lavezzi

Can you name the company to give the rest of us a heads up?

> I have the exact opposite experience.

Good for you, nice anecdote. Whilst we are sharing, I've calculated Amazon have stolen close to $20k of my money which I am hoping to recoup through this lawsuit alone. Happy for you though.

> I’m not a fan of Amazon either, but you keep spamming that link.

I posted it twice, but duly noted that reaches your personal threshold for defining spam.

> The law suit is clearly about mistakes in the return process over 9 years claiming to account for 600 million dollars in returns.

Maybe you should have actually read the article first, where it quoted the total settlement topped $1bn. The proposed figures were $1.1bn using Amazon’s own estimates, whereas an objector in the case proposed closer to $1.5bn.

> Amazon does 600 billion a year in revenue. So 600 million over 9 years is a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Hope that helps.

Right. And how would their AWS, subscription, advertising, licensing, or third-party seller revenue be relevant here exactly? Why should their worldwide revenue be considered when this is a US only settlement? In fact, why would revenue be relevant at all here? Unless your point is that the figure is so insignificant for Amazon that consumer rights and stealing over $1bn from customers shouldn't be a worthwhile consideration? In which case I agree.

Hope that helps.

Clearly answered in the first paragraph of my previous comment. But chronological email communications we have thus far released by the DOJ between Epstein and Musk is now a random series of texts?

Again, I do have to pose the question because I'm not sure if you are being willfully obtuse:

Would you willingly of your own volition repeatedly keep emailing a convicted child sex offender (a “Level 3 sex offender” in New York, which is the state’s highest classification), asking to visit their private island (where instances of underage rape were documented in the public domain) so you could attend one of their wildest parties?

If your answer is anything other than no, then there's not much more to say. Note that I did use your preferred phrasing too, even though clinically, pedophilia means a sexual attraction to children.

> Or keep this living rent free in your head for who knows what reason.

Why would this not bother you in the slightest? That's a better question.

not even one tangible example?

> That seems clearly not the case here, normal people don't write like this:

I think when you repeatedly expose and immerse yourself to such a degree in reading and writing language, it brushes off on oneself. So I could also absolutely believe someone from Anthropic wrote this.

> (or want to go to the island other than to have a party).

with the most notorious pedophile on earth?

> Virginia Giuffre alleged in a lawsuit that in the early 2000s, when she was 18, she participated in an orgy on the island with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and eight girls who "appeared to be under the age of 18" and did not speak English.

What exactly are you defending here?

> Everyone that went to the island is attracted to pre prepubescent children?

There's absolutely an argument to be made there but in this case it's a bit more specific.

Anyone that repeatedly emails the most notorious pedophile on earth, begging to be invited to the wildest party on their private island is absolutely a pedophile.