You don’t get to become a billionaire, let alone the wealthiest person on earth, without being a greedy fuck. Remember he never actually wanted to buy Twitter, only tried hard to spin the narrative after being sued into it.

“Banning” means making illegal in some fashion. That is very different from breaking phones.

I love meta humour. I wish it would have been “That makes me angry!” just to make it a tad less on the nose.

He’d love to also milk it financially, but that’s actually really hard to do with Twitter.

You could say though as a capitalist he also gets a return on investment by manipulating public opinion in favour of conservatism.

Maybe they just never bothered to try.

Also while the platforms are similar, the users and thus the content are not just a smaller version of Twitter.

There is no mention of anyone breaking phones. Where the hell is this claim coming from?

That doesn’t resolve the question though. What does it mean to be “fundamentally attracted to women” if you’re not actually attracted to most women?

Comparison would check out if we said Oxygen every time instead of air.

Just like Angela Merkel’s upset remark “you don’t spy on your friends”.

Well yes, dear Angela, they spy on everyone. And it’s telling that the outrage came only because she was personally affected. The peasants’ data and personal lives are fair game.

It’s kinda telling that the single specific claim against “Palestinian groups” cited is that management didn’t prevent employees from discussing the war in Gaza.

You were wrong in at least four ways in just one sentence. Congratulations!

Dumping an inane amount of R&D into a 4090 competitor that nobody asked for would have improved their bottom line how exactly?

And not just AMD makes most of their revenue outside the gaming space nowadays. This is even more true for Nvidia thanks to the AI craze. I’m sorry but your first paragraph is completely self-centered and the economic conclusions just don’t check out.

From the article, it isn’t just banning the sale of iPhone 16, but also make iPhone sold to customer non operational.

I could not find such a claim in the article. The only technical information is about issuing IMEIs, the rest is about legality. Where did they say they can and do brick iPhones?

Fascinating. I wonder how the millions of Chinese Catholics feel about this use.