This is 90% hyperbole. As always, believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see. We live most of our lives responding to shit we personally witnessed. Trust your senses. Of course the other part is a matter for concern, but not like the apocalyptic crowd would tell you.

It is always a safe bet that the snake oil salespeople are, once again, selling snake oil.

Of course AI won’t take over documentation. It turns out that precise and good communication works better if you understand what you’re writing about.

Except what you’re describing doesn’t make sense. If the new owners purchased all of those things, then in reality they purchased the company. Courts are very likely to agree on this. It looks like a company-wide sale, therefore it probably is, even if someone tries to add a line saying “we aren’t liable”.

But imagine someone could “sell everything other than the liability”. In such a case, the seller would be putting themselves on the hook to pay outstanding debts (i.e., the seller would be liable). And we know they have money – they just sold the thing. So then the seller would pay… But they know that in advance, so they would not agree to such a sale in the first place, unless they were planning to steal that money through creative accounting of some kind… But both parties know all of that that in advance, so they would both be acting fraudulently.

I think a company like this is not planning to linger for years. The owners wanna make a buck for a year or two and then sell it off. If they can stiff their customers in the process, they just don’t care.

For long-lasting companies the motivation would be different. But this is not a world-famous VPN company, not by a long shot.

You have just argued against the article itself. Should we believe you?

This is overly simple. You can’t legitimately believe that an explanation only focusing on one person is sufficient to predict American politics. Nope, no chance. Meh.

What a terrible headline. All of us? No. Next.

Ah, classic sophistry. If you omit the actor, you can draw a bad conclusion and pretend you didn’t know it was a bad one. But maybe I’m mistaken and you actually don’t know the answer to your question. Why don’t you read the article? It answers it.

deleted by creator

Lots of people are prescribed pills for lots of things. What the hell does that have to do with anything? You know it doesn’t.

My friend, anyone who watches the news on an occasional basis knows that you’re lying, and that you know you’re lying. I’m not sure why you’re wasting our time, or yours.

Holy f***, God forbid making settings menus that actually get you to where you want to go, definitely wouldn’t want to do that, much better to AI.

We don’t even have to ask the experts. Just look at Japan that tried something similar in the past. Of course it was a complete failure… This is basic reality, right? Families that don’t have money simply can’t afford to raise a child even if they get a bit of cash at the start. Pay them more than a living wage if you want them to have kids.

You might be out of touch, but it depends on what you mean about approaching people. For example, it’s perfectly reasonable to talk to anyone at all for a wide variety of reasons, including things related to your hobbies or your jobs or simply because you’re waiting for the bus. Conversation is generally a safe thing to do with other human beings. If you are specifically avoiding conversations with people because they are women, then I think you should rethink your position.

Maybe your parents are asking you to start flirting with people, which is totally different from simply talking to them. If that’s the topic, then it makes sense to be somewhat more careful about the time and place.

It’s not just you. The title gets causation totally wrong. If people made bad assumptions about how technology would change in the future, it’s their assumptions that are the problem, not reality.

Oh, he understands the consequences. Everything he’s saying now is an act. He’s lying now, he lies constantly, and he relies on people not pointing it out.

I’m not sure what logistical hurdle you think cannot be overcome here. All he needs to do is find some stage in the game where any vendor in the United States is required to disclose and pay a tax on whatever is specifically identified as the targeted item. You don’t need to hold the things in customs to do that. We already have tons of taxes that depend partly on the tax filer being honest. And of course they can always be audited later.

Actually this doesn’t protect the industry in any way. It’s an extreme threat to American movies, music, and tech. So far, other countries have not been taxing the US on those three classes of items and services, but if they do, it will destroy Apple and Google and Microsoft and Hollywood in a matter of months.

International movie makers will stop trying to appease Hollywood because they know that it’s very unlikely their movies will play in the US. So they will focus on other international markets. It’s the same thing we saw with the other tariffs, right? Buyers and sellers are going to look for new business deals in every other country in the world because it makes more sense than dealing with a lunatic who were randomly impose and erase tariffs.

Same, lol. Could be interpreted as an insult but I feel lucky that she won’t try to drink it herself.