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.

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.

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.

Wonder if ads actually makes up for the difference or if it’s just under priced to push people towards it.

I reckon you guys are on the right track with your comments. Something to add in relation to why streaming services are introducing an ad tier. Introducing adverts introduces variable pricing for the streaming services. Meaning they can earn the same base rate, but for say the next season of Bridgerton, or one of their other really popular shows they can make a kind of ‘super profit’ by selling the ad space on top of their base rate per subscriber account.

What this user said.

Be the Post maker of your own subject. Sometimes i spend so long on aussiezone, (my local server, represent!!), i forget the rest of lemmy is there.

I get a pretty cold hard slap when i jump into a political chat and some of the more extreme lemmy elements are settin up camp. Those guys be crazy. And i’m here for it!!!

Habit is key.

OP if you have a relative interest in seeing a community function better do try to post more yourself.

Find some dnd sites, even if its the biggest most well known ones, and post things you find interesting from there. Use the ‘Body’ to add your own perspective.

Start small, maybe try to Post one article every Wednesday night, and one article every Sunday night. Once you start a habit you’ll naturally begin exploring forr new and interetsting resources.

I dunno, good luck! :)

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’.

Yeah no, of course. I understand. For me it’s a problem i never considered with all those stadiums. The worst the ones over here would get is like hail once a year, or a precipitation of Queenslanders every so often ;p

Yeah theres that comradery. “Tailgating with more sweat” thats such a vivid description lol! You need to be on these guys marketing team with lines like that.

$20/hour is actually a fairly reasonable hourly rate for the US isn’t it. I’m just going off min wage being $15 in a lot of States now

Wow. That takes self serve to whole other level. I get the stadiums are big, but that kind of request needs to come with consideration, even reduced ticket prices could do the teick if they’re asking fans.

Or yeah, they could just pay fair value for services rendered, i know alien concept isn’t it! Lol

Are attendees going along with it?

I haven’t been to the NFL, but friends took me to a baseball game while i’s there. It was a Mariners game, very fun night. But i felt the pressure to spend on everything as soon as you walked in, it felt like the stadium was incompetition against each specatator over the contents of your wallet.

Luigi Zingales, a Chicago University Economist, recently did a Q&A where he talked about the two meanings of competition that the English language roles into the one word, that of competitions to defeat an opponent, and competitions creating something in kind. There are parts of the community that have opted for the first definition and act in all times against their opponents, as you say “weaponized greed”. What they don’t realise is what makes the market a force for good is acting with competitors, following the second defintion.

A good example is the downtown nightlife district of a city. Alone those bars and eateries might be nice establishments, but if they’re the only option in town their product offering can become stale, but together in competition with each other they act to collectively create this fantastic and flexible destination for a night out.

As for hostile public spaces the same happens here l, in Australia, so so much. I even have to catch myself and correct my preconceived notions when i see someone laying in a park. I suppose the only difference is the economic interests are more evenly weighted, due to no detroit-like lobbyists.

Its also societal construction and built environment issues. There is a genuine lack of agency in the Millenial generation, and likely less again in the younger generations.

Take the built environment, its unfriendly to those with low resources, leading to isolation or dependency on those with resources, often boomer parents. The suburbs stretch on and on, all services public or private have been bundled together more and more, think super hospitals. Then they are placed further away because they now serve vast areas, there is also a fragility in these cost cutting ‘efficiencies’. If your one hospital is out of action what do you do? Even down to ever wider roads for ever larger cars, this impacts other activities an area could be engaging in.

Societal construction has undermined any civic engagement organisations that don’t have a pro-owner slant. Its telling that unions have been smashed, but chambers of commerce? They are basically unions for business owners. It’s also an unwillingness of boomers to let go of power in certain community groups. How many of these locak groups are almost exclusively full of very mature age people?

My last point i think ties into the above though. The X’ers, Millenials, and younger are getting hit progressively harder by the wage worker depression, while no risk financial speculation, and asset driven wealth inflation, line the beds of those with the means to participate. Usually the older, or children with inherited wealth. This means longer working hours for less relative income, a need to keep upgrading your ‘skillset’ to prove your value to HR, creating a poorer strata financially and in time. If the younger generations weren’t forced to change careers every six or so years to finally reach an ‘adult’ job, we would have time to participate more in our society.

I think the Millenial generation (mine) is going to be rather boring in the footnotes of history. (X’ers had a bit of punk and metal that keeps them spicy.) We won’t have the resources to be anything but rather conservative in our policies (classically so, not the radical republican-conservatism of the 80’s on).

On the bright side, in my country, Australia, the predicted shift to the ‘right’ as people get older seems to have broken. Which signals a rejection of the policies those parties stand for. Which are the policies causing the most acute problems for Millenials, and generations younger. So, maybe as the boomers fade, a generational solidarity will rise due to a union of desires, and our countrys will begin to feel less like generational trench warfare. That is my firm hope for the future of my time on this planet with you lot.