Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)E
Posts
0
Comments
347
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Fully agree. In fact you can apply this much wider. The only solution to the Earth’s problems is to get rid of all people on it /s.

  • I mean, it’s just really hard to understand why all these billionaires have decided to become so politically active. 1.) they have more than enough money for 10 more generations at least. 2.) if there is a serious tax hike or other threat to their wealth they can always quietly buy off some key politicians. 3.) if you stick your neck out like Musk (and some other billionaire cabinet members do) you run the chance that people will want to cut it off. If I were a billionaire I would make it my lives mission to ensure that the general public does not know my name.

  • Matters at least a bit. For instance, Musk has signalled his interest in buying OpenAI. He will find it far harder to get the money for it now that Tesla shares have nosedived.

    More generally with Tesla it is difficult to make a business case for the existence of the company right now, since Musk alienated his entire potential consumer base. I wouldn’t be surprised if the company gets sold into parts in the text two years or so.

  • I don’t respect Putin very much, but I am 1000 percent sure that a former KGB agent will whoop Musks ass. Apart from that, wtf is he trying to show with challenging Putin to physical combat. What does that have to do with Ukraine?

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Ehm you have that reversed (or your phrasing is terrible). Production>consumption implies export>imports implies lending to abroad exceeds borrowing from abroad. Said differently, if the current account is in surplus, the capital account is (by definition) in deficit.

    To make this all a bit more intuitive: suppose instead of spending money on consumption goods, we invest in foreign assets. In that case we spend less meaning that we either import less foreign goods or have more domestic produced goods available for export. The consequence is an increase in the current account surplus.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • This focus on the balance of trade is sooo stupid. The US spends more than it produces so it has an aggregate deficit on the trade balance. To stop this, you need to force Americans to spend less (I.e. ignite a recession), or produce more.

    Tariffs against selected countries that have a strong bilateral trade surplus with the US will not affect the US’ aggregate trade balance, since it doesn’t affect consumption by/ or production of the US economy. This is common knowledge from econ 101, and shouldn’t need to be explained to a president that supposedly has a degree in business.

  • Corporations and their owners thought that Trump would boost the stock market through tax cuts. Instead the market is tanking due to his moronic tariffs and Russia-appeasement strategy. Now that it’s clear he won’t be making them money they have rediscovered their “morals”.

  • While I agree, here’s what I worry about. Even if the leadership is replaced, the culture of the Democrats is to listen to consultants, voter panels etc. It’s commendable to take voters wishes into account, but what most voters want is a leader, not a listener.

    Example: during the campaign voter panels talked about inflation and immigration whereas healthcare was ranked at the bottom. Therefore Democrats did not talk about healthcare.

    But this is really a chicken and egg story. If nobody talks about healthcare, voters feel that healthcare is not on the ballot, and so they won’t mention the topic in voter panels. Luigi showed (once again) that healthcare in the US is fucked and that many people in fact care deeply about the topic. I am almost sure that Harris would have done better had she made healthcare the central issue of her campaign. The moral is that as long as Democrats are following, rather than leading, they will continue to lose elections.

    1. The question is not stupid at all.
    2. we would expect the CEO of a logistics company to be able to answer such a question (or at least know who to ask to get the right answer), instead of asking it on X. Asking it on X at best shows of his ignorance, or at worst pushes a conspiracy theory.
  • Yeah, because tariffs are only reserved to large competitors on the world stage like, check notes, Canada?

  • That’s a fair point. To my understanding the science is not clear if transition started pre-puberty, though I think it is pretty clear if transition happened after puberty. You are also absolutely right that in practice the problem (if you consider it as such) concerns very few cases. I think my only point was that having an open (instead of a men’s) section would circumvent both the possible exclusion of transgender people, and the controversy of those born as men, participating in women’s competition.

  • Many sports are divided in a women’s and an open competition. In the open competition any genetic advantage goes (hence the name open), whereas the women’s competition is restricted to people with a specific trait. In such a context I think it’s totally valid to restrict the women’s competition to “born with vagina”. Transgender (both M->F and F->M) can continue to compete in the open section.

    Sports that are instead divided in a men’s and women’s section are more problematic, because they may completely block transgender people from competing at all levels, which is very exclusionary. I don’t see a particularly good solution for these sports, apart from changing sections to “open” vs “women’s “.

    Finally, I do not see a role for genetic testing (born with vagina, but XY for instance). People make life decisions based on the gender they believe they are. Takebacks based on genetic tests that could occur in far advanced stage of an athlete’s career is completely unfair.

  • Tbf driving old cars until the end of their lifetime is also an environmentally friendly choice, since there are quite large emissions associated with producing a car.

  • It’s not about serving China’s interest so much as no longer serving American interest. As an example, Biden persuaded its partners in Europe and East Asia to exclude China from crucial chip technology. If China changes its approach to Ukraine sharing this technology with them should be on the table. There’s is simply no longer any reason for Europe to be part of this Cold War-like tension between the US and China, when it’s Russia that is our main concern.

  • The only thing that’s incorrect about this article is that they talk about millions in lost revenue, when the effect will certainly be in the billion if not trillion dollar range.

  • Trade creates value in both countries, so by extension tariffs destroy value in both countries. Since Canada is much smaller than the US (in population), the tariffs hurt Canada more than the US. There is good reason for Canada to be extremely upset, and counter tariffs on the US are well justified.

  • I have a suggestion: since the vaccine is not safe, why don’t we do a lockdown? /s

  • You don’t need measles parties. The virus is so contagious you more or less can get it by looking at an infected person if you are not already immune.

  • Mandatory pro-GMO video https://youtu.be/7TmcXYp8xu4 TLDR: all our food is genetically manipulated. GMO is simply a method to make better targeted interventions.