If the best you can do with $44B is break even after 4 years that is a piss poor investment.

The principle is the same reason why when you distill at 180 degrees, you do not wind up with a distillate with zero water in it.

Your statement about methanol being in the heads is also wrong, because the evaporative properties change when you have ethanol, methanol, and water all mixed together. It's not as simple as the naive "lower boiling point means it comes out first".

Here's more info if you're interested https://fx5.com/dispelling-misconceptions-about-methanol-hea...

There's no way to produce a dangerous amount of methanol at homebrew scales unless you are trying to do so.

Methanol does not all come out in the heads. It is present across the whole distillation run. There's just not enough of it to be dangerous.

If you make a better vulnerability scanner and find a bunch of vulnerabilites, you should try to get them fixed before making all the results public.

If it goes to actually 0%, there are problems. Otherwise it's a resource that can be traded against to grift personal funds.

Though you're right that machines whose exteriors are customized and unusual are less likely to get stolen.

It's like saying, computation requires nonzero energy. Is that a feature or a bug? Neither, it's irrelevant, because it's a physical constant of the universe that computation will always require nonzero energy.

If confabulation is a physical constant of intelligence, then like energy per computation, all we can do is try to minimize it, while knowing it can never go to zero.

There was a headline saying they were, and the actual article showed they were doing nothingbof the sort.

If you read HN headlines, and don't even bother to click into the comments and see everyone calling out the headline as bogus, you might think something like your statement is true.

Ah, the "I'm right, it's the world that's wrong!" argument.

> In the same vein, I didn't purchase psychedelic mushrooms; I merely made a donation to the institution that subsequently dispensed them to me as a religious sacrament. From a legal standpoint, it wasn't a sale.

There's actually some pretty strict laws surrounding donations and gifts to prevent exactly this. You haven't found some legal loophole, you've just reinvented tax evasion and fraud.

You're at least consistent in the amount you know about sales law and severance pay.

Happy to. A service is any activity that one party performs (or refrains from performing) in exchange for consideration from another. That's basic contract law. Every lawyer learns this in 1L.

> it makes blackmail a "service"

No, because blackmail involves a threat to do something you have no right to do, or a threat to reveal information as leverage. A company offering severance isn't threatening you with anything. They're offering you money you aren't otherwise entitled to. You're free to walk away with nothing and disparage to your heart's content.

> you're conflating legal and moral arguments

I'd say that's been your move this entire thread. You keep asserting that severance is compensation for past work as though it's a legal fact, when legally it isn't. It's a voluntary offer. Then when the legal framework doesn't support you, you pivot to "well it's a basic expectation," which is a moral argument. I'm fine having either conversation, but pick one.

> It's not restricting factual statements

Agreed that overbroad non-disparagement clauses are bad. But "this clause is sometimes too broad" and "this clause is inherently coercive" are very different claims, and you've been arguing the latter.