Impossible, we must interpret the intentions of some blokes who died 220 years ago and try to assume what they would have wanted.

Its the only way.

A quick tattoo on the arm and your set for life.

And forehead. Maybe four letters, on a scarlet base.

I suspect the GP was referring to this: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/tattoos-an...

I'm _Not Sure_ this is a good idea

Listen throw7, Meta paid almost £30 million in tax in 2023, an effective tax rate of 12%. I'm unsure why numbers for 2024 aren't available but you'll need to speak to legal about that.

If you want to throw7 that all away over some media speculation be my guest. I'll tell the NHS to fund themselves for 11 minutes next year to make up the shortfall.

30 million out of how much total tax revenue?

At that point just pivot to a MindGeek video service, their pay per 1k views is significantly better than Youtube.

She already had a decent following and a channel that was several years old, and I assume that played a large part in her initial content pivot success. I assume most of her original followers would be annoyed and eventually unsubscribed, but honestly, I didn't notice her shift for a while (looks like her last legit business content was about six months ago)

I've seen this repeated all over the internet, but it's far from true. CPM/RPM on adult video is way, way, WAY lower than YouTube or other SFW ad networks.

That's not what OP is saying.

An entity truly in control should be able to deny access to insurrectionists because of you know, being in control.

They are in control of the military, and presumably the capital city area and a majority of the country's resources.

That says nothing about their power to control the satellites overhead.

I think the commenter only meant that there is such a thing as RF engineering. But that to be effective, RF engineering would require the local authorities to have some level of control over the region they want to shut down.

Thus, the authorities must not have that control.

I agree with the commenter from a technical perspective. It's extremely easy to cut off SpaceX terminals in some area if you control that area.

I just don't think that's relevant. It's not the local authorities the rest of the world is lining up behind, it's the regional players around Myanmar. The regional players can countenance the local authorities only slightly more than the warlords and gang leaders. What the local authorities want is almost completely irrelevant to the regional players.

Clearly, they are not in control of SpaceX.

Yes they are, if they are able to force SpaceX to do as they want.

Find me an FTP server which integrates with your entire productivity, communication and collaboration suites easily enough that an admin can run a 50k person company off of it and equally Doris from accounts can manage to get some work done.

I hate SharePoint, but i use/administer it every day and it works, mostly.

Exposing it to the internet is a mistake. Why anyone would do that is beyond me.

Like i said, its a UI issue not a scalability issue.

Surely the burden of proof lies on the more unbelievable side?

Show me how a company setting never before seen piles of money on fire is profitable. Until someone can i'll happily keep claiming they're unprofitable.

The burden of evidence is on the side of the person making the claim.

The claim is that they are profitable -- all businesses are unprofitable until proven otherwise. That's the null hypothesis for business profitability. The null hypothesis is what must be disproven with evidence.

That's not the definition of null hypothesis buddy

I am not convinced by your assertion there, friend. Do you, in fact, have evidence they are profitable?

Obviously we cannot assume every business is profitable unless proven unprofitable. That's why reporting and audits exist.

Note that they totally could be! I'm not asserting one or the other. But unprofitable is the default, absent evidence.

Huh? I never said they were profitable. In fact, I never even said they were not unprofitable.

Right, I am saying there is no evidence they are profitable, so we fall back to the default, that they are unprofitable.

Indeed, the other poster seems right: "The burden of evidence is on the side of the person making the claim" is simplistic and reductionist. "The burden of proof lies on the more unbelievable side" is more appropriate.

Taking an example: If I said the earth was not flat, and someone else told me to prove it, that proof would be unnecessary, because the earth being flat is more unbelievable than the alternative.

Yep, everyone you don't agree with is trolling.

I see you ninja edited your post to a more palatable example, good job!

is it really a "ninja edit" when you impulse replied literally 2 minutes after I posted?

of course normal people edit their post within the first couple minutes of making it.

maybe wait longer before replying? try 2 hours if "ninja edits" are a problem for you.

at that point, the post parenting your reply will be un-editable, so you need not worry.

but anyhow, back on topic: no evidence of profitability implies unprofitable by default.

"Everything" might be hyperbole but a huge percentage of the workforce in my country is office/desk based. Included in that % is a lot of the middleclass and stepping stone jobs to get out of manual work.

If AI kills the middle and transitional roles i anticipate anarchy.

I haven’t heard a good argument why this isn’t the most likely path.

Can i sign up for an alterative future please? This one sounds horrendous.