nickff

>"reviewers say is negative, compare to 56% for owners"

This is likely a misleading statistic, as dissatisfied owners are more likely to write and submit reviews than satisfied users.

The SEC is very good at creating complexity, but has been terrible at protecting shareholders. The SEC has failed to detect and prosecute almost every massive fraud, including Madoff and Enron (despite being tipped off in both cases).

The idiom "idiot box" has been used in Canada and the USA as well; it features in Heinlein's 1961 novel "Stranger in a Strange Land", and is generally cited as having come into being in 1955.

That isn’t enough; there would have to be cuts to social security & medicare. The rich don’t have enough money to cover the federal government’s obligations.

The fact that the only rating published is ‘junk’, and that it was from a small agency tells us quite a lot. Given the fact that Anthropic (or its representatives) likely ‘shopped’ for a rating means that this was the best anyone was willing to give them, and that the larger agencies probably refused to rate them without more information. I would have been surprised if the bankers hadn’t lobbied for the highest rating possible, as higher ratings increase their profits from the IPO.

You're posting from a 1-day-old account...

Lots of things are threats, including long-range stealth bombers, of which the USA already fields 19, and is manufacturing more. Attack submarines are a threat as well, because they can destroy SSBNs, which are the only credible second-strike credibility.

Shipping weapons, ammunition, and other supplies to one side in an active conflict is much more 'provocative' than building a facility located hundreds or thousands of kilometers from the border of a potential adversary.

Most things which differ are not equivalent; pointing that out isn't helpful.

>"They frame anything other than complete capitulation to Russian invasion as crazed aggression against Russia..."

This has been common among many groups for a long time; I recall the GWB administration proposing a missile interceptor system based in Eastern Europe in the mid-oughts, and Democratic Party members in congress opposed it as 'provocative'. The (Liberal) Canadian government of the time opposed that as well as the Alaska based 'shield' as being 'aggressive'.

I suspect this has something to do with (politically self-identified) disempowered groups generally wanting to 'shoot down' initiatives, but the Trump administration seems to have a different motivation.

But Europe isn’t really supporting Ukraine, they’re just providing enough supplies to keep them in the fight. No state seems willing to provide enough assistance to allow for Ukrainian victory, because of the costs and risks associated with that aid. Even countries at little risk of reprisal from Russia are reluctant to do much at all.

As such, all of us doing nothing more than “voicing support” on the internet and some far-away rally, should offer our empathy, and not presume to tell them how much we’re “helping”.

The combination of tax policy disincentivizing capital investment, and regulatory policy making physical things hard to do has shifting increasing amounts of investment into finance, software, and services (and away from resource extraction, processing, and manufacturing).

>"you're responsible for securing your own property, security guards are a thing everywhere."

Maybe Bulgaria differs from most countries, but security guards seem to be mostly theatre. Private actors are generally very limited in what they can do to secure property, and they're usually required to basically call the police and hope the police show up in time to do something, which is often unlikely in either the countryside or industrial areas.

>"Bulgarian Interior Minister Ivan Demerdzhiev told parliament that additional security measures had been introduced at similar facilities, even though responsibility for their protection rested with their owners."

It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors. If this sort of issue is not the responsibility of local police and federal agencies, I am not sure what is. I understand that railways in some countries have their own police, but it is my understanding that SpaceX has not been granted such powers in any country.

I think you might have replied to the wrong comment; my post said nothing about politics or Saudi Arabia.

>"There are actually people who spend their lives working for peace, and die in the effort."

These people would not be eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize, because its rules disallow deceased candidates.