Are you kidding? They placed a bet on a corporation aiming to produce something that it would fail and rallied against it in the hopes of bringing down the value. ALL short sellers are parasites, without exception. Every massively successful short seller does it by manipulating the market and the small guys just stir up shit to achieve the same effect to their maximum ability. It's not a fucking game, short sellers devalue corporations to the detriment of everyone but themselves.
They weren't squatters, you moron. They ran a small business called TitleTown Tech Solutions and that was their actual website. This was theft, plain and simple.
The whole reason short sellers are shits is that their mere presence devalues the stock, hurting actual investors. They sell things they don't have (from the accounts of the investors) which drives down the stock, in the hope that it will go down even further. In turn they have a motivation to push propaganda suggesting the stock will fall even further or otherwise disrupt the company at the industrial and regulatory scale (something which happens all the fucking time for large scale hedge funds who want to be more proactive about their short positions - which due to the social networks involved is almost impossible to track down and stop in spite of being highly illegal - this is basically what made Soros all his money "hedging" against political unrest around the world and then starting actual riots where people died for it to happen.) It's even happening right now - all the longs took the tact of reality (as proven by this article) by saying the SEC would sue Musk - all the shorts have been advertising and screeching about how they would sue Tesla directly (in another attempt to drive down the value of Tesla.) Don't get me wrong, Tesla is overhyped as fuck, but most of the value losses (and in turn their real-world ability to produce things based on that value/liquidity getting fucked sideways) is due to short sellers - if not for the shorts they would legitimately be likely to be profitable by now.
It's just like real life - the short sellers get all the mod points and exercise them to legislate against people who complain about them destroying things.
It was probably more an act of stupidity under influence than a premeditated attempt at a short squeeze, but if you're wearing the CEO hat, you have less leeway for stupidity.
So, fraud charges secured.
Short sellers aren't people, they're parasites. They shouldn't be factored into any equation (in their favor) economically, but we live in a fucked world driven by shortsightedness and greed so they apparently have an innate right to destroy things created by society and bitch about it when not allowed to.
This is strange, how did this post get so big score? Yet it suggests that getting efficient means loss for the economy. I am in no way libertarian nor neoconservative, but it looks to me like Smith's candlemakers again.
I am largely conservative, but that doesn't change the rationale (you did interpret it a bit off though.) I'm all for automation, but not recognizing the issues with it has the potential to launch us into an actual national collapse-level depression - not 100 years out, but within my lifetime, probably within the next decade. That's something I care about because while I enjoy the prepper culture and wargaming scenarios therein - I don't actually want civilization to collapse. UBI is a really simple fix we don't even have to pay more into to achieve (AND it can scale easily with automation by changing the taxable amount.)
It's really not "who knows" - take away Excel from a company (basically most of them) who are dependent on it for tracking inventory, accounting tasks, estimates, etc and you'll see that company die within a year. The bar on quantity of work required went up to compete with other companies with those tools, but the fact it's automated (even only to the extent of Excel) still puts lots of jobs out of sight and out of mind (the fact that's obfuscated since it started in the 80's and it was a roughly fixed some is irrelevant.) Corporations of even small sizes used to have entire rooms of people on typewriters and sorting paperwork, most of which were reduced to a single person with an Excel license. This is even worse in that many of those jobs arose to fill the time of women joining the workforce and utilize them to make production more efficient - it worked but wages scaled down - now that those positions have been automated everyone still has to work twice as hard as they need to, only the guys at the top keep any of it.
That's too heavy-handed in my opinion, UBI is generally more humane. Everyone shouldn't be backed into a corner of "work forever with no hope of retirement," as would manifest if you did as you suggest. Additionally, it does nothing about the upper income brackets because it's not actually a bracket - most (competent) business owners don't take more than 50k in salary - the home, car, vacations/travel, dining, etc is directly from their company (and what they do take is often in the form of renting the land their company leases for the sake of having a different form of income that hedges against the risk of being pushed out by their board.) What you're suggesting would effectively still have the musical chairs problem (when the music stops in an industry and everything is largely automated whoever has the reins owns it forever,) and in addition it consigns even people who WANT to break themselves for 20 years straight to a life of suburbia at best due to the wage caps. UBI has enough to cover living expenses for everyone just on what we already pay for social programs. The reason it fails with social programs is because most of that budget goes into monitoring of how people are spending their assistance to babysit everyone. You're taking entirely the wrong tack by saying "we need to prevent these people from becoming addicts because they're too incompetent to do it themselves," if that's the case LET THEM voluntarily remove themselves from the genepool, don't make everyone else suffer for it (even the people "supporting" those programs by working pointless jobs auditing people would be better off on the UBI they'd get out of it. People are creative, they will find shit to do if they don't waste their lives burning out 40 hours a week only to want to sleep and do it again - bored people create things - creativity alleviates boredom and spawns new industries.
They're creating censorship tools they tell their developers are "for China" when they don't actually have plans to deploy to China?
They've effectively made censorship tools and implemented them in the US by tricking their devs into writing the code for it.
Your memes are stale. The economy is already horribly inefficient that if it crashed and started over with barter day 1 of the restart would have 90%+ less waste.
I suggested it was the sensible solution to the issue, not that there's a way from here to there. The only real solution any of us can take part in is to stock up on guns, ammo, and food that isn't perishable for when the thing collapses.
Corporations want to spy on you to sell your data for increased revenue.
Automation is not properly priced into the economy and it's genuinely causing havok.
That second one is the real issue, because if you automate 1,000 jobs with a program (Excel alone takes care of about a dozen at every mid sized company to achieve the same efficiency they would without it) then the person who wrote the program gets paid likely hourly or salary, the company that wrote it gets an initial contract (for custom work) or if they are really lucky and can make it generic enough they get a much smaller sale every few years adding up to more than a single custom contract. Neither case really makes up the economic impact (e.g. you lost 1,000 minimum wage jobs for a 100k contract and the net on the economy is about -$14,440,000/year - -$14,340,000 the first year for the pissant contractor who "got" the work.)
This is a major issue, as we've experienced compounding automation in computers of this form since the 80's - absolutely wrecking the economy in the process (most of this gets covered up in the compounding inflation rate of ~2.5%/year, but if you adjust the average take-home back then with today you'll see a major decline.)
Software corporations have every reason to stop this from their standpoint (an operating system can only do so much before it's effectively "done" and you can't get people to buy new versions of it - at which point your entire industry collapses without a subscription model,) but more importantly, we're heading toward a world where most of the jobs are automated and the only ones benefiting from it are the guys who got a chair (pun intended) when the music stopped.
For the sake of the economy as a whole we need to seriously consider taxes on automation which feed back into a UBI program (at the very least) equal to a sizable percentage of the savings, back-dated to when the automation started. It's too late to simply say "if you automate a position pay 50% of those wages into a pool for UBI, every year just like you would have paid the wages before the automation" because we're long beyond the point where that would be an equitable amount to cover basic needs, and going much beyond 50% would discourage further automation (which if done right, does actually benefit everyone - this isn't meant to be some Luddite dribble post.)
TL;DR: tax automation (including what is already in place) at a mere half of the displaced wages and we'll have the same exact fully-functional infrastructure of the modern world and enough UBI that everyone can own a home without debt - it's that fucking extreme of an issue.
Nah, just Commifornia companies which act across state lines thanks to the wonder of technology and bring money into the parasitic state known as Commifornia.
They think that when their oppression apparatus is completed and ready to oppress (convert/enlighten/bring-to-their-side) the masses that they will be the ones pulling the strings - same way Trump is able to piss them off to no end by using the insane policies implemented by his predecessors against them, the only real difference here is that when these tools go into force pretty much everyone gets rounded up into FEMA camps.
Divided loyalties, a greater ability of the clubs to brush off viewers in favor of more profitable e-sports, etc. Sports clubs are essentially dedicated to the sport, as a result they are heavily dependent on keeping fans happy. If they have multiple viable revenue streams it means the fans become any other consumer segment - which effectively means they will get shit on just like customers in every other industry - not something people want to deal with for a leisure activity like watching sports (even if sports are shit.)
Slashdot Mirror
My last post (and the WIPO panel opinion
You mean that UN-controlled bullshit agency Obama sold the internet to in an act of supreme treason? Why are you taking what they say seriously?
The shorts did nothing; Musk did everything.
Are you kidding? They placed a bet on a corporation aiming to produce something that it would fail and rallied against it in the hopes of bringing down the value. ALL short sellers are parasites, without exception. Every massively successful short seller does it by manipulating the market and the small guys just stir up shit to achieve the same effect to their maximum ability. It's not a fucking game, short sellers devalue corporations to the detriment of everyone but themselves.
TIL 7 years = 2 weeks.
They registered the domain 7 years before it was stolen from them and ran a PC repair business by that name from the website.
They weren't squatters, you moron. They ran a small business called TitleTown Tech Solutions and that was their actual website. This was theft, plain and simple.
The whole reason short sellers are shits is that their mere presence devalues the stock, hurting actual investors. They sell things they don't have (from the accounts of the investors) which drives down the stock, in the hope that it will go down even further. In turn they have a motivation to push propaganda suggesting the stock will fall even further or otherwise disrupt the company at the industrial and regulatory scale (something which happens all the fucking time for large scale hedge funds who want to be more proactive about their short positions - which due to the social networks involved is almost impossible to track down and stop in spite of being highly illegal - this is basically what made Soros all his money "hedging" against political unrest around the world and then starting actual riots where people died for it to happen.) It's even happening right now - all the longs took the tact of reality (as proven by this article) by saying the SEC would sue Musk - all the shorts have been advertising and screeching about how they would sue Tesla directly (in another attempt to drive down the value of Tesla.) Don't get me wrong, Tesla is overhyped as fuck, but most of the value losses (and in turn their real-world ability to produce things based on that value/liquidity getting fucked sideways) is due to short sellers - if not for the shorts they would legitimately be likely to be profitable by now.
Score: 0, Troll
It's just like real life - the short sellers get all the mod points and exercise them to legislate against people who complain about them destroying things.
It was probably more an act of stupidity under influence than a premeditated attempt at a short squeeze, but if you're wearing the CEO hat, you have less leeway for stupidity.
So, fraud charges secured.
Short sellers aren't people, they're parasites. They shouldn't be factored into any equation (in their favor) economically, but we live in a fucked world driven by shortsightedness and greed so they apparently have an innate right to destroy things created by society and bitch about it when not allowed to.
This is strange, how did this post get so big score? Yet it suggests that getting efficient means loss for the economy. I am in no way libertarian nor neoconservative, but it looks to me like Smith's candlemakers again.
I am largely conservative, but that doesn't change the rationale (you did interpret it a bit off though.) I'm all for automation, but not recognizing the issues with it has the potential to launch us into an actual national collapse-level depression - not 100 years out, but within my lifetime, probably within the next decade. That's something I care about because while I enjoy the prepper culture and wargaming scenarios therein - I don't actually want civilization to collapse. UBI is a really simple fix we don't even have to pay more into to achieve (AND it can scale easily with automation by changing the taxable amount.)
It's really not "who knows" - take away Excel from a company (basically most of them) who are dependent on it for tracking inventory, accounting tasks, estimates, etc and you'll see that company die within a year. The bar on quantity of work required went up to compete with other companies with those tools, but the fact it's automated (even only to the extent of Excel) still puts lots of jobs out of sight and out of mind (the fact that's obfuscated since it started in the 80's and it was a roughly fixed some is irrelevant.) Corporations of even small sizes used to have entire rooms of people on typewriters and sorting paperwork, most of which were reduced to a single person with an Excel license. This is even worse in that many of those jobs arose to fill the time of women joining the workforce and utilize them to make production more efficient - it worked but wages scaled down - now that those positions have been automated everyone still has to work twice as hard as they need to, only the guys at the top keep any of it.
That's too heavy-handed in my opinion, UBI is generally more humane. Everyone shouldn't be backed into a corner of "work forever with no hope of retirement," as would manifest if you did as you suggest. Additionally, it does nothing about the upper income brackets because it's not actually a bracket - most (competent) business owners don't take more than 50k in salary - the home, car, vacations/travel, dining, etc is directly from their company (and what they do take is often in the form of renting the land their company leases for the sake of having a different form of income that hedges against the risk of being pushed out by their board.) What you're suggesting would effectively still have the musical chairs problem (when the music stops in an industry and everything is largely automated whoever has the reins owns it forever,) and in addition it consigns even people who WANT to break themselves for 20 years straight to a life of suburbia at best due to the wage caps. UBI has enough to cover living expenses for everyone just on what we already pay for social programs. The reason it fails with social programs is because most of that budget goes into monitoring of how people are spending their assistance to babysit everyone. You're taking entirely the wrong tack by saying "we need to prevent these people from becoming addicts because they're too incompetent to do it themselves," if that's the case LET THEM voluntarily remove themselves from the genepool, don't make everyone else suffer for it (even the people "supporting" those programs by working pointless jobs auditing people would be better off on the UBI they'd get out of it. People are creative, they will find shit to do if they don't waste their lives burning out 40 hours a week only to want to sleep and do it again - bored people create things - creativity alleviates boredom and spawns new industries.
They're creating censorship tools they tell their developers are "for China" when they don't actually have plans to deploy to China?
They've effectively made censorship tools and implemented them in the US by tricking their devs into writing the code for it.
Never suggested automation wasn't good.
Your memes are stale. The economy is already horribly inefficient that if it crashed and started over with barter day 1 of the restart would have 90%+ less waste.
I suggested it was the sensible solution to the issue, not that there's a way from here to there. The only real solution any of us can take part in is to stock up on guns, ammo, and food that isn't perishable for when the thing collapses.
The scammers are rarely the scammed.
That second one is the real issue, because if you automate 1,000 jobs with a program (Excel alone takes care of about a dozen at every mid sized company to achieve the same efficiency they would without it) then the person who wrote the program gets paid likely hourly or salary, the company that wrote it gets an initial contract (for custom work) or if they are really lucky and can make it generic enough they get a much smaller sale every few years adding up to more than a single custom contract. Neither case really makes up the economic impact (e.g. you lost 1,000 minimum wage jobs for a 100k contract and the net on the economy is about -$14,440,000/year - -$14,340,000 the first year for the pissant contractor who "got" the work.)
This is a major issue, as we've experienced compounding automation in computers of this form since the 80's - absolutely wrecking the economy in the process (most of this gets covered up in the compounding inflation rate of ~2.5%/year, but if you adjust the average take-home back then with today you'll see a major decline.)
Software corporations have every reason to stop this from their standpoint (an operating system can only do so much before it's effectively "done" and you can't get people to buy new versions of it - at which point your entire industry collapses without a subscription model,) but more importantly, we're heading toward a world where most of the jobs are automated and the only ones benefiting from it are the guys who got a chair (pun intended) when the music stopped.
For the sake of the economy as a whole we need to seriously consider taxes on automation which feed back into a UBI program (at the very least) equal to a sizable percentage of the savings, back-dated to when the automation started. It's too late to simply say "if you automate a position pay 50% of those wages into a pool for UBI, every year just like you would have paid the wages before the automation" because we're long beyond the point where that would be an equitable amount to cover basic needs, and going much beyond 50% would discourage further automation (which if done right, does actually benefit everyone - this isn't meant to be some Luddite dribble post.)
TL;DR: tax automation (including what is already in place) at a mere half of the displaced wages and we'll have the same exact fully-functional infrastructure of the modern world and enough UBI that everyone can own a home without debt - it's that fucking extreme of an issue.
Nah, just Commifornia companies which act across state lines thanks to the wonder of technology and bring money into the parasitic state known as Commifornia.
They think that when their oppression apparatus is completed and ready to oppress (convert/enlighten/bring-to-their-side) the masses that they will be the ones pulling the strings - same way Trump is able to piss them off to no end by using the insane policies implemented by his predecessors against them, the only real difference here is that when these tools go into force pretty much everyone gets rounded up into FEMA camps.
Is the search provider providing bullshit results because they didn't like the bullshit generated by others.
Divided loyalties, a greater ability of the clubs to brush off viewers in favor of more profitable e-sports, etc. Sports clubs are essentially dedicated to the sport, as a result they are heavily dependent on keeping fans happy. If they have multiple viable revenue streams it means the fans become any other consumer segment - which effectively means they will get shit on just like customers in every other industry - not something people want to deal with for a leisure activity like watching sports (even if sports are shit.)
E-sports are bottom-of-the-barrel bullshit and take up valuable resources which could be spent making non-shit games.
People who rely on their "gut feeling" can't distinguish between skipping lunch and a legitimate reason to feel uncomfortable with a situation.
From the very start it was obvious that his aim was to get 3D printing regulated.
Some pissant CEO from a foreign country doesn't get to break a deal with the US, ban his company from doing business in the US until he makes good.