When it comes to the current leaders of the US and Israel, when a signature is no longer trustworthy, you need to either take assets or leverage hostage.
In that case they would be locking down their subsidiary even further to just one client. I guess it all comes down to the plausibility of their argument for making this investment, rather than, say increasing dividends or ploughing that money back into other investments for the business.
I guess they were able to justify the OpenAI investment along these lines. If I could hazard a guess, it would be something along the lines of:
This is a new market. We need to get in at the ground floor.
I suspect, OpenAI presented itself as a turn key solution to get a foothold in this brave new world and maybe steal a march on Google.
But Microsoft does. And those shareholders would want to know why money that could be going to them is frittered away on a startup that is constitutionally set up to leave money on the table.
Doesn't that go against Microsoft's fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders to maximize profits? At the very least, it would be contentious among the shareholders. Leaving money on the table? This is the kind of thing would need a very brave (or cavalier) CEO to risk a personal lawsuit.
Citizens need something concrete to rally around. Protests that are ignored breeds apathy. I would be one thing if there was an alternative to the uniparty. Have you heard the tale of the three boxes?
I wonder if there is any inherent defence against slop on Lemmy. I guess if an instance doesn't prune it's user base of bots, shills and other slop merchants, it could be black listed by other admins of other instances.
But as we know, for a large contingent of Israelis their ancestral link is Europe. And many are dual citizens. So, someone is swinging the
go back to where you come from
then that would be Europe. Arguably the Palestinians have deeper routes in The Lavant. With many of their ancestors being Israeli Jews before the majority converted to Islam.
Not saying he wouldn't, but isn't Marshal Law part of the insurrection act? In any case, a foreign attack on a nation shouldn't be justification enough for an action of internal oppression.
Again, I'm talking about a rational administration, here, not an autocratic dictatorship.
Trump can raise all the executive orders he wants. He just doesn't have jurisdiction on how states run their elections.
This doesn't mean he can't cause trouble, though. For instance, maybe he can just order the USPS to not deliver ballot mail. Or worse, open it an substitute the ballot inside to one that's much more favourable to him.
Obviously, if he does that the US can kiss goodbye to being a representative democracy.
Even if this is true, and I make no comment on that, you may very well be correct. Without further laws/treaties bidding ≠ selecting. I assume one of the criteria is the company's fitness.
The train operators should recognise that they are in a bit of a monopsony, here.
Looking at the requested penalty makes me wonder why they didn't request one trillion. I mean if you are being blatant about your ulterior motive to scare off further investigation into your unethical practices.
Anyway they now got the stink on them. Any railway operator dealing with them will have no one but themselves to blame going forward.
When it comes to the current leaders of the US and Israel, when a signature is no longer trustworthy, you need to either take assets or leverage hostage.