I have always dreamt of something like this to connect with aging loved ones.
I would love something that they could also listen to with a big button to play recent messages.
Make no mistake, in a private equity acquisition like this where the company is earning around $50mil profit on a billion dollars revenue, they will cut costs to make their money back.
This PE firm led acquisition of Zendesk for $10bil in 2022 and McAfee for $14bil in 2021
They've spent over $30billion dollars on just these 3 acquisitions in 3 years. Many of which would be part financed.
If he does get equity (not options) then he'll have to pay taxes on it at the 409a valuation which is usually lower than market, but would still be crazy high.
People are often using cloud flare to improve the security of their site. I think in this case if they failed to act when they could that would be worse.
I think it would be quite the diplomatic travesty for them to switch to arresting him after choosing to trial him in the closest court of Australia and credit him for time in prison already.
https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1805385141239660627?ref_src...
What would the actual consequence be? Almost certainly nothing. That said, if the Americans wanted to drag this out further, they'd simply drag it out further, so it seems highly unlikely this is some ploy, however it's not impossible. Assange is more easily "forgotten" if they actually managed to imprison him in The States. But we'll see. I'll only completely believe it once he touches down in Australia.
> What would the actual consequence be? Almost certainly nothing.
One of the key things blocking extradition from the UK to the US is that UK law doesn't let them extradite if the person will be tortured, executed, or won't receive a fair trial in the destination country. This isn't something that politicians can bypass, except by changing the law; judges are not political appointees in the UK.
This means the extradition process from the UK to the US relies on the UK receiving assurances, and the courts accepting them, because the US has always followed its agreements in the past. To me it seems unlikely the US would want to jeopardise this.
And what would the benefit be? They've already shown they have the power to ruin people's lives at will, effectively imprisoning them in an embassy for a decade. That seems like a deterrent that will scare off most journalists.
In the context of the elections, it seems like the US government/Biden admin "fucking" with Assange would probably be detrimental, considering parts of the MAGA movement is "We <3 Russia"/susceptible to Russian propaganda - and Assange is Russia-friendly since he apparently got Hillary's emails from them. They can twist it as Democrats being the warmongers (yeah it requires insane logic-bending, but hey, MAGA are experts at that) and Assange the pro-peace leaker.
So MAGA would probably take up his cause, but with the Biden admin freeing him (fingers crossed), that's one less thing they can use against Biden in the elections.
For clarity: do you believe that your cognition on this matter is logically, ontologically, and epistemically flawless?
I hope your seeming high level of confidence is resilient enough to answer this simple question directly, without engaging in rhetoric, meme magic, evasion, misdirection, silence, etc which in my experience is the standard behavior of the normative conditioned Western human mind when it is put into such a situation.
> No, I believe my cognition on this matter can be flawed. That's why the qualifiers "would probably be", "apparently", and "parts of".
Did you properly qualify each statement in your broader text?
Are you familiar with the terms "rhetoric", "interpretation", "reductionism", "perception", "misinformation", "Meme Magic", "emergence"? Do you think they may have some causal relevance to the (possible/alleged) "technical correctness" of your statements?
Do you think it is possible that speaking out in this manner/style may have non-trivial (which could range from "bad" to "extremely bad") negative effects on the overall system (which I think is at least part of your concern with the behavior of MAGA people)?
> But I agree with kome's response.
If that's the case, would you be willing to answer the questions I asked of kome?
I have a question: do you believe I am actually a chatbot, or are you only speaking as if you believe that I am a chatbot (full disclosure: my theory being that you might be[1] leveraging humor to galvanize support against an outsider in the community, taking a different attack angle than others have tried, etc)?
Regarding HN guidelines: I would say they are highly optimal as they are: ambiguity + (layers of) culture is a very powerful combination, it allows moderators great leeway in using heuristic/cultural pattern matching to "prove" violations by exploiting well known bugs in consciousness (which have been discussed with very little controversy right here on HN many times in the past).
Human conversation and belief (aka: truth) formation is extremely complex, and often counterintuitive.
Thoughts or counterpoints? I think it is an interesting and important topic that does not get nearly enough attention.
[1] though not necessarily with explicit conscious intent, perhaps simply just as an intuitive, culturally conditioned behavior
Regardless: as a fan of novelty and effort, you get my upvote. Also: the bots angle is actually a rather interesting idea, if a person was to put a bit of thought into it.
Perhaps (it is a subjective matter, in more ways than one, and some more importantly than others). What of it?
Or another way of looking at it: which is more important in the big (geopolitical or otherwise) scheme of things...politeness (deceit, ignorance, rhetoric, etc) or truth/accuracy? Don't forget, lives are literally on the line. (Something else I find funny: sometimes lives being on the line is important, other times it is not. It is amazing how inconsistent humans are, even on the very most important matters.)
> their comment is ok
Is this to say that it suffers in no way regarding the specific phenomena that I am asking about?
And if not:
- what does "is ok" mean, precisely?
- do you believe that it does not suffer in any of these ways?
> and i fully understood their logic.
If you did not, would you necessarily be able to know? (Can you realize the architectural problem you are in?)
> I cannot say the same about yours.
What specific "logic" of mine are you referring to here?
> Or another way of looking at it: which is more important in the big (geopolitical or otherwise) scheme of things...politeness (deceit, ignorance, rhetoric, etc) or truth/accuracy?
Not being a complete and utter asshole, like you are being here. HTH!
For clarity: are you saying that not discussing the aspects of human culture I am drawing attention to objectively reduces unnecessary suffering and death on planet Earth? That exerting collective effort as a cultural convention to minimize self-reflection and awareness is more optimal gameplay?
The Secretary of State not responding to the Libyan consulate’s security concerns prior to the attack is a serious matter and the source of the documents is not the issue.
I think ACT has no thresholds, whereas NSW for example you could own a $5m primary residence and rent it out and maybe 4 $1m appartments (whose land value will be low) and rent those out and pay no land tax. So you can be rich from property and pay no land tax.
It would kick in for larger landlords though but they could avoid it somewhat by having a property in every state.
This seems like similar market conditions that led to First Republics collapse (over investment on long term bonds that lose value when interest rates go up)
reply