposing what was obfuscated in your claim.
And why have you abandoned the central theme of your claim that the FBI pressured them about the laptop? Again it appears you believe zuck when he kind of says something that confirms your point, but when he says something that contradicts it, you just ignore it.
See Zuckerberg’s statement
I’m not even sure he said what you’re claiming he said, but regardless are we really saying “well, zuckerberg said it must be true!”? Please tell me we’re not there.
E-mails have been independently verified. The story is independent of Giuliani.
Your language is so tricky. I wonder why. Yes, some emails have been verified. But not all.
There is absolutely no evidence of Russian involvement between the point that the laptop was submitted for repair in April 2019 and the FBI subpoenaing the laptop in December 2019.
Again, tricky language. There are questions about how it got there at all, and there are chain of custody questions too. So sure, if they planted it, there is no evidence of their involvement after doing so.
The FBI suggesting to facebook and twitter that the laptop was Russian Propaganda is pure misinformation.
Except, again, according to the article you have posted and referenced multiple times, Zuckerberg says the FBI never said anything about the laptop. You seem to be picking and choosing when to believe Zuckerberg, conveniently when it suits your conclusion.
Plenty of times I agree. However, no other game in the casino is one so heavily reliant on skill, and if you are skilled in it, it can pay off.