Dave

I mean, 1 in 5 is a lot, just to be perfectly clear, so anything even approaching that is a pretty bad. When I was growing up, the number of cars inappropriately using high beams in city traffic was basically zero, so this is a massive regression.

You can tell that a car is using high beams because their light fixture appears fully and evenly lit from eye level. Low-beam headlights look “half full” from an opposing driver’s view. You can also tell because many lower-end cars have a separate housing just for the high beam that only light up when the high beam is on.

PSA: The preferred term is “transgender people”, not “transgendered people”.

https://glaad.org/reference/trans-terms/

I think they’re going to give him newly-issued stock, not cash. However, the newly issued stock will not be backed by new capital (i.e. nobody would have given the company money in exchange for the stock), so what will happen is that existing shares will have their values diluted, i.e. they will be worth less.

In other words, shareholders will pay for Elon’s compensation by devaluing their investments, and not by drawing money out of Tesla’s coffers.

$56B is roughly 10% of Tesla’s market cap of $581B, so shares should be devalued by about that same rate.

Good.

But how did you get there?

I think job-hopping helps people who still need to climb the ladder until they land some “senior” position into which they can settle in, safe in the knowledge that they can always find another job elsewhere with their experience.

I am that old, but I am not this old:

.

You don’t need to get rid of private property to undo a lot of the damage done by landlords. You can build subsidized housing to compete. You can write tax codes to make it unprofitable for people to own more than one house. You can tax land by area instead of by built value to encourage building high-density housing.

There are a lot of levers that other countries have been willing to pull that partially counteract the damage of landlording, but the US has been reluctant to touch.

It’s the humidity. Whatever is water-soluble in the dust absorbs water and becomes sticky. Then the water evaporates and it’s like you’ve glued the dust to the wall.

Is the answer no? It’s no, isn’t it?

Yep, Axios straight-up printed an ad as news.

I thought this was a new Chuck Tingle novel.

It’s gotta be some kind of meme, where friends tell friends to do the thing, and they pass it on, because it’s gotten worse and worse over time.

Here in the SF Bay Area, it’s Tesla drivers. All those BMW drivers have traded in their cars for Teslas.

I live in the SF Bay Area and about 20% of cars are driven with their high beams on all the time. The drivers just click that stalk and leave it there no matter what. It’s an epidemic.

Define “complete”.

A 1.0 product is by definition the worst product the company will make of that type. That’s no different from any other product by any other company.

There is no complete product. There are only products you can buy, and those you can’t.

You’re conflating the perfect with the good. The question is not whether Vision Pro is perfect, it’s whether it’s good enough for today. I happen to think that it is for the goals the company has set (well under 1M units sold). But it will of course improve rapidly every year.

This is not new. This is every new product Apple has introduced.

The description is a vast oversimplification of the fall of the Roman Empire, of course.

Like the game Monopoly, unrestrained capitalism will always end up with a few people owning almost all the value while everyone else live in poverty, and it will always end up in systemic collapse because you can’t get infinite value out of finite resources. At some point the game will be over.

But unrestrained capitalism doesn’t exist, even in today’s very unequal world. There are forces that undo the momentum of capitalism, including taxation, regulation, trade barriers, and public goods and services. Some countries do this better than others.

I happen to think that regulated capitalism, balanced by a heavy emphasis of wealth taxation and investment in public goods and services, is better than any other system that relies on non-monetary control of resources. It can be sustainable, but not in its current state.

I heartily disagree. This is a 1.0 product, and though it’s deeply flawed in so many ways, it also nailed interactions that other companies have struggled with. They’re going to iterate and pivot on this platform for the next few years (and sell cheaper models) and they will find the sweet spot. This platform is here to stay.

I have a feeling any list will not be able to catch up with the rate at which these sites are created.

I think so.