Don't forget to add bees to your army.

thetab.com/2025/06/18/tragic-f…

Tragic final words of Prince William’s billionaire friend who died after swallowing a bee

Final words and last photo have been revealed of Sunjay Kapur, a billionaire friend of Prince William, who died after swallowing a bee.

^{Suchismita Ghosh (The Tab)}

Just to be clear sorry paint over flight surfaces is not something anyone flying can just ignore.

It is very able to bring down an aircraft if the wronge surfaces are stuck due to such paint. And most modern aircraft surfaces do not allow huge movement spaces. (Excepting some limited early stealth models that needed to grow at speed. But materials tech has hugely changed since early 60 when early stealth aircraft leaked fuel at take off)

Is it terrorism likely not. I at least cannot make an argument where tempory lack of 2 aircraft is a threat of terror.

But it is damage to the aircraft that requires funding to correct before use.

When I got a new desktop PC this year I specifically avoided anything with Intel in it because of how bad they dropped the ball with their GPUs basically disintegrating.

This is just a small glimpse into how Intel is breaking down from the inside. It may take a few years but if the US government doesn't intervene somehow on their behalf I truly think Intel might be done for in the next 5 years.

But if history is any indicator, they will. "Too big to fail!"

What's crazy is, people will say "See how capitalism fails us?" when that is socialized capitalism. The government should not be bailing out any companies. If they can't survive without government money, they don't need to exist.

socialized capitalism

I think I understand your complaint, but I'd say "free market" rather than "capitalism". But regardless of what we call it, it doesn't actually exist unless you have a more powerful external system regulating it.

Start with a truly free-market capitalist system. One company manages to temporarily pull ahead (through luck and skill). The rational thing for the company to do isn't "make better products" (that's hard) but "destroy competing companies" (much easier). And the end-product would be that the company becomes a government so it can force consumers to pay.

So I'd argue that socialized capitalism (which I'm picturing as a socialist system that permits certain specific free markets and handles the fallout of business failures) is what you actually want.

Not exactly. And larger companies simply CANT destroy competition without assistance from the government.

If you are free to choose what to buy, and who to buy it from, you can choose to buy from the startup. You can choose to buy from the guy running a business out of the back of his pickup. Or out of his garage. Or any number of options.

Problem is, right now we have our government enabling monopolies. Propping up failing, or non-profitable businesses by making it illegal to do business without spending millions or more on regulations that seem good on the surface, but when you start to dig into them, you see the vast majority of them were actually pushed by the big name businesses to stifle competition.

Our wallets should be the only regulation. Would you willingly buy products from a company that doesn't respect the environment? No? Well guess what! That's the power of the free market.

There's, right now, a hybrid truck manufacturer in Canada that is staring down the barrel of excessive regulations that will limit their ability to build hybrid semi trucks.

How many other would-be entrepreneurs simply don't even bother trying because there's no way they can afford it?

How many small 1 to 2 person businesses would be in existence right now to compete with all these large companies?

When I read your message, I get the impression that you think of "The Government" as this independent actor. I see it as a system that is primarily controlled by wealthy people. Either directly or through their funding advertisements (including astroturfing/bot-farms) to promote what they want.

So the larger companies do get government assistance... because they are the government. And this isn't some kind of weird coincidence. It's fundamental to capitalism's operation. You can't have a system that's based on capital and then have it be unbiased towards entities who have vastly more capital!

It's odd that you think it's fundamental to capitalism when it's exactly the opposite. True capitalism is an unfettered marketplace.

What we have now is a system here the profits are private, but the losses are socialized.

You may think that's an effect of capitalism, but it most definitely is not.

You are conflating a system of governance with a system of economics. And I get it, because in a controlled economy, the government is usually the one doing the controlling.

What we have is something in the middle, taking the worst aspects of truly free-market capitalism, and marrying it with the worst aspects of a controlled economy.

Our government the picks winners in this setup we have. Instead of letting the market decide.

Your issue is that you see all the things this half-breed, partially-socialist economy gives us, and you blame it on the market. But the market didn't get us here.

History tells me what will happen if we finally give in, and give total control of the economy over to the politicians. And I do not want that for my children, or their children.

Competition.

Without force, how can they stop a small player from offering a competitive option?

Without force

Whoah, whoah. Why'd you rule that out?

Your business plan: quality goods at reasonable prices.
My business plan: hire some goons to kill you and take your stuff.

Historically, this has a lot of precedence.

Because I'm not an anarchist. There is a role for government in maintaining its monopoly on the use of force.

But nothing else.