Previously, if you searched for "mortgage calculator" in Google, you'd get one at the top, embedded in the page. It was fast, simple and did what you wanted. I guess because of "competition" it was removed at some point. Now all the top results are terrible. The sites are slow. They ask too many questsions. They're clearly trying to generate leads and sell ads. Whereas Google's just... worked. There are good calculators out there but they don't rank as highly.
How exactly is this good for consumers?
My point is that a lot of publishers are what I call "low value". They're rent-seekers. They have easily obtained information, often user-generated, and their role is to gatekeep that and make you click just one more page to get a result because hey that's another slew of ads they can show you.
I'm sympathetic to the argument that LLMs steal. At the same time, we have to recognize that a lot of publishers are intentionally useless rent-seekers so it's hard for me to feel sorry for them.
This was 15+ years ago now but Verizon (and others?) used Flash (because browsers still shipped with support for that in the 2000s) to create an undeletable cookie. This was settled for low 7 figures.
Privacy legislation has advanced a lot since then and the EU doesn't play around with GDPR violations, particularly when it's so egregious. I don't expect a $32B fine or settlement but it won't surprise me if this costs Meta $1B+.
So the 2017 tax cuts that introduced this change were a massive boon to US companies, particularly the tax holiday on repatriated foreign profits.
So why do we need to give these large, very profitable companies another tax cut?
Or maybe we should be asking, what of the 2017 tax cuts are they willing to give up to pay for this change?
Remember that after a few years, none of this matters. You might be paying $200k in salary to an engineer and can only deduct $40k, but you're also making deductions "earned" in previous years?
Basically, I reject the argument that this change is responsible for layoffs. It is not. And changing it won't lead to a hiring binge. Layoffs exist to suppress wages in these largest employers.
Maybe we should allow a 100% software development tax deduction if the company hasn't fired more than 1-2% of its workforce in the last calendar year. Or maybe only if the workforce is unionized.
This whole thing is so anti-worker. It doesn't have to be this way.
for the big companies, this makes enough sense, but theres been new businesses opened since 2017, who did not benefit from that tax holiday. why should they be dealimg with this tax hike for everytime they grow their business?
i dont know how this is anti-worker? it's an extra cost to growing the number of people youre hiring, where you need them for 5 years. i guess businesses should start witholding RSUs and starting bonuses until youve been there for 5 years to match your tax ammortization?
I'm really starting to believe that capitalism as a Great Filter is the solution to the Fremi Paradox.
Declining birth rates are clearly a response to the deterioating economic conditions of most people. Stagnant real wages, skyrocketing costs, ever-more inaccessible housing and so on. Housing debt, student debt, medical debt. The cost of childcare can reach $3000/month per child. If you want your child to have the best opportunities, it may well cost $1 million or more between all those costs to raise a child. At a time when people can barely provide for themselves.
Of course pets are surrogate children for some people. And even that's being ruined by capitalism as private equity moves into the vet space to squeeze every last dollar from people.
Another aspect to this is social control. One reason Western societies have been relatively stable is the method of control is treats, basically. Social media, pets, smartphones, etc all mollify the masses. In more totalitarian societies, the threat of violence is a more typical method of control. Think of something like the Stasi in East Germany.
The profit motive is destroying the treats. If you're on the verge of homelessness and can barely feed yourself, skyrocketing costs of pet ownership are a real issue. We're rapidly approaching a point where people think they'll never be able to retire and really have nothing to live for.
Rather than the ultra-wealthy being slightly less wealthy so the rest of society, which is necessary for their wealth to exist, can have something good in their lives, we're instead becoming increasingly oppressive. Over-policing, militarizing police, crushing protests (as per this last weekend in LA), etc.
Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. And to think, all a lot of people need to be happy is a roof over their head, not having to have 3 jobs and being able to have a dog.
6 of the people who think all this is completely fine are Supreme Court justices.
All of this is enabled by the completely illegitimate Supreme Court decision that made the president a god-king by inventing out of thin air the concept of "presidential immunity".
Not only is the scope of "official duties" so broad to make prosseuction next to impossible but the majority went out of its way to say you can't even examine the communications between the president and the DoJ.
This contract dispute has nothing to do with Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. Cancelling SpaceX contracts for political reasons would be wrong but not criminal.
The point is we won’t find out because presidential immunity also protects against discovery. Cases that previously could have been decided on the merits won’t even make it to adjudication.
It was not out of thin air. There's a reason why the impeachment process is in the Constitution -- and why it's perfectly normal for countries to have Parliamental Immunity and processes quite similar to the US impeachment for government ministers.
We have legislative immunity called the speech and debate clause. It doesn't shield lawmakers from other crimes, nor should it, and it certainly doesn't imply some sort of expansive executive immunity.
The founders were rebelling agaisnt an untouchable executive, remember?
If the founders thought it was so important the President not have immunity from all crimes they would have written it such rather than leaving it to interpretation.
> If the founders thought it was so important the President not have immunity from all crimes they would have written it such
They did; by writing in explicit immunities for some constitutional officers for certain activities, they implicitly rejected other immunities for those and other constitutional officers, by the legal principle “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”.
Well if the constitution does not explicitly grant a certain right it can’t just appear out of nowhere? At this point it’s about the “spirit” of the constitution not what is in the document itself since there is no mention of presidential immunity.
On the other hand it does grant the members of congress immunity under certain circumstances so it’s unlikely they just forgot about the president when writing it.
SpaceX is critical infrastructure to the US at this point and its continued availability and operation is of national security interest.
That may sound like it gives Elon power. It's the opposite, actually. No US administration will take lightly threats to national security infrastructure like this. The nuclear option for any administration is to nationalize SpaceX, which they absolutely could do.
Less nuclear: the US has a lot of control over what SpaceX does. The FAA (and to a lesser extent the NOAA) has to approve every launch. They could simply gorund SpaceX.
If you think SpaceX could simply move operations elsewhere, think again, The US prohibits ASML, a Dutch company, from selling EUV lithography machines to China.
Apart from all of that, SpaceX is absolutely dependant on US government funding and contracts. Withdrawing those, or even the threat of such, allows the US to wield a lot of power over SpaceX.
What's rather surprising about this feud is that Trump is currently the adult and has been uncharacteristically restrained in his response thus far. Of course, all that could change. It was Elon who heavily implied that Trump was a pedophile, which is an absolutely insane thing to do.
> nationalize SpaceX, which they absolutely could do.
This isn't at all clear. It's clear that they could easily compel them to prioritize and fulfill government contracts. Far less clear that they could just take it. It is clear that the current administration could "try" but such an effort might result in a lawsuit that lasts longer than the administration does and thereby become moot.
It may take a long time to be fully litigated, but the courts also take a while to act, and we've seen that this administration takes full advantage of this fact. The odds are also stacked against Elon here because the national security interests would likely make a compelling argument to stay any injunctions SpaceX might seek. SpaceX might prevail in the end, but the whole process would get very uncomfortable for Elon in the meantime.
Actually the defense production act provides a perfectly viable path actually supported by law to ensure that the governments interests are served.
An injunction would be entirely logical as it prevents irreparable harm based on a fanciful understanding of the law unlikely to prevail and hurts the government not at all.
Certainly the government trying to steal like a common criminal puts anyone in an uncomfortable position but the only real risk is the fact we live under incipient fascism.
> That may sound like it gives Elon power. It's the opposite, actually. No US administration will take lightly threats to national security infrastructure like this. The nuclear option for any administration is to nationalize SpaceX, which they absolutely could do.
A public-private partnership is the dream for any shareholder. Guaranteed revenue and profits funded by taxes, investment capital from the government on great terms, becoming "too big to fail", etc.
> It was Elon who heavily implied that Trump was a pedophile, which is an absolutely insane thing to do.
How is it insane to repeat what everyone already knows? The only novelty here is Musk himself saying it to his legions of followers, who would have been otherwise inclined to downplay the significance of it.
It's insane because of the implications: Musk was a major contributor to Trump's campaign, and a major advisor, and at the last minute he implies Trump is a pedophile?
This means Musk knowingly contributed to get a pedophile elected! He couldn't have learned this at the last minute, he obviously held this ace in his sleeve.
This already should "impeach" Musk (informally) in the eyes of his supporters: this is a guy who would help get a pedophile elected president if it would suit his business vision.
Not after the election, since he supported Trump (barring some disagreements) until a few weeks ago. They parted with a hug, just before this blowup.
So are we supposed to believe Musk just found out about the Epstein link, hidden in unreleased documents, in the last few days? It's extremely farfetched.
I think Musk has pluses and minuses. I think he does have some mental issues volatile and lash out and make poor decisions even if I do agree with some things and disagree with others. To be honest, he is someone that staked his reputation on completely verifiably and provably lying about the legitimacy of his ranking in a video game and at a time with all eyes on him besmirched a large streamer he previously has thought of partnering with on X as best by “bad at video games.” It’s just terrible judgment. I’m surprised the “normie” didn’t focus on kind of pathetic it looked to lie about videos games and instead they made wild accusations comparing him to the bad people from 30s.
This isn't the first time Musk has baselessly accused someone of pedophilia on social media.
He did it randomly to some guy he didn't like in Thailand who saved some kids trapped in a cave. He's probably done it other times.
It's just an Elon Musk thing. Go totally unhinged on social media and defame people without evidence. He does it all the time.
The only guy more famous than Musk for saying absolute nonsense on social media, is Trump.
It is all fake, lame, and nonsense.
What's shocking is that the people running our country are behaving like absolute children. I feel like they wouldn't be able to hold down a job at my company because they're so unhinged, they would have been fired long ago, and yet here they are, billionaires, deciding the fate of 350M people.
To be clear, I'm not debating the veracity of the accusation, I'm asking what it says about Musk that he claims to have knowingly helped elect president someone he knew to be a pedophile.
I mean, I would assume that anyone who's still a Musk supporter has no morals to speak of anyway, so I'm not sure why they would be concerned by this implication.
Wow, that is some amazing threading of the mental needle to focus blame on Musk. Doesn't this indictment apply to every single person who voted for Trump in 2024? Those pictures of Epstein, Trump, and Maxwell having themselves some grand old times have been popularly circulating for like a decade at this point.
If the indictment doesn't apply, then why can't Musk play the same card of "I didn't know/believe/accept" while he was supporting, but only recently has he "now come to know" ?
Why wouldn't I heap blame on Musk (as well as on Trump, mind you)? The guy's deranged and repulsive.
I don't think your objections are fair. Let's go over them:
The average Trump voter doesn't know much about Epstein, and certainly doesn't believe Trump was involved in anything with that scandal. Any evidence that may turn up would be considered "fake news" to them. Whatever you may think of Trump voters, and whatever things they really are to blame for, knowingly voting for someone they believe to be a pedophile isn't one of their sins.
Musk just implied Trump is a pedophile (or is suppressing certain documents because of his links to a pedophile). Musk also claims without him Trump wouldn't have been elected. These are Musk's claims, so he has thrown away any possible defenses of "but I didn't know/believe this" and "but I'm irrelevant in the grand scheme of things".
You also claim Musk could defend himself with "but I didn't know at the time". This is very, very weak. When exactly do you suppose he learned this? In the few days that have elapsed since this very public falling out, maybe even a few days before? Oh, please. You know you don't believe this, these two were heaping praise on each other and calling themselves friends for most of their collaboration since Trump's second term, and only now Musk found out about Epstein? What, an aide rushed this info to him just in time for their current breakup? Absurd.
Any way you slice it, Musk had this accusation up his sleeve the whole time, he just chose to deploy it now.
So again I must ask, what does this say -- in his fans' eyes -- about Musk as a person?
PS: You seem to believe I'm somehow defending Trump here. If that's your worry, let me be clear that I think Trump is a disgrace. I don't know whether he's a pedophile though, unlike Musk I don't claim to have seen any secret documents. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if both Trump and Musk are pedophiles, these aren't exactly examples of decent human beings.
PPS: it has also just occurred to me you could be wondering why I'm focusing on the outrageous things Musk has said, but not on the contradictory, absurd or just plain dumb things Trump is saying about Musk? Well, because Trump has an expiration date. I suppose he can do lots of immediate damage to Musk, but he must do so now. Musk, as the world's richest person, has a much longer shelf life and more time to do damage to the US and the rest of the world, and bizarrely, has a large cult following. So I wonder what his followers think.
IME Trump supporters will justify anything he does or may plausibly have done. They're too invested in him or have bought into the idea that the other must be so much worse.
Elon stans seem to have a similar mindset.
Getting folks to think critically about Elon's actions would require an Epstein video of Trump engaging in SA with a clearly underage child. Likely only if coming out of police evidence lockers sealed before AI video existed. And it would have to be reported widely and maybe even released publicly without cuts (only blurring).
This is also a left smear. Many conservatives have expressed dissatisfaction with this bill that is the focus of all this. It’s not true what you are saying. It’s not true that those that voted for him agree and justify everything. Regardless of what you may think of Covid response, many conservatives expressed disagreement with him on that as well.
It is not as if supporters will deny all but a clear video tape of such an incident. There is no evidence this is true and there is plenty of reason to think it does not exist. The fact that Trump turned on Epstein while he was alive and Epstein’s attorney tried to find ways to smear Trump because of his involvement with the prosecution stands at odds with Musk’s claim that many here are granting prima facie.
Trump has a reputation for walking in on women and teens in the dressing areas at his pageants. At least one of Epstein's GFs said Trump assaulted her. Epstein said he was Trump's closest friend.
It's very possible the Epstein files do have (or used to have) damning evidence. Though IME folks who call themselves MAGA are unlikely to take any evidence seriously.
Trump himself has said he believes he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it.
You're talking about Stacey Williams allegation a couple weeks before the election and right after those regarding Doug Emhoff? It's not as simple as piling on a list of allegations. If it is so possible why did Epstein not use it against Trump especially when Trump was trying to have adverse action inflicted on Epstein? As far as the 5th Avenue thing, this is another one of these things that happens on the left where they take all of his jokes so literally and just run with it. I saw another normie take from that Lawrence O'Donnell in which he was just beside himself up in arms over Trump's tweet about Biden being a robot was absolute proof that Trump believed in Biden robots and that he was mentally incapacitated. One can have criticism without it devolving into breathless derangement.
"I only just realized!" is obviously disingenuous, but it suffices for the routine plausible deniability.
The real distinction is whether you believe that someone who has done bad deeds can be supported for other reasons, or whether they need to be repudiated in their entirety. For example even if you know Trump is a child rapist (and you condemn child rape), but you think as President he's going to do good for the country, you can still support him for President while being intellectually consistent [0].
This is separate from the issue of whether the person who has done wrong should face justice (eg continuing, you can think that Trump should go to jail but modulo that not happening, that he will do good for the country [0]). And separate from the issue of whether someone in a position to facilitate justice happening has an overriding duty to do so (I don't think Musk is in this position either though. Trump's one actual skill is escaping consequences).
> This means Musk knowingly contributed to get a pedophile elected! He couldn't have learned this at the last minute, he obviously held this ace in his sleeve...
> This already should "impeach" Musk (informally) in the eyes of his supporters: this is a guy who would help get a pedophile elected president if it would suit his business vision.
The second does not immediately follow from the first. Modulo the larger distinction I made above, it may just be the case that every second powerful figure is some kind of child rapist or similarly morally bankrupt, and this has been normalized, so even if you have morals to be applied you just have to hold your nose to get anything done. I have no idea, but I do know Epstein was connected to a lot of people.
You're also imparting a narrower business vision rather than political or moral where such compromises would be see as more justified. So no, these events might indict Musk in your mind further, but I don't think this is a universal conclusion.
> Trump has an expiration date. I suppose he can do lots of immediate damage to Musk, but he must do so now. Musk, as the world's richest person, has a much longer shelf life and more time to do damage to the US and the rest of the world, and bizarrely, has a large cult following.
I've got the complete opposite take on this. Trump has his hands on the actual levers of power, power which continues to acrete the more he destroys our institutions. Whereas Musk seems close to his limit with buying Xitter and blackmailing politicians (about funding opponents). It feels like Musk is just an avatar of the terrible dynamics of wealth concentration, which are present regardless of him personally. While Trump is actively pushing our society off a cliff in a way we will not be able to come back from. Just a feeling per my own heuristics, I'll have to ponder this more.
[0] just to be very explicit this is certainly not my own view about Trump!
Everyone knows what? There have been no shortage of journalists trying to destroy him, where is the evidence. He was quite involved in assisting prosecutors against Epstein, as a civilian. As others have pointed, Musk does have a penchant for making this exact allegation, unfounded, against people he disagrees with, even over the most bizarre of things. If we all just say we know allegations against people we disagree will true, without basis in fact, then we are no better than parliamentary monarchy for which we fought a revolution against, let alone kangaroo courts around the world.
But Musk is not implying any of those less-than-flattering things. Nobody knows what Musk actually thinks, but what he implied is pretty clear. He calls it "a bomb", and we all know what that means.
And this matters, because Musk was a major campaign contributor and advisor to someone he has now implied to be a pedophile. What does this say about Musk?
As per usual, every accusation from a narcissist is a confession.
You know who absolutely is connected to Epstein? Elon's brother, Kimbal (allgedly) [1].
And while not related to Epstein but is just gross and in a similar ballpark, Elon's father Errol, had a stepdaughter from his wife's first marriage, Jana Bezuidenhout, who grew up in his house from age 4. He later went on to father two children with Jana (the first when she was 30, I believe) [2]. It's unclear when the relationship began. The only public statements are after Jana had a break-up.
It doesn't surprise me at all that a guy so gross in his personal life comes from a gross family. Everything about Musk is deranged.
Do you remember the (not so distant era) when Musk was the nerd's and hacker's darling? SpaceX, his genius, his vision! This was before we knew much about his personal life and opinions. It seems so long ago now... Before he took to Twitter to claim it was OK to coup countries for their resources, or started naming children like mathematical formulas.
He's a symptom. It is our society, globally, that has become deranged. Almost all public figures are a shade of scumbag these days. Maybe they always were and there is no longer any reason to hide it.
I can speak for Argentina, where the situation (the sharp deterioration of public discourse, the "rule by Twitter posts", flamewars between government officials, incredibly aggressive public discourse, obvious fraud that doesn't get prosecuted if it's done by some political factions, etc) mirrors the US in many ways. I would say in Argentina we repeat tragedy in the form of farce, except what's going on in the States is also a farce.
Personally, I don't jump to conclusions based on vague statements or evidence.
> What does this say about Musk?
Who knows? Musk has thin associations with Epstein and Maxwell as well, he is a proven liar, is at times visibly manic, and has been reported to drop relationships at a whim when challenged.
There could be plenty of things driving his behavior, but I don't think this informs anything new about his character.
You got me wrong: I'm not talking about the veracity of the accusation, I'm asking about what it says about Musk (regardless of its truth).
Especially in the eyes of Musk fans.
This guy is now effectively claiming he helped get someone elected president whom he knew was a pedophile. Musk claims Trump got elected thanks to his support (again, Musk claims this). He also claims Trump is a pedophile.
So what do Musk fans think about Musk (not Trump) in light of this?
> Personally, I don't jump to conclusions based on vague statements or evidence.
When it comes to drawing conclusions about the intent of the person making the vague statement, this is an error. It helps create the plausible deniability that public manipulators use to their advantage.
This is hardly a charitable interpretation. The lack of competition provides for little incentive for improvement. Now, for prisons, I think for-profit prisons are quite problematic because the incentives are abjectly antithetical to justice.
> We have a national space agency that has had plenty of time and money to do the stuff SpaceX is doing.
That's quite inaccurate. NASA doesn't do much themselves, they hire external contractors but keep significant control over them. SpaceX got more funding and less control and they didn't start from scratch, NASA gave them all of their technical documentation, now-how and working prototypes.
NASA could have done everything SpaceX does if they were given the same conditions and funding, however, they've never had funding for blowing up five spaceships in row, they were held to much stricter standards.
The entire story looks like a blatant attempt to take control of space operations away from NASA and thus from the government.
>NASA could have done everything SpaceX does if they were given the same conditions and funding
This may have been hypothetically possible, as are many things that never came to be, but it is impossible to know whether this really would have happened.
how do explain other governments funding efforts to copy spacex without success, its easy to hand wave away peoples efforts and achievements with hindsight
enjoy the snap reaction brain drain as entrepreneurs move their efforts offshore, people are being disingenuous by saying its as simple as deciding to nationalise a company everyone said would fail and who china and Europe are desperately trying to emulate, all over retaliatory statements, be careful what sort of government behaviour you normalise because you happen to be on the winning side of that behaviour, seasons change
onlyrealcuzzo above commented that Trump canceling SpaceX contracts would be "literally the path that led the USSR to ruin".
However, we have a case of a private contractor trying to manipulate the president by means of "revelations" and decommissioning of a service important for national security. If the president cannot change those contracts the US would be literally on the path to oligarchic Russia... I'm not sure what's worse.
Trump is generally moving in the direction of reducing government control of corporations to the point of risking government capture by oligarchic interests. What's happening now is a direct consequence of his policies and it's ironic that Trump's powers are being questioned when it comes to corporate regulation.
Trump's personal faults are irrelevant at the moment, if the GOP doesn't stand firmly behind Trump we are going to find ourselves in an incredible mess.
It's wild to me how many conspiracy theories I've seen about how this is all staged, like it's a distraction or it's just Elon repairing his image and trying to rescue Tesla (whose sales are cratering).
Psychologically, I think this is reflective of cognitive dissonance. The two conflicting ideas are that two people with much to lose would get in the dumbest fight imaginable and the myth of meritocracy [1]. You see, people want or need to believe that people get into these positions through merit: skill, intelligence and hard work.
That's simply not true. We are talking about two of the egotistical, thin-skinned, genuinely stupid narcissists on the planet. Drugs may even be a factor. There is no planet where a charade like this involves calling the president of the United States a pedophile [2].
Media reports seem to universally agree that everybody in the administration absolutely hates Elon. Additionally, IMHO Elon is absolutely on the spectrum. As such, he is a terrible room reader and I believe is deluded into thinking he has a loyal following. He does not. Any clout he has is solely because of being a Trump acolyte.
The myth of meritocracy is perpetuated to keep you working hard to make somebody else rich. It is to reinforce the existing social and economic order. It is to assign blame to those who are poor because poverty is treated as a personal moral failure.
If Trump chooses to, he can effectively bankrupt Elon. That's how insane all of this is.
For starters, Trump can simply revoke Elon's security clearance. There's no recourse for this. And that makes SpaceX's military contracts real awkward.
There are negotiations over a trade deal with China because of the tariffs and what is quite likely the dumbest trade war in history. The terms of that deal could be fatal to Tesla's future.
Trump could even get Elon denaturalized and deported. How? Immigration fraud. It's fairly clear from the facts (and his brother's statements about 10 years ago) that when Elon dropped out of a Stanford PhD to start a company he was technically undocumented. If you misrepresent to USCIS then it is absolutely grounds for denaturalization should they choose, although such proceedings are incredibly rare.
>For starters, Trump can simply revoke Elon's security clearance. There's no recourse for this. And that makes SpaceX's military contracts real awkward.
This isn't an issue. Execs nor shareholders are required to have clearance and even the ones that have clearance aren't read in to top secret stuff without a need to know. Elon's focus was starship which is quite far removed from any of those contracts (falcon gov launches or starshield). Gwynne Shotwell runs and will continue to run those parts of SpaceX just fine without Elon having clearance.
> Execs nor shareholders are required to have clearance and even the ones that have clearance aren't read in to top secret stuff without a need to know
No clearance would absolutely compromise Musk’s ability to control SpaceX. (I think that’s a good thing.)
It wouldn’t matter for spacex, which is the point. It wouldn’t make “military contracts awkward”, whatever that means.
Musk would still maintain the ability to control what SpaceX targets as far as customers go. And he could easily decline any plans to pursue contracts that require changes in strategy.
Him having clearance is irrelevant to both the govt and to the future of spacex. Gwynne runs those parts of the company. Musk is only playing with Starship when he’s looking at spacex at all.
Aren't they using the same rockets for non-government missions that they use for government missions, so the classified parts of government missions would just concern the payload and where they fly it to? Musk shouldn't need access to that information to run the company.
> the classified parts of government missions would just concern the payload and where they fly it to?
Which in turn affects practically everything from launch timing to fuelling thresholds to whether the rocket can be used in reusable or expendable mode and thus whether that booster can be reüsed for the next launch. (Same for Starshield’s requirements impacting Starlink.)
Note that I’m not even touching ITAR, which Musk could be found subject to as a triple national.
> or it's just Elon repairing his image and trying to rescue Tesla (whose sales are cratering)
I'm not going to say for sure that it's true, but this is not a conspiracy, or even a super genius move by Elon. I think it's a very natural and plausible instinct given the circumstances. He can't have avoided noticing the crash in sales, and the back of the mind can realize things the consciousness is in denial about. It would just register in his mind as "need to detach my image from this enemy".
> Elon is absolutely on the spectrum. As such, he is a terrible room reader and I believe is deluded into thinking he has a loyal following.
Two things:
* Being on the spectrum doesn't make you completely clueless. Elon is also a drug addict, as was revealed recently to all that couldn't tell yet. And his unique position of "richest man ever" certainly must warp his self-image into a form of sociopathy.
* He does have a loyal following, looking at the braindead blue check marks approving of his every tweets. Although it's hard to say how many of them they really are, as they are extremely vocal.
There's nothing invalid about meritocracy, but that's not what we have. We have some other kind of "ocracy": government by the lucky. I lack the Greek literacy to name the phenomenon correctly but that's what it would translate to in English.
Neither Trump nor Musk has any business running anything more impactful than a used car lot or a corner Starbucks franchise, but their competition was permanently out to lunch in both cases, and here we are. How can anyone be surprised when two merit-free, chaos-loving narcissists fail to get along?
“ For we each of us deserve everything, every luxury that was ever piled in the tombs of the dead kings, and we each of us deserve nothing, not a mouthful of bread in hunger. Have we not eaten while another starved? Will you punish us for that? Will you reward us for the virtue of starving while others ate? No man earns punishment, no man earns reward. Free your mind of the idea of deserving, the idea of earning, and you will begin to be able to think.”
Meh, tell it to Darwin. Heat death will come for us all in the end, and there is no refuge to be found in our navels. Why accelerate it by embracing mediocrity? We should identify talent, reward it, and do the best we can with what we have, while we can.
The part about "identifying talent" is where people seem to lose the plot, unfortunately.
You think a carefully staged spat between two men with long track records of impulsive idiocy is the simple solution?
I mean, there is a sense where a conspiracy is always the simplest explanation for public affairs, in the same way "a wizard did it" is simple. But that's not usually what people mean when they talk about Occam's razor.
There is no myth. Both Trump and Elon have generational talent in their respective domains. This is the kind of talent that’s so unique, it creates its own domain that didn’t exist before, and that no one will be able to replicate after.
But they’re both unstable, and have many other negative features.
One can have an extraordinary talent in starting generational companies, and have a social media addiction (among possibly other addictions and problems) that makes one unstable. These aren’t mutually exclusive.
One of their fathers was a successful slumlord, and the other owned an emerald mine in South Africa. Those provide a one-time advantage (which in Trump's case would have been more profitable if he had socked it away in an index fund.) How do they establish 'generational talent' for being POTUS or building rockets and cars?
It will be interesting to see if any of Elon's offspring choose to follow in his footsteps. Probably not the transgender child he disowned, or the one whose name has to be written with Unicode characters, but that leaves something like 20 others to vie for the throne.
The only talents they are great at are grift and daring someone to enforce rules against them in a society that largely relies on people holding themselves to standards and risk avoidance instead of active enforcement.
It depends on the area of law but there's generally a balancing test as to whether or not a court should issue an injunction. There are a number of factors such as the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed but also if the injunction (or lack thereof) causes permanent harm or can be reversed.
Imagine a court was considering the issue from years ago when Australian authorities were deciding to release the cane toad to kill sugar cane pests. That's not a decision taht you can take back. Once they're released, there's really no rolling that back. So a court would generally side on issuing an injunction pending an appeal for that very reason.
As a historical side note, the cane toad was released and it's been an ecological disaster ever since.
Now imagine another case where a government agency is requiring all fishing boats to install transponders and they're relatively cheap. There's reallly no irreversible harm either way so a court will tend to look instead at the likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing instead.
At least that's how it should work.
In practice, particularly with the Supreme Court through its entire history, there's a fairly accurate way of predicting how they'll rule: pick the side that favors the wealthy and powerful and that's how they'll rule way more often than not.
There are exceptions to this and it's not universal (eg decisions rolling back segregation) but it is (IMHO) arguably the best predictor.
What really changed things was the end of ZIRP [1] and even then it was opportunistic. Labor costs are a massive cost for tech companies. They have continually tried to suppress wages. In the 2000s, it was the anti-poaching agreement between Steve Jobs, Eric Schmidt and others. In the 2010s, high growth ahnd zero interest meant labor costs continued to balloon.
But then Covid came along and was a massive opportunity. A few companies may have needed to do layoffs but that created the opportunity for everyone else. Big Tech just went full Corporate America with a page straight out of Jack Welch: fire the bottom 5-10% every year. Call it "layoffs". It's a direct pay decrease for those who remain (who get assigned the work). Those are still there won't be asking for raises because they're now afraid of their jobs.
Very little of this was ever necessary. None of the big tech companies ever came close to making a loss. They've remaining insanely profitable, in total and on a per-worker basis. At different times Google's per-worker profit has approached or exceeded $1 million.
The other factor is these companies eventually reached their size limits where antitrust stopped them making any more significant acquisitions.
Consider the timing: this change came in 2017. Where were the mass layoffs in 2018? 2019?
Also, the 2017 tax cuts contained a massive tax holiday for the repatriation of foreign profits.
Mass layoffs are simply wage suppression. It's the end state for any company that can't keep growing the way the market demands: eventually it comes down to cutting costs to make those quarterly profit targets. And in that, they sow the seeds of their own demise.
> Big Tech just went full Corporate America with a page straight out of Jack Welch: fire the bottom 5-10% every year
Plenty of "big tech" already did it. Microsoft could not be more famous for stack ranking dating back to the 90s. Amazon have long had that kind of culture too.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading this article. To me, the most obvious and earliest case of mass tech layoffs was the Twitter 50% layoff by Musk. The whole lines written fiasco. The lack of mention anywhere is gaslighting me. Couldn't that have been the precedent as well? We know the market hanged on his every word (at least in 2022).
Big tech companies are both doing mass layoffs AND hiring. How does this fit the narrative that the tax change is at least in part responsible? The new hires still have the same deduction issue, right? So what impact does this really have?
Think of it this way: if this passes, will the layoffs end? Or reduce? Absolutely not. All this does is give line the pockets of shareholders. That's it.
I'm a big fan of tying certain benefits to NOT doing layoffs. This can include:
1. You get this deduction only if you've fired fewer than 1% of your workforce in the last calendar year;
2. You don't get to sponsor for an H1B if you've conducted ANY layoffs in the last calendar year; and
3. The tax deduction only applies to unionized workers.
And while we're at it, let's roll back this ridiculous tax structure where IP can be "sold" to a subsidiary in Ireland and then royalties paid.
That's a solvable problem and probably already solved. Fire more than a certain threshold of your employees over a certain period for any reason and it's a layoff in effect, say 3% over 12 months.
But they aren't. What Tesla has going for them primarily is the Supercharger network.
The Cybertruck is a complete disaster of a vehicle with so many issues (eg [1]) that the only reason people buy them is to make a political statement from a group that 3+ years ago wouldn't have been caught buying an EV.
Teslas are drivable iPads. Many people (myself included) not only hate this (because it's hard to use without looking) but it's also lazy design. By this I mean, it allows manufacturers to say "we'll fix it with a software update" (and then probably never get around to it) whereas haptic controls require more thought and effort to be put into the UI/UX during manufacturing.
For other Teslas, there have been a host of other issues, some small, some not. For example, the seats were unreliable if adjusted too often so Tesla made an OTA update to limit how much you can adjust the seats to avoid failure [2].
The only thing propping up Tesla sales now are trade restrictions on BYD.
How exactly is this good for consumers?
My point is that a lot of publishers are what I call "low value". They're rent-seekers. They have easily obtained information, often user-generated, and their role is to gatekeep that and make you click just one more page to get a result because hey that's another slew of ads they can show you.
I'm sympathetic to the argument that LLMs steal. At the same time, we have to recognize that a lot of publishers are intentionally useless rent-seekers so it's hard for me to feel sorry for them.
reply