That's actually an incorrect over correction, the "5 items or less" sign in supermarkets was never wrong, even proscriptively.

No, but you can take a 2T loan using the 1T stock as collateral, and buy more things with the promise you buy it back.

And you can even use the 2T loan to buy out competitors or otherwise invest in that 1T of stocks. And when it's worth 2T borrow 5T to pay off the loan and have 3T to invest.

About time.

I hope the EU establishment can recognise that the US is at least as much of a threat to it as China.
Sadly, the UK is probably a lost cause, but Trump and the new Right's anti-British might yet help the coming generation to recognise that the interests of US capital and adventurism don't have their interests at heart.

Two points:

• using stem cells so it remained biological brain cells, rather than a mechanical reproduction.
• they directly stimulate it with electricity and it then has a response to that stimuli, they don't seem to be hooking it up to check for additional processes; it's a step up, I guess, from direct stimulation for motor function in a frog - but not anything more revolutionary.

So, guess I'll need to update my post slightly, but the core point remains.

That said, I felt that they were saying for half of it that they were running Doom on a braincell using computer, rather than getting a braincell computer to respond to it for half the article. Oh well.

Sadly if you need to make ppts regularly, OpenOffice and Libra Office don't come close to Powerpoint in terms of features...

And sadly I'm far too incompetent a coder (and already torn 4 ways between family, job, MtG:judging, and rest and hobbies as I'm hugely introverted) to be able to help change that.

That said, the word processor, spreadsheet, and graphic design application are all a head better than the proprietary versions I've tried.

I'll acknowledge that Michael broke laws while (the thoroughly vituperable) Rowling has not.
But I don't hold that to be an arbiter of morality.

For me it comes down more to how they seem to view other living beings.
Michael has no clear evidence of deliberate, knowing, harm. Yes, he should've known better, and without being in his head I can't know for sure... But it seems to be plausible.

Meanwhile J. K. (I feel more comfortable with a gender neutral name even now everyone knows me but gender bending is right out) Rowling has made it clear that she doesn't value trans-people as much as cos-people and is willing to set up conditions which greatly increase sexual assault against trans-women if it might only slightly reduce the threat of sexual assault against a single cos-woman, and does not find issue with cooperating with actual neo-nazis and crypto fascists who have strong misogynistic and homophobic stances on anti-trans issues - despite claiming she doesn't want to harm those groups. She is choosing to value particular groups and ignore, and create, suffering for others she seems abhuman. (And yes she has a tragic back-story of an abusive husband and marital rape, which she says is why she must ensure gender is immutable.)

But - evil and harm can't be compared and the totally different natures of what they do make comparison even more pointless.
If you continue to enjoy either of their work (or that of any other harmful person, be it Marquis de Sade, H. P. Lovecraft, or whomever) more power to you - but just try your best not to fund She Who Shall Not be Named's warchest.

Ehh, Michael was fucked up by his circumstances and dad... He did terrible things, but I'm not sure how bad he knew he was being to those kids.

Rowling has made it clear any money she makes from a year's back will be basically fully deployed to actively make trans people, and anyone who might support them, worse off.

But harm and "bad" are all inquantifiable, like all things that matter.

Besides, all of this is a very post-19th century problem where celebrity itself and the parasocial connection with creators has become such a large part of how people self-identify and find community. (As with Capitalism consumption = identity.)

It's done a full "pull yourself up by your bootstraps".

Exfoliate and excoriate the brain of Joanne Transphobe Rowling and all that...

But I appreciate your awareness and sense and deployment of knowledge of the in universe rules (perhaps even to an extent more than the author did).

We've yet to be able to replicate it from the old parts of meat we know are involved in it with the addition of electricity in the ways it should need in even the much simpler flesh of insects, amphibians, and reptiles. Best we can do is make a muscle twitch without causing observable thought/emergent nureaul processes.

So even if we can, we're so far from it that thinking we're on the cusp seems delusional to me.

Edit: as response shows, we have in fact also gotten it brain cell "twitches" by direct stimulation of braincells. Sadly it didn't seem to be rigged up to measure overall brain activity.

Sadly fewer and fewer, and those imaginations lesser and lesser.

The digital world is not freedom, is a limitation of options, engagement, and pathways.

And North Korea is a democracy, right?