gmd63

QED folks

I saw the videos and know what I saw, which is not what you describe. Regardless of your personal illusions, you're defending the unconstitutional anti-dissident movement that executed them without trial. Flagrantly anti-American.

> vigilante groups who interfere with arrests, hurt officers and encourage people to endanger themselves in the name of supporting illegal immigration

Is that how you'd characterize Alex Pretti and Renee Good?

My impression from your comment is that you have a heavy bias against facts that dispel your political illusions.

If you read the article which is pretty factual, you'll understand that these programs involve undercover agents investigating American citizens some of whom are simply involved in networks that warn their communities about ICE, which is unconstitutionally detaining and deporting American citizens.

> Several of the Minnesota 15 case agents are from out of state and appear in court records for the prosecutions of anti-ICE activists in other cities. This includes Los Angeles–based HSI agents Robert Kurtz III, who specializes in financial fraud, and Ryan Ribner, who allegedly assaulted SEIU California president David Huerta at a June 2025 protest of an ICE enforcement operation, arrested him, and then claimed the then 58-year-old Huerta attacked federal law enforcement. (Huerta’s charges were dropped in July after videos contradicting Ribner’s account surfaced.)

A dude who lied about a protestor being violent to justify assaulting him, then arresting him. And you're defending the domestic surveillance program thats trying to quash civil dissidents to the most wildly corrupt admin in American history. Insane shit.

Insane algorithm burying this highly commented and voted submission on the second page, far behind posts that have fewer comments and votes that are 3x as old.

I don't think you understand Elon at all. The dude paid others to play Diablo characters for him so he could claim to be a good Diablo player, which isn't even a seriously competitive game. He has a deep obsession with his image and the stock prices of his companies. He wouldn't have tweeted the famous "funding secured" tweet that got him in trouble with the SEC if he didn't care about Tesla's stock price.

Whether they were rewarded by actual merit isn't yet known. Their recent wealth is present-dated imaginary future gains paid by speculators. If by "merit", you mean the ability to perform skillfully to serve the whims of people with a lot of money, then yes.

Who is spending the kind of money that makes regular NVIDIA employees millionaires? You have to consider how those people attained it. And at the scale of NVIDIA's growing value downstream of a rapid investment in AI infrastructure, you can trace a good amount of it to Elon Musk, who has interfered illegally in an election to purchase favor with a party that ended several serious investigations into his companies. Now, the government is using Elon's AI which trails in several benchmarks. Elon's storied history of gaming systems to keep his companies alive only begins there.

Capitalism is fine so long as capital is allocated on merit. It isn't, because we don't have capitalism, we have corporate socialism.

Yes. So we should stop enriching people who do that.

It's not inequality. It's who we've chosen to reward. Adversarial people have eaten a lot of the world and that's because we let them.

People love inequality when it's a celebrity they adore living large. Someone who hasn't scammed them and has demonstrably improved their life and the lives of others in a tangible way. The deeper the con, like Trump and Elon, the more damage to trust.

> So presumably people have a general favorable impression of the technology as they're engaging with the product and many are paying for it.

That's not implied by engagement. It's possible to use the advantage AI gives you in a competitive landscape while still fearing the future it will bring.

Babying bad leaders who don't take responsibility for their actions is a good way to scare away good employees.

If you can use mountainous capital to sell at a loss in order to distort the market, yes, that's not a "Free Market", as in, the vaguely understood competitive marketplace armchair economists idealize.

True freedom in the market means the freedom to capitulate your wealth to snake oil salesman and schemers who operate on generational timeframes until economic power consolidates and renders your society into de-facto tyranny. Before any sort of regulations existed, we were all trading shiny rocks with ultimate freedom, and that somehow has produced a bunch of economic situations in the modern day that a ton of people don't like.

What's more interesting to me is freedom from the need to have investigative journalists doing deep dives into potentially fraudulent, thieving, or scheming companies behind every purchase, and to know that what I'm granting market success to is exactly what my money or time is going towards - I'm not buying something at a loss that funds some other deliberately obfuscated project that's made opaque from my perspective of the market transaction.

The proverbial "market wisdom" doesn't emerge out of markets with extreme information asymmetry.