I read the article, but strangely when I look up populations of large mammals - they seem stable or growing, generally (with few exceptions). The article doesn't state which mammals, just the general claim. So - which mammals? The claim is made, it is on the claimant to provide data.
SLIGHTY overvalued? American Airlines and Delta - the two largest air carriers in the world - have a lower market cap than Uber. Combined they do over $80 billion in revenue and over $11 billion in actual profit. Over $100 billion in actual hard assets.
Uber? About 8% of that revenue. Losing over $2 billion a year (yes, they have a -133% return rate on revenue). And assets? Well - it does have a database and an app!
In 10 years, Uber will be looked back upon like Webvan and pets.com - perfect example of the Web 2.0 implosion of the late twenty-teens.... This is early investors looking to bail as quickly as possible, realizing their insanity at buying in at stupid-high valuations for a taxi-centric version of Craigslist...
I see, so I should have searched for "mammal population decline" not "large mammal population decline" as originally claimed... Goalpost shifts and all!
You don't understand. This is on the Internet! Yeah, we lose money on each transaction, but you fail to realize we'll make it up with volume! Just like we did back in the 2000 dot-bomb era!
So then, racial discrimination should be acceptable, because racial/genetic differences in potential performance exist. We're not all equal, so no need to force us to ignore our differences.
So then it's not the fault of other people, it is genetic? So there is a genetic reason to have bias about hiring people - some people are just "born lazy and ignorant"?
90% of murdered blacks were killed by blacks, whilst 83% of murdered whites were killed by whites. And 57% of all murders were commited by blacks. Was it 99%? no - but it wasn't far off from 90%, the real statistic...
Rather than race, think of it as "culture". It's why first and second generation African immgrants vastly exceed 3+ generation African Americans in terms of economic and scholastic success. American black culture is the issue, not prejudice against blacks in general. Biases against blacks are because of the prevalent US black culture creating the dominant image of what a black person is. We have cultural biases, not racial biases... It's not DNA - it's culture.
It was the concierge button. THAT was what made Vertu great. You push a button, you're instantly connected to a personal concierge who would arrange whatever you needed. Dinner reservations, flights, flower delivery, dry cleaning, etc. The Vertu phone came with a lifetime concierge-on-demand service. What killed it was the expansion of Google Voice/Siri type apps and integration with other vendors. You no longer needed a human to do that for you...
Which large mammals would that be? Whale populations are rebounding all over the world. Bison as well. Kodiak, polar, and grizzly bear populations are increasing. Elephants and rhinos are down, primarily due to poaching, but hippos are up. But most other large mammals (those weighing over 1000 pounds) seem to be rebounding. So which mammals are you discussing?
possible mass extinction of species all over the world may be imminent
So let me get this straight. It is possible that mass extinction may be imminent (meaning: it is not happening now, and we're not sure it will). Thus we have biological annihilation already underway. Somehow those two don't quite align... Methinks the headline isn't just clickbait, but outright #FakeNews?
PS: The deficit last year was $1.4 trillion. Of course, that's looking at real numbers, not the made up fantasy shown by the White House. Our national debt for FY2016 went up $1.4 trillion dollars - and that only happens from excess spending. Looking at TreasuryDirect.gov and you'll see the truth.
Fully agree! Heck, if we just pegged the budget increases to inflation plus population growth (cost of delivering services plus increase in service demands) we'd grow ourselves out of a deficit in about 12 years (GDP tends to grow faster than inflation plus pop growth, and Hauser's Law gives us faster tax receipt growth over time). But the Federal Government continues to accelerate its spending faster than reasonable, and claims it's not taxing enough.
There are calls always to increase tax rates back up to those of the 1950s and 1960s, but the reality is the Federal Government collects TWICE the tax revenues, per capita and adjusted for inflation, than it did back in those days. It already taxes, effectively, twice as much. And our deficit and debt has only exploded...
It is? Can you identify which year was the last where the debt went down? The only way the debt increases is if we spend more than we brought in - a deficit. President Clinton had an "on budget" surplus, but that's not the entire budget - there are trillions in off-budget spending every year. And that runs a hefty deficit. Don't take my word for it - look at the link I provided that shows the Federal Government's own numbers. The last time we had an actual surplus - no deficit - was 1957.
Back in those days, the Federal Government collected less than half it does today, per capita and adjusted for inflation. And the last time it actually lived within its means (no deficit) was 1957. When it was collecting half of what it is today. Perhaps the issue is spending has spiraled out of control - amount and what it's spent on - and that's the problem...
PS: you are part of the rich, at least on a global level...
The Federal Government spends about $1,000 per month per man, woman, and child. And $700 of that is NOT defense/military. If we cannot have your perfect medical/social net for $8500 per year per man, woman, and child - how much more do we need?
The model I have seen work is artists GIVE away their music (sometimes unofficially) so that folks will come to their shows and buy merchandise.
That was pretty much the ONLY model prior to ~1945. Musicians made almost nothing on the sales, and made it all on performances. The years post-WWII until now were the abberration, not the "you earn when you perform" model that was around for literally thousands of years (and was figured out by monster groups like the Rolling Stones and others).
SoCal power rates. The "first tier" is usually set well below what a normal household would use (for example, I have no AC, no pool/hot tub, all LED lighting, natural gas for heating and clothes drying, and I'm only home for 15-18 days a month - and I still use 110-120% of my typical allowance). Of course, we also get to have the highest gas prices in the lower 48 - even though we are the 3rd largest producer of oil in the US.
In the Middle East, the UAE (Dubai in particular) has focused on tourism heavily. It also has the smallest oil reserves. The rest of the Middle East? Not really a place for tourists unless you like your women covered, your men not Christian or Jewish, and stopping to pray 5 times a day... And yes, I've been there too many times.
Slashdot Mirror
I read the article, but strangely when I look up populations of large mammals - they seem stable or growing, generally (with few exceptions). The article doesn't state which mammals, just the general claim. So - which mammals? The claim is made, it is on the claimant to provide data.
Uber? About 8% of that revenue. Losing over $2 billion a year (yes, they have a -133% return rate on revenue). And assets? Well - it does have a database and an app!
In 10 years, Uber will be looked back upon like Webvan and pets.com - perfect example of the Web 2.0 implosion of the late twenty-teens.... This is early investors looking to bail as quickly as possible, realizing their insanity at buying in at stupid-high valuations for a taxi-centric version of Craigslist...
I see, so I should have searched for "mammal population decline" not "large mammal population decline" as originally claimed... Goalpost shifts and all!
You don't understand. This is on the Internet! Yeah, we lose money on each transaction, but you fail to realize we'll make it up with volume! Just like we did back in the 2000 dot-bomb era!
Oh wait...
So then, racial discrimination should be acceptable, because racial/genetic differences in potential performance exist. We're not all equal, so no need to force us to ignore our differences.
What does Netcraft say? Which did they confirm?
So then it's not the fault of other people, it is genetic? So there is a genetic reason to have bias about hiring people - some people are just "born lazy and ignorant"?
90% of murdered blacks were killed by blacks, whilst 83% of murdered whites were killed by whites. And 57% of all murders were commited by blacks. Was it 99%? no - but it wasn't far off from 90%, the real statistic...
Rather than race, think of it as "culture". It's why first and second generation African immgrants vastly exceed 3+ generation African Americans in terms of economic and scholastic success. American black culture is the issue, not prejudice against blacks in general. Biases against blacks are because of the prevalent US black culture creating the dominant image of what a black person is. We have cultural biases, not racial biases... It's not DNA - it's culture.
It was the concierge button. THAT was what made Vertu great. You push a button, you're instantly connected to a personal concierge who would arrange whatever you needed. Dinner reservations, flights, flower delivery, dry cleaning, etc. The Vertu phone came with a lifetime concierge-on-demand service. What killed it was the expansion of Google Voice/Siri type apps and integration with other vendors. You no longer needed a human to do that for you...
Which large mammals would that be? Whale populations are rebounding all over the world. Bison as well. Kodiak, polar, and grizzly bear populations are increasing. Elephants and rhinos are down, primarily due to poaching, but hippos are up. But most other large mammals (those weighing over 1000 pounds) seem to be rebounding. So which mammals are you discussing?
Era of 'Biological Annihilation' Is Underway
possible mass extinction of species all over the world may be imminent
So let me get this straight. It is possible that mass extinction may be imminent (meaning: it is not happening now, and we're not sure it will). Thus we have biological annihilation already underway. Somehow those two don't quite align... Methinks the headline isn't just clickbait, but outright #FakeNews?
PS: The deficit last year was $1.4 trillion. Of course, that's looking at real numbers, not the made up fantasy shown by the White House. Our national debt for FY2016 went up $1.4 trillion dollars - and that only happens from excess spending. Looking at TreasuryDirect.gov and you'll see the truth.
Fully agree! Heck, if we just pegged the budget increases to inflation plus population growth (cost of delivering services plus increase in service demands) we'd grow ourselves out of a deficit in about 12 years (GDP tends to grow faster than inflation plus pop growth, and Hauser's Law gives us faster tax receipt growth over time). But the Federal Government continues to accelerate its spending faster than reasonable, and claims it's not taxing enough.
There are calls always to increase tax rates back up to those of the 1950s and 1960s, but the reality is the Federal Government collects TWICE the tax revenues, per capita and adjusted for inflation, than it did back in those days. It already taxes, effectively, twice as much. And our deficit and debt has only exploded...
It is? Can you identify which year was the last where the debt went down? The only way the debt increases is if we spend more than we brought in - a deficit. President Clinton had an "on budget" surplus, but that's not the entire budget - there are trillions in off-budget spending every year. And that runs a hefty deficit. Don't take my word for it - look at the link I provided that shows the Federal Government's own numbers. The last time we had an actual surplus - no deficit - was 1957.
Back in those days, the Federal Government collected less than half it does today, per capita and adjusted for inflation. And the last time it actually lived within its means (no deficit) was 1957. When it was collecting half of what it is today. Perhaps the issue is spending has spiraled out of control - amount and what it's spent on - and that's the problem...
PS: you are part of the rich, at least on a global level...
The Federal Government spends about $1,000 per month per man, woman, and child. And $700 of that is NOT defense/military. If we cannot have your perfect medical/social net for $8500 per year per man, woman, and child - how much more do we need?
The model I have seen work is artists GIVE away their music (sometimes unofficially) so that folks will come to their shows and buy merchandise.
That was pretty much the ONLY model prior to ~1945. Musicians made almost nothing on the sales, and made it all on performances. The years post-WWII until now were the abberration, not the "you earn when you perform" model that was around for literally thousands of years (and was figured out by monster groups like the Rolling Stones and others).
SoCal power rates. The "first tier" is usually set well below what a normal household would use (for example, I have no AC, no pool/hot tub, all LED lighting, natural gas for heating and clothes drying, and I'm only home for 15-18 days a month - and I still use 110-120% of my typical allowance). Of course, we also get to have the highest gas prices in the lower 48 - even though we are the 3rd largest producer of oil in the US.
So much bollocks. When you use oil to produce electricity you have no more oil to produce electricity. It's not renewable.
Apparently you're not quite up to speed. We can make crude oil, in less than an hour. It's an unlimited resource.
Where the North Vietnamese were funded and supplied by China and the USSR, and the Afghanis were funded and supplied by the US, you mean...
If only the world was still stuck with 2000 year old technology. Then your references would be relevant.
Hmmm... Thinking coal "jihadis" versus children/wedding/mosque bombing, raping/stealing/plundering jihadis. And you claim they are equivalent?
Actual foreign aid. Israel gets military assistance only, and it is a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend for NATO.
In the Middle East, the UAE (Dubai in particular) has focused on tourism heavily. It also has the smallest oil reserves. The rest of the Middle East? Not really a place for tourists unless you like your women covered, your men not Christian or Jewish, and stopping to pray 5 times a day... And yes, I've been there too many times.