> A simpler theory might go like this: Musk and Zuck both want to be richer, and both want a government that regulates, investigates, and fines them less.
I agree with your conclusion, but not your premise. If they solely wanted to be richer, the obvious move would be to divest their holdings and start their own broadly diversified wealth funds - similar to Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway, Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund or Saudi PIF. Then retire to their yachts and private islands.
Rather, it seems to me that they both have specific goals they want to accomplish and are making the (ethics aside) rational moves to limit government interference.
Certainly Musk doesn't just want to be rich. He also craves power and adoration. Zuckerberg is less public than Musk but could easily have retired if he didn't actually enjoy having the power of being a mega-tech CEO. So power is at least as important to them as money.
Just for the sake of argument, what if they were just pretending to be Democrats?
I think the "fair weather voter" is a real phenomenon - people are often more attached to being part of the winning team than they are to their political beliefs. And I don't see why tech leaders would be immune from this.
Would be interesting to learn how many other celebrities have had similar experiences but have not been caught. Given the tradecraft described, this wasn't their first rodeo.
My understanding was always that LEO is much less of a Kessler risk due to atmospheric friction - ie: in the absence of active control and regular correction, LEO objects will gradually de-orbit themselves. It's the the higher geostationary orbits that pose the problem.
Depends on where in LEO. Explorer I had a perigree of about 350km and lasted for 12 years, though the orbit was highly elliptical. 900km and above is stable for thousands of years and well within the (circular orbit) LEO ceiling of 2000km.
Is it possible that you're using RAG in a nonstandard way? Thousands of documents seems like a lot to feed into a single query. Have you tried using collections and tags to narrow down the field prior to performing the semantic search? You may also want to consider using a larger model or one with a larger context window.
There was a time when I was in favor of this idea - helping the terminally ill die with dignity seemed like a compassionate idea. Perhaps it still is. My problem with assisted suicide is not that it's giving terminally ill people a way out, it's the unintended consequences. We've already seen the slippery slope argument proven true time and time again. Young people, poor people, people with mental illness, veterans and the critically injured being funneled into assisted suicide. We've seen authority figures talk of counseling people with the wrong political opinions toward suicide. We've seen the profession attract "doctors" who take such glee in the act that in any other context they'd be viewed as serial killers.
I'm sorry, but the number of unnecessary deaths that I'm okay with in order to alleviate the suffering of a few is zero.
>the number of unnecessary deaths that I'm okay with in order to alleviate the suffering of a few is zero.
"A few" is doing some serious heavy lifting here
Most deaths aren't pleasant nor peaceful. And modern medicine can keep your body alive for a long, long while as you survive in pain even when there's no chance of things ever getting better
If you're stuck for days without food, water or electricity, who do you want running to the rescue - the guy with a helicopter, or the bureaucrat with a rule book?
Only American republicans send thoughts and prayers instead of acting after tragedies. Luckily for me, I’m not American and a sufficient percentage of our best and brightest work in government.
Do you live in Singapore, Switzerland, New Zealand or a Nordic country? I can't imagine any other place having bright folks working in the government (and being able to make a difference).
The terms "retro" and "vintage" are a sliding window. In 20 years, computers from the 1990's and 2000's will be retro. There's also practical matters like price, availability and size - older computers from the early 1970's tend to fill up entire rooms whereas from the 1980's onward fit on your desk.
While I believe the real estate issue to be part of the reason, I think there's also an aspect of control involved. WFH leads to increased personal autonomy and agency. Having too many high agency individuals is bad for the existing hegemony.
I agree with your conclusion, but not your premise. If they solely wanted to be richer, the obvious move would be to divest their holdings and start their own broadly diversified wealth funds - similar to Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway, Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund or Saudi PIF. Then retire to their yachts and private islands. Rather, it seems to me that they both have specific goals they want to accomplish and are making the (ethics aside) rational moves to limit government interference.