...to make it legal to pay someone on the value they bring, rather than where they live? Pretty sure there no obvious laws against that. ETA: as long as the value is high enough, at least.
Probably you meant "to not have to know where they live", but that wasn't what the GP's post was saying.
I'm fine with a bailout of some companies as long as the shareholders bear the burden and the taxpayers have a plausible scenario for upside.
Want $65B Boeing? Okay -- we'll give that you that as a capital injection against your cap table. Preferred stock with preferences and at a discount. Oh, your market capitalization is only $53B right now? I guess that makes the US treasury your largest shareholder.
Existing shareholders get what's coming to them: Massive dilution. The government gains an enviable equity position that they can eventually exit at hopefully a large profit.
Over the next decade, the government responsibly liquidates these positions. Those liquidation events can be spent servicing our ballooning national debt and underfunded entitlements.
This is the exact same deal a startup would get if they were in a similar position and went back to investors for cash from an unfavorable position.
The cat is out the bag. Most of the people in the world will be exposed to this virus and survive. China knows this. China also knows it's not possible to remain isolated from the virus and its effects. Even if that was possible, China's citizens would have to remain in virtual isolation until a vaccine was developed. Who knows when that will be or the knock on effects.
China went to extreme measure to lockdown and contain this. To believe the rubbish that they stopped testing is thrash. They contained it, aggressive testing, contact tracing and quarantine is what I have read from other sources they are using to keep it at bay with all new infections being from international travelers.
This is an economic problem not a technical one. We simply need to make it unprofitable to wholesale spam call citizens of the wealthy first-world.
Every outbound call should cost $1 to the terminating carrier. ATT, Centurylink, Etc. Recipients can mark spam calls (*69, an app, whatever) and the dollar is split between the carrier and consumer. After 60 days the money is returned for calls not marked as spam.
No calls are connected that don't include this advance this money.
Now, the assholes who dial 2,000 people a minute will need to afford $2,000 a minute of credit to run their operations.
Carveouts or credits can be extended to bona fide groups such as political parties, 503c, etc.
Over time, trustworthy callers will have a revolving account or insurance to cover the costs. Untrusted caller no longer can afford to make calls.
You’re now incentivizing the carrier to deliver spam calls, and the customer to report as spam every call they receive from a party they have no expectation of talking to again regardless of whether it’s spam.
I just picked up the lg 5k2k 34 inch ultra wide. I’m very happy with it. Before this, I ran two 3440x1440 displays but got tired of how pixelated everything looked.
If you’re ok windows or Linux, dell makes an 8k 32” display that you might enjoy. It’s fallen to just a couple thousand dollars now on amazon. Sadly incompatible with the Mac.
I hope this represents a fundamental shift in American trade policy.
American free trade agreements should only be extended to countries that have roughly symmetrical environmental policies, human/labor rights, market access, IP protection, among other things.
Any trade deals less this sensibility amounts to the exploration of people, the planet or of property rights, and should be taxed extensively.
Yep, we should have been more vigilant since 2002 as we kept on importing goods with an unfair deal. I want China to progress as any other country but under fairness and without this atrocious 1 party authoritarian regime. Imagine if they were like Japan or India with free speech and democratic government, hell I would move to Shenzhen!
I parted ways with Best Buy last month and the writing has been on the wall about Brian for months. Lackluster vision, missed opportunities to capitalize on growth combined with soft performance meant this was all but certain.
