Right…Per the article, the guy is fighting with the town’s lawyers who are apparently sending takedowns to Google without a legal basis.

Per the article, because he wanted to shine light on the fact that you play by different rules if you are wealthy.

From the article:

Parr’s experiment and documentary raises questions, of course, about who gets to have privacy in America. A wealthy enclave has set up the legal and surveillance infrastructure to be able to prevent being mapped. The rest of us, meanwhile, are subject to all sorts of surveillance by our neighbors and law enforcement. “The only reason it’s set up this way is because it’s such a wealthy community,” Parr said. “I know that I was able to do this, but I don’t know if I should be able to do this, and that’s kind of the question that I wanted to tackle. The YouTube comments are pretty crazy man. They’re all over the place. They’re very split 50/50 on that question.”

Seems like a pretty worthy activity to me.

Yup. It’s really as simple as that. Trump is a sociopathic abuser, and the macro version of that is essentially the same as the micro.

Yup, both the Paul Ryan and stock market metaphors are apt.

But taking the Paul Ryan comparison to its conclusion is probably also apt - he never had the chance to buy back in low, because he didn’t factor in that this particular market has no bottom. The only rational move with the GOP, ever, is to just cash out and leave forever.

The Trump administration is considering a new strategy for throttling the country’s offshore wind industry, after federal judges blocked its five previous attempts to stop wind farms under construction off the East Coast.

Senior administration officials are drafting settlement agreements that would pay nearly $1 billion to TotalEnergies, the French energy company behind two wind farms off New York State and North Carolina, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times, including copies of the agreements.

Under the terms of the proposed settlements, the Interior Department would cancel the leases in federal waters for the two projects, known as Attentive Energy and Carolina Long Bay, the documents show. The Justice Department would then pay more than $928 million to TotalEnergies, reimbursing the company for its winning bids in lease sales during the Biden administration.

In exchange, TotalEnergies would abandon its plans to begin building the wind farms. It would also commit to investing in natural gas infrastructure in Texas, as the Trump administration prioritizes the production of fossil fuels over renewables like wind and solar power.

This is one where I had to click through to the article solely because the headline was too stupid to make sense. We are paying $1 billion of taxpayer dollars in order to undo green energy that was already in process? What reason could there possibly be for not only making our energy policy worse, but paying through the nose to do it?

Mr. Trump has disparaged offshore wind power since 2012, when he tried unsuccessfully to stop a wind farm visible from one of his golf courses in Scotland. He has often called the projects ugly and inefficient, and he has claimed without evidence that they are “driving whales crazy.”

Oh, right. We are a country whose every action must curry approval from a narcissistic sociopath with the prefrontal cortex of a 2-year-old.

But they’re bracing for long hours and possible late nights in a bid to build momentum for the bill, which already has broad public support. A recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of 1,999 registered voters found that 71 percent support the SAVE America Act.

That’s pretty depressing. But then, I suppose low-information people would support any bill if they just called it “The Good Law Act.”

Oh, right, that’s basically what they did when they passed the, what was it called, Big Conservative Wet Dream Bill last year.

Edit: Oh, seeing the headlines alongside the poll that are all extremely suspect and right-washing, I wanted to check further.

Despite that TheHill reports uncritically about it and it is somehow associated with Harvard, the poll was commissioned by Stagwell Global, a marketing firm that is run by Mark Penn, who is apparently a “deep state” conspiracy theorist and Trump supporter, and contact info for the poll is not Harvard, but Stagwell, who also somehow was allowed to “release” the poll (“Stagwell (NASDAQ: STGW) today released the results of the February Harvard CAPS / Harris poll…”).

All in all I feel the most likely fit for the above is this is propaganda and not reliable.

But if you ask hasjohnolivermadelovetoacouch…

Hopefully we live to see them have to argue for their own stupidity as a defense in a criminal war crime tribunal.

I thought I saw an earlier story that suggested they may try to bring the site back if hardware costs come down to earth, but I may have imagined it. Did anyone see that?

It’s just a matter of perspective. If you’re an evil psychopath, which is apparently the only demographic that has power and authority anymore, it bodes very well.

Fortunately for Trump, American corporations are so spineless and amoral that any type of threat, no matter how toothless or unconstitutional, will induce immediate pre-emptive compliance.

Love the article, nice work!

You’re right to feel insulted. LLMs are verbose and unreliable often enough that you have to check any work that comes out (or be negligent).

So what’s usually happening is someone is saving their time by spending yours. They saved the time normally needed to write a thoughtful reply by shifting the time and cognitive cost of reading and verifying to you, with AI as an excuse (often not without condescension, which is a type of “virtue signaling” driven by c-suite AI boosting). The slop output looks like “work product,” but is neither - it took no work and is a facade of a “product” because it’s unverified.

They are being selfish, and it is objectively an insulting act.

It would be nice that he said this on Fox News, since his supporters wouldn’t ever see it otherwise.

But if they’ve gone along with him this far, I’m sure they are fine with this as well. “He shouldn’t say it, but I know what he meant, and I have good genes so I’m fine,” is probably as far as they’ll get.

Part of Skydance’s bid for Paramount was originally that they were going to keep it all rather than split it and sell it for parts (I think Sony had a competing bid that planned to spinoff the cable channels, e.g.). I don’t know if their Biden-era approval put that on paper, but if not, sure.

I think CNN will just get the CBS News treatment, however. No spinoff, just sabotage.

That’s indeed also right.

Paramount executives have already said they plan to find $6 billion in “synergies” within three years, though they’ve emphasized that the majority of their cost cutting will come from “non-labor sources,” including consolidating their streaming technology and cloud providers, combining IT systems across the company and “optimizing the combined real estate footprint and the broader corporate overhead,” among other ideas.

And as I wrote last week, most Hollywood observers and those familiar with Ellison’s plans predict that Paramount will be forced make steep layoffs to offset the cost of the deal and eliminate overlapping roles and functions between the two historic studios.

The article is mostly about pure debt load, but this is the answer: no matter what they say, they will heavily lean into layoffs because they never had any other ideas. They leveraged way too much debt to “win,” and now Paramount/HBO will be defined completely by that debt and the opportunities it doesn’t allow.

From knowing people within the merged company, this is in line with Skydance’s management style. Their imaginations are not large enough for their ambitions, and think if they cut jobs they make the company more “nimble” or at least make Wall Street think that (not clear they know the difference). When in fact they’ve long ago cut the fat and the muscle, have a workforce with absolutely toxic morale from years of layoffs, and are now carving off bone.

Well consider me better informed, thanks.

Have they…done that?

Ah, ok. There must be a quick, reliable alternative to archive.today given the controversy, but I haven’t found it yet.