It doesn't have to be the most really, but it's fair that they get some monetary returns commensurate with the value provided. All human society is based on an exchange of value, after all.
But realistically speaking, billions of investor money means that nothing short of the "most money" will be good enough.
His ownership percentage is similar to Elon's stake in Tesla, you can quibble over details (Series B vs A). His associates are teaming over Polymarket and now Palantir is in charge of policing the market.. sort of a fox guarding the hen house situation?
I don't think there's any issue with asking when no explanation is provided and it's unclear to you. Whereas complaining about it is just tedious and doesn't add anything of value.
You perfectly encapsulated how I felt as a kid pushing my computer to its limit just to learn and try new things. I didn't have a Mac, but the experience was identical.
> Editing what is billed as an archive defeats the purpose of an "archive".
No, certain edits are understandable and required. Even the archive.org edits its pages (e.g. sticks banners on them and does a bunch of stuff to make them work like you'd expect).
Even paper archives edit documents (e.g. writing sequence numbers on them, so the ordering doesn't get lost).
Disclosing exactly what account was used to download a particular page is arguably irrelevant information, and may even compromise the work of archiving pages (e.g. if it just opens the account to getting blocked).
The relevant part of the page to archive is the content of the page, not the user account that visited the page. Most sane people would consider two archives of the same page with different user accounts at the top, the same page.
Don't be surprised by this, there are a lot more edits than you think. For example, CSS is always inlined so that pages could render the same as it was archived.
reply