Out of all the drugs that I’ve been on while having sex, I was surprised to find that mushrooms/acid was the best.

2/3rds of Americans don’t know what AI is or the limitations of LLMs.

It’s not some crazy conspiracy to say this doesn’t look like an accident

“Apple didn’t know De Niro hadn’t signed off on that one as the final version”

Then they are at fault for not verifying they are putting the right words on the teleprompter

“If you’re going to attribute an action to a company as a whole, then it at least needs to be a decision made by a high-level employee and not some peon.”

I’ve had many experiences with companies that fire “peons” for bad PR or misrepresenting the views of the company or however HR wants to word it to avoid legal problems.

It is very easy for CEOs or upper management or middle management to pass down orders that are worded in a way that imply what they want workers to do without saying it in a legally binding way.

“The idea that Apple decided to just unilaterally delete portions of his speech at the last minute, without his consent, is among the least plausible scenarios.”

Then why is it the first conclusion that De Niro and many others came to?

“Anybody with any actual authority at the company is smart enough to know how stupid that would be.”

Because it looks like they are censoring his speech.

CODA is irrelevant here.

Apple admitted they made a mistake with the teleprompter.

We can only speculate why it happened.

Considering the context of what was removed I doubt it was a coincidence.

If Apple wanted him to only talk about certain things during his speech they could’ve communicated that before he accepted their request for him to give a speech.

He probably would’ve turned down the request.

You acknowledge that it is common for actors to do what he did so it is safe to say Apple knew also.

So Apple takes the “it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission” approach and plays dumb.

So… the kind of situation where Apple would want more viewers.

I don’t buy it. Those decisions always include the actor for obvious reasons.

“Oops! We aCciDeNtLy cut out the part that might cause insurrection supporters to not watch our award show! Aww shucks our mistake increased our ratings.”

If they didn’t want to hear what HE had to say then why give him an award and a mic?

It is very common for actors to use their speeches as a chance to speak about issues important to them. From Joaquin Phoenix all the way back to Marlon Brando.

This is an obvious attempt from Apple to censor a speech they asked for.

Insurance contracts are written/worded in a way that allow denial of most claims without much effort. But hard to understand so it is unnoticed by the customer and only the claims adjuster that has read the contract a thousand times would notice.

The difference is…

a publicly traded insurance company is required by the shareholders that fund it to make larger profits, every year, year after year, forever.

They attempt to achieve this impossible goal of infinite growth by denying more and more claims, while charging more.

A government program like universal healthcare does not need to deny claims. Universal healthcare serves the voters that voted for it. Not shareholders that push companies to destroy themselves for infinite growth.

And universal health care isn’t insurance so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

When I was a kid my dads house caught on fire. The fire was caused by old wiring so the insurance claim was denied.

They weren’t worried about verifying the condition of the wiring when they were collecting my dad’s insurance payments. And they didn’t return the money he paid into it after denying the claim. So we ended up homeless even after my father had spent all that money on insurance to prevent it.

If he had all those insurance payments in a bank account we could’ve at least afforded a hotel or apartment while we figured out what to do.

I realize that there are situations where insurance can be beneficial.

I’m just sharing what I’ve learned from working as a claims adjuster. The company I worked for created incentives for denying claims. Customers were often lied to about what is covered by the person selling the insurance. We often shared technicalities that were found in the contract that allowed us to deny more claims.

This did not only happen at the company I worked for. It is common practice in the insurance industry.

I’ve worked as a claims adjuster. It was my job to find ways to deny claims so that my employer could make more profit. My employer was very clear about that.

Even if the insurance company is profitable, they will always want more.

Publicly traded insurance companies have an obligation to their shareholders to make larger profits year over year. The shareholders never say “we’ve made enough profit on investing, we dont need more profit”.

Why?

I’m aware some insurance is required by law.

Considering publicly traded insurance companies need to make larger profit margins than their previous year. Every year. And the government doesn’t. It’s safe to say the insurance company will deny more claims and you will get less and less than what you pay into it over time.

Either way everyone is better off saving that money so they can actually use it if they need it.

For an insurance company to exist it has to spend less covering claims than it collects in payments.

Otherwise they end up bankrupt.

Even if you got back every dollar you spent on insurance, there would be nothing left over to spend on staff or any other part of their business.

This means anyone with insurance is better off taking their payments and saving it for when they need something covered.

Insurance is a scam.