I am not sure if I have any meaningful anecdotes regarding reading fiction. I do not believe I have seen or otherwise visually imagined the events in either fiction or non-fiction most of the time unless reading it made me recall something that I remember. It might be possible if I were actively trying to do that, but I can say that whatever experience I am extracting from reading fiction is not primarily due to being able to see it. If people are really imagining that sort of thing automatically, I feel pretty envious of that myself.

When it comes to sounds though, I am something of a captive in my own mind. For the majority of the period that I am awake and not highly focused, my mind is using approximately 98% of its resources to replay, construct, combine, and modify music. This is usually much more interesting than what I am hearing and what most people have to say to me, and it can require conscious effort to hear the latter. Unlike the images, this sound is of high quality and is not at all consensual. I have been told that this is not quite normal. In hindsight, this could have been a useful trait had I worked with it instead of worked through it.

*Assuming that these memories are not brought on through involuntary means, such as some drugs and trauma-induced flashbacks.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa

From that perspective, I am assuming that the top (in hierarchy, not importance) groups from the then-incumbents will be the fastest to raise new companies, which will still be able to attract talent with the prestige that the old company used to have (think about how startups founded by ex-FAANG work). E.g. Nature executives and leaders develop N2, FOX builds Wolf, Tesla builds...Tesla, all of which start off with more credibility and popularity than offerings without this benefit. I do not think that the exact same situation would arise though. There would still be easier entry into these markets than before, at least at first.

I think that this is an important consideration. If I am not mistaken, this is part of the reason why the super-geniuses in the larger comic universes (e.g. Marvel) do not cure cancer.

As for the counter-examples, you have not provided any. You are arguing that the president is the most moral politician (which, while an extraordinary claim, has not been disagreed with by anyone in the thread as far as I can tell), while I am arguing that someone's lack of belief that the president thinks long and hard about his moral positions is not sufficient evidence that such a person has an irrational hatred of the president. I would normally have left it there since we may not even be talking about the same thing, but it seems like your argument is for a unified theory that not only is the president moral, but he is moral to the extent that the belief earlier expressed is evidence that the person holding it both hates the president, and does so irrationally. I was wholly incredulous of that claim, but was seeing if there were some obvious part of it that I missed. That is the confusing part. Does statement actually make sense to you without 5 or 6 extra assumptions in between?

>Person X believes that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions -> Person X has an irrational hatred of the president

My issue is with that deduction. There is a logical jump somewhere in here that I am not able to follow. You reference multiple third parties and contrast them to the president as if to suggest that whatever differences that they may have means that it is clear that this hypothetical Person X has an irrational hatred of the president, or that a particular decision that the president has made proves this, but these are not obvious conclusions to me. As for why "he didn't want to bomb random Muslims but the democratic party, their propaganda outlets, and their commisars did", I actually do not have to explain that. The reason that I have given is in no way refuted by or related to this claim.

Instead, could you explain why the opinion that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions is sufficient evidence that the holder of that opinion irrationally hates the president?

On an unrelated note, I do not hate the president, but also believe that either he does not think long and hard about his moral positions, or simply does not actually share them with the public. In my case, I believe this because he appears to rapidly shift his opinions, attitudes, and words in a way that makes it difficult to infer what he believes, or even what he wants people to believe that he believes.

If you are asking that question without the parent as context, I would say that it seems like the only distinction between morals and preferences is one of definition.