In Canada we don’t, but you still fill your own cup. Is that not typical?

Mastodon is just an impenetrable mess from a UX perspective.

How does it compare to Lemmy?

Great, so the perverse incentives aren’t beatable then. Time to bug lawmakers, I guess?

On the bright side, Lemmy feels just about like Reddit to use, so that bodes well for us.

Okay, so I’m going to tell you where the new Twitter is in the blue swirly.

I know, I know, easier said than done to actually guide them through, but if they’re at that level it’s just a different setting on the magic box.

Yeah, I feel like this should be surmountable. At worst, you skip the whole concept of federation and just tell them exactly where to sign up.

Lol, I plead not American, I’ve never had to deal with the IRS.

I regret that the Democrats aren’t abusing (to whatever degree doing exactly what they said counts) the shit out of that ruling. This is why the other guys win.

Bonus points if it’s fucking with the justices personally. Telling the IRA to adjust someone’s taxes upwards sounds like an “official action”…

But still yes, once NATO works out which Russian stuff to take out in response.

Probably the ghost tankers, right?

I feel like the “tits” they would get for that “tat” would be pretty bad for them. NATO breaks toys better than they ever will.

I don’t really think it would start WWIII on it’s own, though.

Ooooooohhh! I never made that connection.

What’s the problem? They’re just not sure which instance to go with?

Cashing out the entire S&P 500 is very different from cashing out one billionaire. Most of the people who buy stocks already own stuff on the S&P 500, so it’s unclear who that trade would be with, exactly. Same exact thing for real estate: if you sold the entire continental US (again, whatever that means) it would probably exceed 45 trillion, but I’m still pretty comfortable saying if you own 100 billion worth of Manhattan real estate, you actually have 100 billion dollars, and could reasonably pay a 90 billion dollar bill given enough time.

Careful is good when it comes to policy, I definitely agree with that.

It’s not like you can buy too much of an earning stock. I’m pretty sure elasticity approaches zero quickly if someone is dumping a well-known, profitable company. It might induce some paranoia, but big investors don’t get to where they are by panicking often.

By the way, TSLA has a P/E ratio in the 60’s so it’s not exactly a great deal anyway.

Depends. Amazon doesn’t even have one; tech stocks are often driven by future potential. I wouldn’t buy a car from them though.

Nobody actually beats the market. I’m pretty sure the insanity was there all along; he just got lucky several times in a row.

If he tried to sell all his shares it would cause the stock price to collapse

Why? If the fundamentals are there, there should be a hard floor on stock prices. It would take a while for the market to absorb that much Twitter and SpaceX, but I see no reason it’s impossible. Actually, I bet Twitter’s (off-book) cap would go up if Musk was leaving.

If you’re trying to defend capitalism (whatever that means to you), keep in mind that you’re basically suggesting stocks have no actual, intrinsic value here.

Billionaires don’t actually do this, though, because liquid cash doesn’t earn.

Right now, if he were able to convert all of his $241.8B to cash, then distribute it evenly among all of the employees at all of his companies, he could give each of his 146,000 employees $1.6M.

Fun fact that this doesn’t work for every billionaire. Tech companies don’t employ very many people compared to their revenue.

If you go by by profits returned to owners as opposed to sale value it’s even more stark. Amazon still hasn’t paid out anything; it’s all been plowed straight back into expansion.

I don’t necessarily think that billionaires should be abolished,

To piss off the remaining side of the political spectrum: Why not?

Investment-wise, luck. If you had 100 billion and put it all on one risky stock, you too could fail upwards, around half the time.

Public persona-wise, he’s basically a professional media villain. He’s invited to comment and interview on things because it will always get clicks, even if they’re hate clicks.

Past returns are no guarantee of future success. How many damn times do financial people have to say this?

Given that they’ve implicitly sampled only the most successful past performers to start with, I’m going to say this is a rare case where the gambler’s fallacy works. More likely than not, his future returns will be lower.

If you want to take crazy (or mild) risks that’s your prerogative, but a skydiving jump costs around the same, and has nice scenery instead of tasteless white goo.

That America starts wars for self interest is easier to defend, but honestly I’m not convinced of that, either. There was always a lot of that neocon ideology that democracy (or just capitalism) can be spread by force, and I see no reason to expect it’s just a facade. It would be hard to prove that either way, though, because once you’re an ideological actor your ideology losing means your national influence losing as well.

More relevant to the original topic, it’s fair to say that America doesn’t always start a war that would be in it’s national interest, at least. In the 90’s, they could have gone on an expansionist spree pretty easily, but they did triumphalism instead, and just kind of rested on their laurels until 9/11 (with the possible exception of Bosnia).