You could have seeded nonsense into Google any time in the past nearly 3 decades

We could have, hence why we did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bombing

is this legal in US? that sounds absurd.

and is it legal for a judge to be involved in business?

Oh, I missed that. I am not sure whether it behaves similarly to Google in this.

no. safety of bitcoin is based on cryptography, not lack of electrical power. that would be most bizarre case of security through obscurity.

be aware that google results are personalized for you, so that really doesn’t say much about what “average user” sees…

screenshot is not from google, my bad.

It is not. It is open source, there will be updates when there will be updates, they are not pressured by board of directors to release something that doesn’t work.

I suggest checking the discord for more information, including endless stream of screenshots, to get an idea about state of the project.

I have edited the comment above to add link

Have you tried flightgear?

https://www.flightgear.org/

https://discord.com/invite/r2HJZ7X

On the ground, we are also talking about fast internet, not about internet with “really wide bandwidth”

What the fuck was the cat doing that far away?

xmpp is a protocol, it doesn’t have interface. you may be thinking about some specific software using xmpp, in that case you have to say what software you are talking about.

Thank you

ok, so that described strategy sounds almost like something that should be illegal. in fact it sounds very similarly to lot of stories that were happening here in central europe after fall of communism, when the state-owned companies were changing ownership and ending up in personal hands. lot of these stories did not end up well.

but no matter what, that strategy only covered part of the acquisition price, even according to these articles, so that is still not a reason for musk to intentionally drive the company into the ground.

twitter filing for bankruptcy doesn’t absolve him of his loans. the loans are musk’s, not twitter’s.

The thing is, if the business shutters he no longer has to pay back that 13Bn, nor will he likely have to pay back a fair amount of the other debts.

why would you think that? most of the money were his loans, not some 3rd party investors. why tf would he not have to pay back?

yeah, guess what, this is not your average home mortgage :D it is more complicated, but short story is yes, musk paid with his own money and money backed by his other property.

and no matter what, it still doesn’t explain this nonsense you said:

I think the point is to destroy it so he doesn’t have to pay back what he borrowed to buy it.

not sure where this absurd idea of yours comes from, but it is still nonsense. no matter where he borrowed the money from, he has to return them, even if he drowns the twitter in gasoline and then set it on fire.

On April 20, Musk disclosed that he had secured financing provided by a group of banks led by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, MUFG, Société Générale, Mizuho Bank, and BNP Paribas, for a potential tender offer to acquire the company.[27][28] The funding included $7 billion of senior secured bank loans; $6 billion in subordinated debt; $6.25 billion in bank loans to Musk personally, secured by $62.5 billion of his Tesla stock; $20 billion in cash equity from Musk, to be provided by sales of Tesla stock and other assets; and $7.1 billion in equity from 19 independent investors.[29][30][31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk

he did. the fact he had to borrow the cash is irrelevant, he now owes someone 44B.

I do think he was essentially forced to buy it.

he was, but it doesn’t contradict what i said. if he had a way to back out of his stupid bragging offer for 1b, and all he cared about was money, the reasonable thing would be to pay the fine, instead of paying 44 billion for something that doesn’t generate profit.

More to the point though, I do wonder why he didn’t just pay the billion dollars to get out of the deal

I don’t know that he’s not in it for the money.

your first sentence explains he is not in it for money, if money were the concern, eating the 1b fine would be logical thing to do (i am not fact checking that 1b piece of information, i trust you on this).

with his 270 billion net worth - which by the way includes assets not necessarily liquid cash

that’s how it works, no one has 270 billion in cash

I think the point is to destroy it so he doesn’t have to pay back what he borrowed to buy it.

that doesn’t make sense, destroying twitter doesn’t absolve him of obligation to return money he borrowed.

it’s just that he could take big risks

yes, that is definitely part of his success. and since this strategy got him to position of richest person in the world, it is pretty clear that “genius at losing money” is not really accurate description of situation.

as for twitter, he clearly is not in it for the money, otherwise he wouldn’t be there to begin with. he originally hoped to buy position of cheered and admired hero and when he failed, he settled for a position of hated douchebag. infamous still means people know you, i guess 🤷‍♂️

that’s why he is the richest person in the world with 270B net worth.

look, i hate the asshole as much as the other guy, but changing meaning of words and underestimating the enemy never helped anyone.