"Substrate isn’t stopping there. They intend to run the tools in their own fabs rather than sell to 3rd parties."
A bonkers idea if true. Trying to create TSMC and ASML in one company doubles your challenges. We've seen just how hard Intel has found being a fab and they are using ASML machines.....
During Dominion's case against Fox News around this same issue Fox News' own lawyers stated that they were not stating actual facts about the topics under discussion and instead were engaged in exaggeration and non-literal commentary. It's not news, it's infotainment.
Lawyers would tell you that water isn't wet it's just slick if it'd help them win their case.
I don't see any fix for the news cycle besides slowing it down. Even if enough happens to fill 24h in a day there isn't enough time to actually analyze it at all.
Sure, but do you really think the Fox News anchors honestly believed what they were saying?
I’d venture a guess: no. They said what they said because that’s what they had to do to get their paycheck at the end of the day.
Yes, lawyers will say whatever to win a case. But I highly doubt those news anchors really thought the election was stolen. It’s all for ratings. Let’s be honest.
To willingly lie about something you need to be able to differentiate truth from fiction. Defamation hinges on either this willing lie ("malice") or on negligence (and the expected due diligence for a self-professed news organization is high). There is a little performative middle ground here, but WHATEVER is argued in court does not moot the things argued at every commercial break about trusting their news institution to report the facts. Fox news is not, and never has been, intended as satire.
> Fox news is not, and never has been, intended as satire
Their homepage right now is featuring a pull up and push up contest between Hegseth and RFK jr.
It hardly appears as though they’re trying to be a legitimate news network. (Same goes for CNN - both are incredibly and undeniably outrageous in their reporting)
But I agree, their audiences take their reporting seriously, even if they themselves are just saying what they say for the ratings.
A light comedy piece or a plucky human interest story do not erase the statements of fact made or the repeated insistence on being taken seriously which pervade the rest of this institution. It isn't even reliant on their audience taking them seriously, it's reliant on the intended tone and how a reasonable person would perceive that intent.
You can argue that Fox News is intended to be basically the Colbert Report satirizing a certain mindset, but it's an obviously bad-faith argument. The Colbert Report was literally created to satirize the seriousness and mendacity of Fox News and its attempts to persuade people into a set of not just interpretations of the world, but factual beliefs about that world.
There is a line, and Fox runs way over the line into defamatory content multiple times an hour.
I can't immunize myself from currency counterfeiting charges by claiming that I never thought the copies were real, that it was all just in fun, that I was pranking the businesses I spent them at, and that my Youtube channel includes other fun bits of me deceiving people and telling jokes. The one does not exculpate the other.
National television news will always be what it is. The business model is ad sales, from that all else inevitably follows. A news corporation is a corporation first and foremost. That said, there wasn’t anything anomalous about the 2020 election that can’t be claimed of other elections so there’s that.
I would describe the difference as being between broadcast and 24 hour cable news. The latter will always be what it is, the former (although not quite what it used to be) is much less rage baity.
The news has always been, "if it bleeds, it leads" though.
I wonder if there was a connection to the ongoing wrongful death lawsuit after a doctor suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a Disney World restaurant? That's the one where Disney tried to get her widower's lawsuit tossed by pointing to the fine print of a Disney+ trial he had signed up for years earlier.
They would. Someone hacking their computers and causing a death doesn't necessarily absolve them of liability, while a waver of liability could do exactly that.
With all due respect that is just not how lawyers operate. They can and will use every argument within their constraints that can lead to a win. That's their job. They are even allowed to put forth arguments that are mutually exclusive and nonsensical when taken together.
Yea, but lawyers for the biggest corporations on earth also have to be aware of when their actions will cost in goodwill and publicity.
Making a weak legal argument that is bound to highlight the heartlessness of a corporation that tries to be famously accommodating and friendly to guests is a move that should have been caught before the argument was filed.
How much in goodwill and PR work did it cost them to make an argument that would have saved them maybe a million dollars in the unlikely event it worked.
There’s a reason that corporations will often settle cases that they are legally in the right for, and cost benefit analyses are a huge part of that.
Very well, if there was a connection to a person who even potentially caused the death with mischief it would obviously be part of the story and in the headline, was the point.
That's not true. They're obligated to make good faith arguments consistent with the legal profession's ethics code, that don't deliberately waste the court's time with rabbit holes, not just throw forth everything that might stick because they duped the right judge. (This came up IIRC when Trump's lawyers made such arguments to dispute the 2020 election results.)
"Disney+'s terms of services categorically shields us from all legal liability" is not a good-faith argument, and, if accepted generally, would create a world no one seriously wants to live in, including those lawyers.
This is especially true when Disney had an actually reasonable, good-faith argument in this case, that the law can't pass on liability for everything a restaurant does wrong, just because you recommend it, especially when the regulation and management of that restaurant is totally out of your control. This would create a horrible world where no one can make a recommendation without thereby becoming responsible for everything that goes wrong at that establishment later.
As an avid fan of Star Control, I can't help but love the Druuge model, "His reference for this mill’s shape comes from similarly shaped alien ships in a video game called Star Control."
I think it is very important to distinguish that Terrence McKenna didn't literally mean eating Psilocybe alone was responsible for shaping consciousness but that like alcohol, tobacco has played a role during socialization and rituals which shaped modern society in the way it is today-that of hyper masculinity and domination seeking consciousness which reflects the effects from those substances (much like how societies that uses opioids form their own circles).
My understanding of McKenna's view is that cultures which used psychedelics like the Aztecs/Mayans (im not a history buff here) have created uniquely different civilizations vs those where alcohol and tobacco heavy cultures produced male dominated, capital driven societies. Extrapolating here a culture that consumes modern psilocybin mushroom in theory should produce the opposite-female dominant or "wokeness" (not the political woke) by activation of whats called the third eye or the pineal gland. If you ever experienced ego death and the subsequent transcendental meditative experiences its easier to understand what Terrence Mckenna spoke of.
I also fell into the mistake of thinking chimpanzees were screwing around and ended up ingesting psilocybe creating visual acuity and abstract thinking but from an evolutionary point of view, doing this amongst a combat/warfare prone species is counter productive and would've led to the decimation of those groups that partook in psilocybin fueled orgies (the supposed theory of psilocybin mushrooms and group sex shaped human evolution which i also assume to be a rabbit hole like the stoned ape theory popularized by Joe Roegan)
What I find the most interesting about McKenna's theory about psilocybin compound is that it is very uniqiue in that its chemical signature (something to do with Nitrogen and indoles, i did not pay attention in biochemistry in my university years) cannot be found but outer space suggesting that its origins may precede even earth and possibly opening up to the possibility that psilocybin could be some sort of extra-terrestrial intelligent self replicating bio-software. McKenna then draws from his own experience (which is also replicable and from my own personal experience to test his claims) from a simple experiment after ingesting psilocybin that it is possible to "steer the psilocybin program" by simply requesting a specific experience including one you could not have experienced previously and the frightening reality of requesting "show me your source code" (not recommended).
What excites me about McKenna's theory is the existence of some higher-dimensional "internet of consciousness" which the activated brain then accesses with relative ease and freedom and that we may not be the only living things in this universe to have come across this compound and that this also aligns with lot of religions and cultures that talk about accessing any knowledge in any point in time during deep meditation or trance like state.
Again all of this is highly experience orientated meaning that somebody reading all of this without it is like watching a 2d cartoon without being aware of colours or depth or sound. This is not a recommendation or to encourage people into the experience but to open their minds to new possibilities and entertaining way of looking at things.
reply