Gorgritch_Umie_Killa

He bought it because he was going to be forced to https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-did-elon-musk-agree-080448660.html

I really dislike how this fact is being forgotten. There is no ‘big brain’ conspiracy going on here he got caught out making an offer that he didn’t actually mean to be taken seriously. The rest has been making the best, for himself, of a bad situation.

Also this article only gets to the really interesting question in the last twenty words or so. ‘Why are people still on there?’ Thats the analyses good journalists could be focusing on.

Maybe its supposed to be, “Out with the teapot in with the mug”?

The car industry execs should be laughing their heads off at naive bank execs assuming they know more about it than the car execs. Don’t they think the car execs already know what the risk and competitive nature of their own business.

Guess what bankers, this is how you produce positive growth in a real productive industry, and its risky business. Instead the bankers prescription assumes managed decline.

It’s like that new guy at work who constantly tells everyone about ‘hacks’ only they’ve discovered, when everybody already knows about them.

Someone call Mr Squiggle, that red line ain’t very straight!

Look random people on the street might find it a fun interlude to their day :) I know you weren’t completely though due to the personal example you referred to a couple comments back.

However, you didn’t specify a method, said brother-in-law enters into the political discussions. From an outsider’s perspective, (me), there was no indication.

Also,

will also

I used these words in my first reply, not to deny your experience, but to add to it. The general nature of the word,

people,

in that part of your comment followed by an absolute statement spurred my entry. I think it’s important to highlight varied reasons people have for doing the same things.

You spoke in one part of the comment generally, the other part specifically. My reply attempted to accept your specific experience, while engaging in the general discussion indicated about ‘general people’ happening alongside it.

I don’t see how what you’re saying is related to the above two comments. But I largely agree with what you’ve said.

Although, i’ve no reason to wish you such a lengthy, or any jail term, and i believe jail, even 50 years, is too soft a punishment for Putin for all he’s done.

Calling someone normal isn’t an insult to the rest of us, its an insult to the person in ‘power’. They have found themselves in a position to make a real difference in this world and acted on their worst, and boringly common, self interested instincts.

You’re right in what you say about the UN, and unfortunately after the military debacles of it’s early years, and the unwillingness to participate in its actions by countries in the pursuit of their own self interests, Russia a notable example, it may go the way of the League.

An exceptionally bad loss of what could be an extremely effective institution in this Century, if countries like my own were to redouble their efforts to support it and recognise it’s importance.

Good water thrown. I only want to add the assesment of authoritarians is too rigid.

They are people, and therefore, just like all of us are fallible and susceptible to great personalities and presentations, like you stated.

The world shouldn’t treat these people as somehow different and apart from the rest of us. It gives them a mystique they don’t deserve. The same can often be said for the famous or wealthy.

While i find your derogatory comments about concussed goldfish disappointingly predictable, the point is by saying ‘both sides are the same’ or ‘both are as bad as the other’ isn’t really a political opinion.

Its a statement that withdraws from engaging in the differences in party positions on specific subject or policy positions by broad brushing them as the same.

For instance, a flounder might say to a butterfly fish, that, goldfish (concussed or not), are all the same, just to stop talking to the butterfly fish and get out of its reef! :)

Sometimes i find people will also use it as a ‘discussion shut down’ when they don’t want to get pulled into a larger conversation about politics.

They have their reasons, like knowing they have little knowledge on the subject, or knowing the person they’re talking to and not wishing to engage with them too heavily (i may be guilty of employing this tactic at times).

I really hope its a jury trial, and they prove to be very useful. Interesting strategy Google went for.

You may not be an AI fan, but i strongly suspect you’re an AI space heater.

I feel compelled to represent as a moderator of c/perth/westernaustralia over on the Aussie-Zone server.

There are tots-defs ten or twenty people here that will understand this hop, skip and a jump reference.

So, ah, yeah, sure showed you! 3! pffft!

Also, would they have, anything to talk about? … ‘cricket noises’…

Good illustrative example.

I’m always hesitant to assume growth will always reassert itself in the end though. You know the old saying, ‘past performance is not an indicator of future performance’, type thing. After all extinction is a thing.

Um, i suppose you could apply the effect of the black plague on middle ages europe.

Estimated to have killed 1/3 of all people. There was a subsequent rise in wages/worker bargaining power attributed to the lack of labour supply.

I suppose thats an example of rock bottom and coming back with some benefit.

I wouldn’t call it ‘bouncing’ back though, more like struggling on with a sliver of silver on those grey clouds. Not an adviseable course for a country to take.

Closed loops are a pretty steep expectation. I’m pretty sure (with no evidence to back me up) with the amount of importers, suppliers, manufacturers, retailers in the supply chain for a product on a shelf, it would be a costly proposition to attempt closed loop.

More costly than using a system of levys to promote behavioural change. Which is the idea behind the system i’s suggesting in the previous comment.

Its about changing the system for the better to generate the fewest negative externalities possible. If a closed loop increases costs more than a system of levys, then everyone will be squeezed more than necessary to get the same result, making negative externalities, like black markets, fraud, more likely than they need be.

Cigarettes in Australia are a great example of this in action. There is a black market for Cigarettes here because they are so expensive from the retailers, but the barriers to widespread black market adoption are still perceived as too high for the greater majority of smokers. The result is a small black market, which will almost always exist for any product you can think of, but the government has tightened the screws on smokers in the public market to make it as uncomfortable process as possible for the sale and purchase of Cigarettes. Until the introduction of younger generations vaping, and the lack of younger generations similar experiences with Cigarettes ill effects, the policy position led to a hard disincentive that worked to decrease smoking rates. But, as always, time and creativity need a reaction that we are still trying to get right.

A better system is to require all grocery/food/packaging, customer facing retailers to record all sales and from which suppliers those products were bought.

Then charge the retailer the average cost of ‘recycling’ or ‘to the planet’, or another measure of cost.

This will increase costs on all products, but by design more on the costs of hard to recycle goods and packaging.

Charge retailers that daily, watch end to end, from supplier/producer to consumer, behaviour change and iterate accordingly.

Start off with an industry sector though, like grocery stores, most are bricks and mortar, and have high brand acknowledgement so can’t easily escape regulation. The key is to charge the location of sale, not the companies ‘HQ’.

Long time reddit lurker here. I’m active now i’m here. I wonder how many peeps there are here like me?

So, a little while ago climate change deniers used the fact of fluctuations in temperature throughout the year as a basis for a false claim that climate scientists were hiding the ‘real’ data in the less jumbly plots you suggest the use of. (And any sensible person would see the benefits of).

Whoever produced this is likely aware of those cynical and false claims, and decided they don’t want any risk the point they are making, being similarly undermined.