The whole oil prices thing is a false premise. In terms of percent of GDP coming from oil, Venezuela was 8th, with 7-8% of their GDP from oil. The UAE and Kazakhstan are about 14%. Saudi Arabia is 21%. Oman is 25%. Iraq is 28%. Kuwait is 30%. Angola gets about 34% of their GDP from oil production. (Stats from the World Bank and The World Factbook)
None of those other countries even went into a recession when the oil prices dropped, so you can't attribute it to the oil price changes. In fact, oil prices are back up above average, but Venezuela still hasn't been producing and selling more oil.
From 1998 to 2018, oil production in Venezuela is down from 3.5 million barrels per day in December of 1997 vs 2 million in October of 2017.
So what happened in the last 20 years? From Wikipedia: “After Hugo Chávez officially took office in February 1999, several policy changes involving the country’s oil industry were made to explicitly tie it to the state under his Bolivarian Revolution. Since then, PDVSA has not demonstrated any capability to bring new oil fields on stream since nationalizing heavy oil projects in the Orinoco Petroleum Belt formerly operated by international oil companies ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Total. Chávez’s policies damaged Venezuela’s oil industry due to lack of investment, corruption and cash shortages.”
Probably just a fluke, though, right? I mean, steel production in Venezuela increased from 3400 tons in 1998 to about 4600 tons in 2008. The steel industry was nationalized by the Venezuelan government in 2008 and production declined to under 1600 tons. Huh, definitely a pattern forming. Similar stories of lower production and losses in the other industries after they were taken over: aluminum, cement, gold, iron, farming, transportation, electricity, food production, banking, paper and the media.
The issues in Venezuela are directly a predictable (and predicted by economists) result of nationalizing their industries.
Without the government takeover, even if oil companies were only competent enough to continue production levels and not grow them (as they’ve done previously over time), Venezuela would have almost twice as much hard currency coming in from oil sales.
The number of private companies in Venezuela was 14K in 1998. In 2011 it was 9K. It's lower now, but it's difficult to get accurate stats about exactly how lower in the resulting chaos. Without private companies in the economy, the economy sinks.
So no, their problems aren’t just about oil prices. Their problems, including a big chunk of the oil revenue losses, are a direct result of the socialist government of Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro taking over large portions of the economy. The government bureaucrats don't know what they're doing in business and industry and their priority is pleasing political constituencies, not making the companies run well.
If modern renewables are already cheaper than coal, then there is no need for a law to ban coal, people will just naturally switch to the cheaper technology instead.
It's only because they aren't that New Mexico politicians feel the need to virtue signal to their constituents that someday (when they are safely out of office and maybe even dead) the State will be on 100% non-fossil fuels. In the meantime, they'll spend some more of other people's money for their favorite special interest groups of the week.
Here, let me Google that for you.... beyond the reams of places online advertising their wide glasses selection, here's a column answering that very question and suggesting places where you can for example get your first pair for free on sale or $15 normally.
There are literally entire companies online dedicated to serving the big head market for glasses. There are others who let you search their inventory for how physically wide they are. If you think it's possible to do better, go ahead and try. That's called competition.
That's the "invisible hand" which serves even niche needs, because the capitalists only get paid if they actually provide value to their customers, unless of course some idiot comes along and proposes to regulate the industry and have the government tell everyone in detail what to do. Then it becomes a competition for influence with the politicians and the bureaucrats in how to force people to pay for their products and not need to compete for business.
Americans are among the richest people in the world. Why would they think they're being shafted?
Try having to live some place like Sweden or Germany, which are about on par with Kentucky in terms of household income. There are many more even poorer countries out there, even in the EU. Try Poland, with half the median disposable income of the absolute poorest U.S. State. Don't even get me started on most of the rest of the people in the world, living on less than $1K/month.
But it's people like you who want to stop the markets which have created all this wealth and instead drive people into poverty so they can all be equally poor.
When a country goes socialist and it craters, it is laughed off as a harmless and forgettable cautionary tale about the perils of command economics. When, by contrast, a country goes socialist and its economy does what Venezuela's did, it is not perceived to be a laughing matter - and it is not so easy to write off or to ignore.
and asks the important questions, like:
Are there any lessons to be learned from Venezuela's decision to avoid that subsidization route and instead pursue full-on nationalization?
See, so you can use Venezuela as the perfect example of why socialism inevitably leads to massive prosperity for all.
Don't worry, though. In the long run, it won't be the same people earning that $15/hour anyway. The people who before were only worth $11-12/hour to Whole Foods didn't magically become more productive, so they won't be able to keep their jobs now that work standards are going to be raised to the level of the people making say, $14/hour somewhere else. Those more experienced people will start applying to Whole Foods instead and the old employees will slowly be gotten rid of or given even more reduced hours over time if they can't hack the new expectations.
Don't worry, the government-should-tell-everyone-what-to-do crowd has a solution to that government-created problem. They'll just use the government to create yet another problem in the name of "fixing" the last one, until every industry looks like the health care industry.
Only if your solution is that those poor people who need a job just can't get one.
Of course, since that's what minimum wage laws literally do (make it illegal for you to have a job unless you are worth more than $X to an employer), I guess you can call it "solved" that the poor people can't even go somewhere else to find work.
the internet can potentially be censored, it's not the only form of technology that can be used to send data from one part of the world to another
Another hint for the report writer, the internet is a network of networks. If you use a radio network to transmit and receive information on your computer and your computer is connected to a network which is also part of the internet and uses it to transmit and receive some more information related to that first information, that radio network is also technically part of the internet...
As you say, next they'll write an article about how your mobile phone can communicate with your desktop on the other side of the world, instead of using the internet!
This story reminds me of when Slate claimed a famous politician doesn't use computers (instead he uses an iPad!) with a photo of the politician sitting at his desk with a laptop open and obviously being used, and then went on to explain about all the other computers he uses, the writer apparently not knowing what a computer is.
is in the headline, but the actual story seems to be that Disney plans to open the vault for good. Closing the vault would mean that they're keeping everything inside where no one can get at it, not that they're going to start keeping it all available.
It may be fun to be able to show kids the originals of some of the old Disney movies, but it'll come down to the cost, which I imagine will be CBS-like in it's ridiculousness, only more so.
Most trash bin "recycled" stuff isn't actually worth recycling, so a lot just ends up in the regular trash anyway. As not worth actually recycling, they instead burn it or bury it, just like the rest of the trash. It's a "feel good" program so that some people can pretend their doing something positive, while wasting everyone's time, money and scare resources in the process.
About the only thing most households deal with worth recycling which they may not actually naturally recycle are things made of metal. There's an easy way to check if that makes sense, which is if the local scrap dealer will pay you enough for it to make it worth you hauling it over to the dealer, then it makes economic sense to recycle it.
Where recycling and reusing actually makes economic sense, no one has to create a government program for it, nor fine people for not doing it. The major actual recycling in the U.S. is when people refurbish and reuse old homes instead of building new ones, sell their used cars, just about anything which gets run through a pawn shop or which is sold via craig's list, eBay and Amazon's used product sales, etc...
That's because if it actually makes economic sense to recycle or reuse something, then people will naturally do it because someone will pay them for it, rather than have to force them to "donate" their time and other resources in order to maybe break-even.
This price system is how we signal to others how much something is worth recycling. The price reflects the total resources something is worth to someone else, in terms of everything from raw materials and labor to transportation costs, etc... Municipal recycling programs are effectively systems for forcing people to accept a negative price (in the form of required time, cleaning, etc...) for their recycling labors, because what they're recycling isn't actually worth it in terms of resource savings. New paper products are mostly made from trees planted for the purpose, we aren't going to run out of sand for glass anytime soon, etc...
Ernst & Young also said it found 14 user accounts linked to Cotten that traded on Quadriga's exchange and withdrew cryptocurrency to addresses not tied to Quadriga.
It seems it should be easy to tell from the public blockchain where the coins were transferred to, how many, and when....
Bullshit. It's the "master planners" who decided to create zoning prohibiting mixed use building which led to the change into carefully segregated industrial, commercial and residential areas and the inevitable need to drive in and out of the first two from the third. As a bonus, they also decided they knew better than builders how many parking spots were needed, so we also have a vast landscape of unused asphalt with white markings on it.
In Seattle, for example, you can apparently get by on $256/SF for a fancy new 40 story condo tower. That's not even in a low-regulatory environment.
Rent costs are primarily supply/demand driven. In the bay area, locals (via their governments) have been severely limiting the supply for a long time, otherwise the higher rents would drive increasing construction until they stabilized at a point closer to the rest of the country (or even State).
He's probably talking about the supplemental poverty measure, which takes into account things like the local cost of living, including cost of housing, rather than your measurement which considers someone in rural Mississippi and NYC as being on the same dollar scale, when $X/year in one is a great living, while scraping by in the other.
In terms of education quality, you're referencing their US News and World Report ranking. If you take another look at that page, you may notice that's entirely driven by their 4th in "higher education", which includes educating a lot of people who are just visiting to go to college, while Pre-K-12 they're listed as 44th, right between South Carolina (43rd) and Louisiana (45th). In the interest of fairness, a quality only metric (not using spending as a proxy for quality, but rather just based on test results and adjusting for demographics, including race), CA moves all the way up to 34th.
It takes 4-5 years just to get through the building approval process after you own the land. That's if you actually meet all the restrictive criteria and the neighbors aren't trying too hard to prevent you from building. If you're trying to finance your construction, because of all the delays and the uncertainty involved in each step, that takes an average of four years to get done. Don't even talk about financing purchasing raw land, as you'll be paying interest for years before any hope of a return.
In most other places, it takes maybe 30-60 days to accomplish all of the above, even in other locations many consider slower than they need to be.
So while there is an increased understanding in the bay area what the results of their terrible policies are and some efforts to remediate them, they are a long ways away from not effectively blocking (by discouraging them from even trying, for the most part) an actual expansion of places to live.
I'm not sure you're seeing this literally enough. Yes, you're telling Google that you're interested in finding web sites about "treatment for liver cancer". You're literally sending Google's a communication to that effect. You personally told them, using your computer, that you value that information for something.
In terms of assumptions, if anyone is making assumptions about you, then that's a different (or at least additional) question, which isn't different legally if you tell someone at a generic service provider like Google, Target, or Starbucks which you use (either over the internet or in person), or your friend Joe in a txt message, or a random person at a bus stop. Obviously, any unsupported assumption that you're interested based on your own medical condition, as opposed to a friend's, would be dumb on the other party's side.
There's nothing special about the communication from a legal perspective just because you used a computer's web browser to communicate your message to the people at Google.
In a free country, everything is legal which is not explicitly illegal. So nothing has to be "made legal" unless it was previously made illegal.
In this specific case, the information you choose to send to a website from your computer is completely under your control. You don't even have to hook your computer up to someone else's network if you really don't want anyone to know anything about what you do with it. They aren't pointing TEMPEST gear at your windows, you're voluntarily sending them information from your computer to their server.
If you're in your home and ask your friend Joe what he knows about "treatment for liver cancer", you then have no recourse (except to be upset and not tell him anything in the future) if he uses the fact that you asked him about it to share it with an employer, insurance company, etc...
Asking Google, unless they promise you something different in a contract with you (typically contained in a terms and conditions, if you accept one), is no different.
Typically once you tell someone else something, they are under no obligation to keep it a secret unless there is some sort of explicit arrangement (a contract, a service provider law, etc...) to the contrary.
If you don't want Google to share something you told them, then maybe start by either asking them to agree not to share it before you tell them, or else don't share it with them. None of this is outside your control, it's just outside the realm of caring for most people, as they don't actually (in practice) value concealing information about them as much as you might think.
What seems to be missing from most of the analysis here is that you specifically took actions which told them X, Y or Z, so it's a bit much to be complaining later after you've let the horse out that the barn door is open.
Now if they could try adding in something simple, which would probably take the right developer less than a day to create and test (because it's already built into VBA), like regex support in the find box....
So how many jobs went away with this record number of new robots in 2018?
Huh, that's funny... the unemployment rate went down in 2018, almost as if all these new robots don't actually decrease the number of potential jobs out there, but instead enable people to do new jobs which couldn't be afforded to get done before.
This movie has been done already a few times, it's just that in the Hollywood versions, the Chinese guy who wants to kill billions in the name of his extreme environmentalist views is played as the villain, not the hero.
A monopoly is an enterprise that is the only seller of a good or service.
50% isn't anywhere near a monopoly on something.
Amazon barely breaks even on the retail side. Until very recently, it lost money every year. If it was anything like a monopoly, it'd be hugely profitable instead.
Amazon is a cloud services provider with a marketplace business on the side, not a "near-monopoly" on e-commerce sales.
The only downside to stuff like this (e.g. the "Green New Deal") is it benefits _everybody_. If you're one of the 1% that's no good.
Reading through AOC's “Green New Deal” document as published by NPR, there seem to be a few additional downsides for everyone, including banning:
all forms of plastic and fossil fuels, all carbon emissions, regardless of source, all nuclear power plants, non-union jobs related to renewable energy (or anything to do with the GND), airplanes, and famously, farting cows.
But don't worry, they'll guarantee:
Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work
And hey, they even have momentum:
Nearly every major Democratic Presidential contender say they back the Green New deal including: Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Jeff Merkeley, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jay Inslee.
o 45 House Reps and 330+ groups backed the original resolution
But yeah, Executive orders instead of laws was bad when Obama did it and it's still bad if Trump does it. Funny how I don't recall you opposing Obama's use of them to magically create full blown immigration programs, though.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole oil prices thing is a false premise.
In terms of percent of GDP coming from oil, Venezuela was 8th, with 7-8% of their GDP from oil. The UAE and Kazakhstan are about 14%. Saudi Arabia is 21%. Oman is 25%. Iraq is 28%. Kuwait is 30%. Angola gets about 34% of their GDP from oil production. (Stats from the World Bank and The World Factbook)
None of those other countries even went into a recession when the oil prices dropped, so you can't attribute it to the oil price changes. In fact, oil prices are back up above average, but Venezuela still hasn't been producing and selling more oil.
From 1998 to 2018, oil production in Venezuela is down from 3.5 million barrels per day in December of 1997 vs 2 million in October of 2017.
So what happened in the last 20 years? From Wikipedia:
“After Hugo Chávez officially took office in February 1999, several policy changes involving the country’s oil industry were made to explicitly tie it to the state under his Bolivarian Revolution. Since then, PDVSA has not demonstrated any capability to bring new oil fields on stream since nationalizing heavy oil projects in the Orinoco Petroleum Belt formerly operated by international oil companies ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Total. Chávez’s policies damaged Venezuela’s oil industry due to lack of investment, corruption and cash shortages.”
Probably just a fluke, though, right? I mean, steel production in Venezuela increased from 3400 tons in 1998 to about 4600 tons in 2008. The steel industry was nationalized by the Venezuelan government in 2008 and production declined to under 1600 tons. Huh, definitely a pattern forming. Similar stories of lower production and losses in the other industries after they were taken over: aluminum, cement, gold, iron, farming, transportation, electricity, food production, banking, paper and the media.
The issues in Venezuela are directly a predictable (and predicted by economists) result of nationalizing their industries.
Without the government takeover, even if oil companies were only competent enough to continue production levels and not grow them (as they’ve done previously over time), Venezuela would have almost twice as much hard currency coming in from oil sales.
The number of private companies in Venezuela was 14K in 1998. In 2011 it was 9K. It's lower now, but it's difficult to get accurate stats about exactly how lower in the resulting chaos. Without private companies in the economy, the economy sinks.
So no, their problems aren’t just about oil prices. Their problems, including a big chunk of the oil revenue losses, are a direct result of the socialist government of Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro taking over large portions of the economy. The government bureaucrats don't know what they're doing in business and industry and their priority is pleasing political constituencies, not making the companies run well.
If modern renewables are already cheaper than coal, then there is no need for a law to ban coal, people will just naturally switch to the cheaper technology instead.
It's only because they aren't that New Mexico politicians feel the need to virtue signal to their constituents that someday (when they are safely out of office and maybe even dead) the State will be on 100% non-fossil fuels. In the meantime, they'll spend some more of other people's money for their favorite special interest groups of the week.
Here, let me Google that for you.... beyond the reams of places online advertising their wide glasses selection, here's a column answering that very question and suggesting places where you can for example get your first pair for free on sale or $15 normally.
There are literally entire companies online dedicated to serving the big head market for glasses. There are others who let you search their inventory for how physically wide they are. If you think it's possible to do better, go ahead and try. That's called competition.
That's the "invisible hand" which serves even niche needs, because the capitalists only get paid if they actually provide value to their customers, unless of course some idiot comes along and proposes to regulate the industry and have the government tell everyone in detail what to do. Then it becomes a competition for influence with the politicians and the bureaucrats in how to force people to pay for their products and not need to compete for business.
Americans are among the richest people in the world. Why would they think they're being shafted?
Try having to live some place like Sweden or Germany, which are about on par with Kentucky in terms of household income. There are many more even poorer countries out there, even in the EU. Try Poland, with half the median disposable income of the absolute poorest U.S. State. Don't even get me started on most of the rest of the people in the world, living on less than $1K/month.
But it's people like you who want to stop the markets which have created all this wealth and instead drive people into poverty so they can all be equally poor.
Don't worry, though. They tried it again in Venezuela and as you can see by this article in Salon about "Hugo Chavez's economic miracle", socialism and nationalizing industries is working out great there.
For example, the article says :
and asks the important questions, like:
See, so you can use Venezuela as the perfect example of why socialism inevitably leads to massive prosperity for all.
Don't worry, though. In the long run, it won't be the same people earning that $15/hour anyway. The people who before were only worth $11-12/hour to Whole Foods didn't magically become more productive, so they won't be able to keep their jobs now that work standards are going to be raised to the level of the people making say, $14/hour somewhere else. Those more experienced people will start applying to Whole Foods instead and the old employees will slowly be gotten rid of or given even more reduced hours over time if they can't hack the new expectations.
Don't worry, the government-should-tell-everyone-what-to-do crowd has a solution to that government-created problem. They'll just use the government to create yet another problem in the name of "fixing" the last one, until every industry looks like the health care industry.
"would solve that"????
Only if your solution is that those poor people who need a job just can't get one.
Of course, since that's what minimum wage laws literally do (make it illegal for you to have a job unless you are worth more than $X to an employer), I guess you can call it "solved" that the poor people can't even go somewhere else to find work.
It's almost as if packet radio has been used by amateurs for about 40 years now....
Another hint for the report writer, the internet is a network of networks. If you use a radio network to transmit and receive information on your computer and your computer is connected to a network which is also part of the internet and uses it to transmit and receive some more information related to that first information, that radio network is also technically part of the internet...
As you say, next they'll write an article about how your mobile phone can communicate with your desktop on the other side of the world, instead of using the internet!
This story reminds me of when Slate claimed a famous politician doesn't use computers (instead he uses an iPad!) with a photo of the politician sitting at his desk with a laptop open and obviously being used, and then went on to explain about all the other computers he uses, the writer apparently not knowing what a computer is.
is in the headline, but the actual story seems to be that Disney plans to open the vault for good. Closing the vault would mean that they're keeping everything inside where no one can get at it, not that they're going to start keeping it all available.
It may be fun to be able to show kids the originals of some of the old Disney movies, but it'll come down to the cost, which I imagine will be CBS-like in it's ridiculousness, only more so.
Most trash bin "recycled" stuff isn't actually worth recycling, so a lot just ends up in the regular trash anyway. As not worth actually recycling, they instead burn it or bury it, just like the rest of the trash. It's a "feel good" program so that some people can pretend their doing something positive, while wasting everyone's time, money and scare resources in the process.
About the only thing most households deal with worth recycling which they may not actually naturally recycle are things made of metal. There's an easy way to check if that makes sense, which is if the local scrap dealer will pay you enough for it to make it worth you hauling it over to the dealer, then it makes economic sense to recycle it.
Where recycling and reusing actually makes economic sense, no one has to create a government program for it, nor fine people for not doing it. The major actual recycling in the U.S. is when people refurbish and reuse old homes instead of building new ones, sell their used cars, just about anything which gets run through a pawn shop or which is sold via craig's list, eBay and Amazon's used product sales, etc...
That's because if it actually makes economic sense to recycle or reuse something, then people will naturally do it because someone will pay them for it, rather than have to force them to "donate" their time and other resources in order to maybe break-even.
This price system is how we signal to others how much something is worth recycling. The price reflects the total resources something is worth to someone else, in terms of everything from raw materials and labor to transportation costs, etc... Municipal recycling programs are effectively systems for forcing people to accept a negative price (in the form of required time, cleaning, etc...) for their recycling labors, because what they're recycling isn't actually worth it in terms of resource savings. New paper products are mostly made from trees planted for the purpose, we aren't going to run out of sand for glass anytime soon, etc...
Here's the relevant part of the summary:
It seems it should be easy to tell from the public blockchain where the coins were transferred to, how many, and when....
Bullshit. It's the "master planners" who decided to create zoning prohibiting mixed use building which led to the change into carefully segregated industrial, commercial and residential areas and the inevitable need to drive in and out of the first two from the third. As a bonus, they also decided they knew better than builders how many parking spots were needed, so we also have a vast landscape of unused asphalt with white markings on it.
In Seattle, for example, you can apparently get by on $256/SF for a fancy new 40 story condo tower. That's not even in a low-regulatory environment.
Rent costs are primarily supply/demand driven. In the bay area, locals (via their governments) have been severely limiting the supply for a long time, otherwise the higher rents would drive increasing construction until they stabilized at a point closer to the rest of the country (or even State).
He's probably talking about the supplemental poverty measure, which takes into account things like the local cost of living, including cost of housing, rather than your measurement which considers someone in rural Mississippi and NYC as being on the same dollar scale, when $X/year in one is a great living, while scraping by in the other.
In terms of education quality, you're referencing their US News and World Report ranking. If you take another look at that page, you may notice that's entirely driven by their 4th in "higher education", which includes educating a lot of people who are just visiting to go to college, while Pre-K-12 they're listed as 44th, right between South Carolina (43rd) and Louisiana (45th). In the interest of fairness, a quality only metric (not using spending as a proxy for quality, but rather just based on test results and adjusting for demographics, including race), CA moves all the way up to 34th.
It takes 4-5 years just to get through the building approval process after you own the land. That's if you actually meet all the restrictive criteria and the neighbors aren't trying too hard to prevent you from building. If you're trying to finance your construction, because of all the delays and the uncertainty involved in each step, that takes an average of four years to get done. Don't even talk about financing purchasing raw land, as you'll be paying interest for years before any hope of a return.
In most other places, it takes maybe 30-60 days to accomplish all of the above, even in other locations many consider slower than they need to be.
So while there is an increased understanding in the bay area what the results of their terrible policies are and some efforts to remediate them, they are a long ways away from not effectively blocking (by discouraging them from even trying, for the most part) an actual expansion of places to live.
I'm not sure you're seeing this literally enough. Yes, you're telling Google that you're interested in finding web sites about "treatment for liver cancer". You're literally sending Google's a communication to that effect. You personally told them, using your computer, that you value that information for something.
In terms of assumptions, if anyone is making assumptions about you, then that's a different (or at least additional) question, which isn't different legally if you tell someone at a generic service provider like Google, Target, or Starbucks which you use (either over the internet or in person), or your friend Joe in a txt message, or a random person at a bus stop. Obviously, any unsupported assumption that you're interested based on your own medical condition, as opposed to a friend's, would be dumb on the other party's side.
There's nothing special about the communication from a legal perspective just because you used a computer's web browser to communicate your message to the people at Google.
Here's some news reports on ford dealerships and BMW dealerships within the last 6 months.
Looks like mostly local newspaper/TV sites, though.
In a free country, everything is legal which is not explicitly illegal. So nothing has to be "made legal" unless it was previously made illegal.
In this specific case, the information you choose to send to a website from your computer is completely under your control. You don't even have to hook your computer up to someone else's network if you really don't want anyone to know anything about what you do with it. They aren't pointing TEMPEST gear at your windows, you're voluntarily sending them information from your computer to their server.
If you're in your home and ask your friend Joe what he knows about "treatment for liver cancer", you then have no recourse (except to be upset and not tell him anything in the future) if he uses the fact that you asked him about it to share it with an employer, insurance company, etc...
Asking Google, unless they promise you something different in a contract with you (typically contained in a terms and conditions, if you accept one), is no different.
Typically once you tell someone else something, they are under no obligation to keep it a secret unless there is some sort of explicit arrangement (a contract, a service provider law, etc...) to the contrary.
If you don't want Google to share something you told them, then maybe start by either asking them to agree not to share it before you tell them, or else don't share it with them. None of this is outside your control, it's just outside the realm of caring for most people, as they don't actually (in practice) value concealing information about them as much as you might think.
What seems to be missing from most of the analysis here is that you specifically took actions which told them X, Y or Z, so it's a bit much to be complaining later after you've let the horse out that the barn door is open.
Now if they could try adding in something simple, which would probably take the right developer less than a day to create and test (because it's already built into VBA), like regex support in the find box....
So how many jobs went away with this record number of new robots in 2018?
Huh, that's funny... the unemployment rate went down in 2018, almost as if all these new robots don't actually decrease the number of potential jobs out there, but instead enable people to do new jobs which couldn't be afforded to get done before.
This movie has been done already a few times, it's just that in the Hollywood versions, the Chinese guy who wants to kill billions in the name of his extreme environmentalist views is played as the villain, not the hero.
From the Encyclopedia of Economics:
50% isn't anywhere near a monopoly on something.
Amazon barely breaks even on the retail side. Until very recently, it lost money every year. If it was anything like a monopoly, it'd be hugely profitable instead.
Amazon is a cloud services provider with a marketplace business on the side, not a "near-monopoly" on e-commerce sales.
Reading through AOC's “Green New Deal” document as published by NPR, there seem to be a few additional downsides for everyone, including banning:
But don't worry, they'll guarantee:
And hey, they even have momentum:
But yeah, Executive orders instead of laws was bad when Obama did it and it's still bad if Trump does it. Funny how I don't recall you opposing Obama's use of them to magically create full blown immigration programs, though.