I wonder what Musk would say about the idea of limiting Tweets instead of banning them.
Oh, wait!
New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted & demonetized, so no ads or other revenue to Twitter.
You won’t find the tweet unless you specifically seek it out, which is no different from rest of Internet.
Huh? Colonial looting is often disguised as the natives voluntarily overpaying for a frivolous luxury, so this doesn't seem like a great counterargument.
Our politicians are bribed, bullied and intimated to enrich a few at the expensive of us all.
Every single election is completely corrupt, do you really think all those billions that they pay to ALL parties are for nothing in return.
And if you don't toe the line you will be punished.
When you realise that this is the case all the insanity makes sense. Where BLM supporters will gladly provide awards for individuals with actual swastikas on their skin. Where states will move to completely deindustrialisation without consultation of the citizens. Where countries won't grow their own food. Where they buy the debt of the those that are oppressing them.
It's all madness until you realise we are all without sovereignty.
> has this happened with blockchain yet? I'm not seeing it.
It's a unique situation in that hype is easily and definitely measurable: market cap. You would arguably need to subtract any use for real-world applications, i. e. the drug business using it, which can easily be approximated (to the closest full percentage point of market cap) by the formula x = 0.
And a quick way to get there is the Page information link in the sidebar. On the info page for each page[0] is a count and plot of views in the past 30 days, and at the bottom is a link to external tools like the one above.
That was always stupid and there were always demonstrations of said stupidity. It’s one of those snarky contrarian takes people repeat ad nauseam. See also: correlation and causation.
This excellent comeback currently being downvoted is quite a testament to this weird turn against California in the tech community. It seems too sudden and drastic to be just the result of the general ascend of the alt-right in the sector so I am wondering if there any other reasons? Elon Musk? (No it’s not the weird crime fantasies. Also, by the way, Sweden still has excellent quality of life and phrenology is probably wrong and definitely useless)
Maybe housing? But that’s almost literally the Woody Allen joke, “nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded”.
It’s probably lots of little reasons, the main one being though, why stay?
Why start a business there vs another state? Lots of empty office space rn and I can only assume remote won’t help with that.
When the value of the location goes down, could easily start an exponential exit. Cities aren’t forever, just look at Detroit. Not saying that will happen to California but I really do think it peaked for tech last decade.
So… A recession may turn out to be bad for an economy? I know economics is called the “dismal science” but this seems to undercut even low standards.
More specifically on the article’s thesis: yes, California’s tax revenue may be more sensitive to an economic downturn. But that’s due to extremely high income from startups that just doesn’t exist in other states. It’s running a budget surplus that’s something like half of all other states’ total revenue IIRC.
If that extra income disappears, people will still work, earn income, and go shopping. The state’s revenue will just revert to normal-state levels.
Hacker News has taken this weird turn to hate California to a degree usually reserved for, say, female CEOs or renewable power. This story may seem to satisfy this urge, predicting as it does a hard crash for the state. But it’s really just reporting on the altitude record the state is currently setting.
Edit, in response to the answer below: TIL, thanks! I’ll have to switch to making jokes about their Nobel being second-rate and their models being thinner and on more crack than those of the fashion world.
> I know economics is called the “dismal science” but this seems to undercut even low standards.
That was invented by a slaveowner who was mad that economists told him slavery was a bad business strategy. (his response was something like “you economists just look at the numbers of me not paying them and don’t realize I’m teaching them the Christian values of hard work”)
For Saudi Arabia, it seems they didn’t nationalize anything but demanded 50 % of profits, which is not too far off from being considered a tax. They then bought the other 50 % decades later.
For Sri Lanka, it seems it wasn’t oil production but merely the domestic petrol distribution? Also unclear how much of it was British and not American.
For Turkey I can’t find the company at issue, but it apparently happened before the Second World War and I’d guess American interests just weren’t very substantial at the time? The article suggests the US was supporting Turkey in getting out from under existing relationships with the old powers of Europe.
Oh, wait!
Elon Musk, Nov 18th, 2022: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1593673339826212864