Which group of people uncritically magnified his voice and others like it for years? Tech journalism builds the legacies of people like Musk, Bankman-Fried and Altman.

I’m glad you understand what I’m implying.

??? Maybe Bernie’s supporters cared about his policies more than his lack of dad charisma lmao

What do you mean, they warned about it long enough? I bought it, I played it as a kid. Now I want to share it with my kids and it turns out Microsoft said on some website somewhere, and maybe in a few emails to a nonexistent aol address, that they want me to update my account, and since I didn’t do that I have to buy it a second time? I learned today that they’ve “attempted to contact me”. I never agreed to a EULA that said I had a limited amount of time for anything. Nor did anyone else who purchased before 2011.

As opposed to the main company, which cares so much that they don’t bother taking your call directly

You are very nearly correct in your guarantee., Per ProPublica’s reporting it has been found in basically everyone’s blood except some very isolated groups in rural China

Like trying to get MLK Jr. to kill himself, or you thinking more like the ‘inventing terrorists so they can arrest them’ angle

Well, maybe the first generation or two wouldn’t suck if they had consulted people who use wheelchairs and know how they should be designed. Too bad they thought the same way you do and said ‘why bother’!

To be clear, just because the LSD experiments happened does not make them reasonable. It sounds like you’re justifying future terrible mistakes based on past terrible mistakes that you learn about in a fairly neutral and sanitized way in school.

If Stephen King wants to share his accumulated wisdom for free with millions of readers, hopeful artists, random people on the street who’ve never heard of him, what is the best way to reach them? Start a blog that will never show up in any search results behind the pages of machine-generated SEO junk about how they have answers for “Stephen King blog”, right? Because then he had zero impact but retains the moral high ground.

You’ve never heard of someone buying music on iTunes?

It depends on the societal framework. That would be anti-worker in the U.S. because you’d be sentencing some people to death, since the U.S. doesn’t have guaranteed livable wages or livable safety nets for those out of work. Given the assumption that you can make ends meet, mandating a cap on the hours spent working for someone else’s benefit and missing out on your own life is pro-human.