We did an enterprise license renewal with them last summer. They offered and we accepted a purchase of a large block of m364 license in exchange for a substantial discount in the overall price. Worked for us, worked for them, so no complaints there. We are measuring engagement and time-savings per user and we are doing pretty good on the engagement side while time savings side is barely breaking even (comparing the price of the product versus monetary value of the time saved per user on a monthly basis).
As far as I can tell, they didn’t do this price increase on the business/enterprise SKUs at all. Copilot is still an add on for any of the integration with Office.
(Something the UI reminds you of if you’re on a business plan without it, if you click the button it offers to request a license from your admin unless they remembered to turn that off.)
Ads were way too aggressive on iOS, pop up videos interfered with the use. I have a genuine interest in the topic but the ads just made my trust dissipate under a minute.
When I was young, I enjoyed every event the city had to offer. As I age, I have started seeing things differently, and my priorities have changed. I cannot party as much as before; noise and traffic bother me, and tranquil spaces have a lot of allure for me now. So, I understand the division Barcelonans are facing as they are certainly on a spectrum: some want action, while others just do not want to be disrupted. My solution was to move to a quieter place, which was a hard decision as I had to leave my beloved city to the new generations who will enjoy all the energy and craziness that makes it an amazing city.
Personally, I'd be most concerned about pollution, such as toxic dust from tires and brakes and noxious exhaust fumes. Presumably, the roads they are closing would generate a certain amount of this in any case, but would the race make it substantially worse? Has anybody studied it?
I also think that perhaps we are well past the point where we should have stopped burning fossil fuels for entertainment.
Absolutely. This is like 20 cars on a circuit! The event itself surely doesn't cause much pollution. In F1 in general, Barcelona and elsewhere, I'd say the circus _surrounding_ it causes by far the most pollution. Logistics to/from the circuit with trucks upon trucks per team, setting up the teams' respective pits, private airplanes to/from the circuit, thousands of spectators to/from circuits, some going by yachts, many by air for at least one stint.
The race track? In the big picture, a rounding error.
This might be a concern if it were 24/7 but it’s a one week event with races only actively happening for a few hours a day. Any impact would be dissipated long before the next.
If they were so toxic, race tracks would surely not exist or would be so unsustainable they’d go out of business immediately from having to deal with the cleanup.
This works under the assumption that all negative environmental externalities are tracked by governing bodies in every jurisdictions, and that's simply not the case.
No, it works under the assumption that they’re tracked in literally any one jurisdiction in the world.
If it were so extremely toxic, we’d have heard about it from any of the jurisdictions where there is a racetrack, which there are thousands of around the world. Or one of the cities which already has a F1 circuit, of which there’s dozens.
It simply isn’t anywhere near the problem that GP makes it out to potentially be.
Either they're small, and the only people paying attention are a town and an insurance company, or they're so big nobody would dare (take on F1?, please).
The actual race isn't in the city. It's miles away, you can't even hear the cars while the race is on (like you can in e.g. downtown Melbourne even on the other side of the city). Nobody here in the city has a problem with it. Perhaps the residents of Montmeló where the actual circuit is do, but I don't know.
But this protest was against a demo performance this evening in the city. On a weekday night when people have to work. In a city that prides itself on sustainability and has pedestrianised many streets in recent years.
A lot of people like myself consider F1 to be nothing but a toy for big oil and billionaires with too much money to spend. It's hyper commercialised. I don't want them here either though I didn't protest. I just avoided the area. It's much harder to do if you actually live there though.
No, but I just wanted to clarify that the protests are not about that either because the races are so far away from the city. For pollution purposes they might as well be in Monaco especially because there's a mountain in between.
I'd assume the slower traffic and more people in the area would bump up pollution a bit.
Formula 1 is aiming to be carbon neutral by 2030 and engines from 2026 will be run on sustainable (ethanol based) fuels. The fleet of trucks to cart them around Europe also now run on biodiesel.
Almost everybody's entertainment involves energy, which involves pollution.
Am I no longer permitted to drive to the beach, fly somewhere for a holiday, take a boat to scuba dive, take a bus to the snow?
Come to think of it, exercise burns calories and food requires fossil fuel based chemicals and fertilizers and machinery to grow and process. Better not walk, hike, or cycle anywhere unless necessary for me to produce something toward GDP.
It would make sense not to do any of that, "drive to the beach, fly somewhere for a holiday, take a boat to scuba dive, take a bus to the snow", if it involves burning fossil fuels.
Agriculture on the other hand can't be simply abandoned. Powering equipment from non-emitting energy sources is needed.
> It would make sense not to do any of that, "drive to the beach, fly somewhere for a holiday, take a boat to scuba dive, take a bus to the snow", if it involves burning fossil fuels.
It does involve burning fossil fuels, and so does exercise because it increases your calorie requirement and food involves burning fossil fuels, so that too? Owning and using computers, phones, and internet does too, so none of that for recreational purposes either?
> Agriculture on the other hand can't be simply abandoned.
Why not?
> Powering equipment from non-emitting energy sources is needed.
It's not just powering equipment, it's petroleum used to create chemicals to grow and plastics and other products to process and create machines (tires, oils, plastic and rubber parts, petroleum based chemicals). And even if you were to "solve" carbon emissions completely, there are still many non-renewable resources being depleted and many pollutants being released, from microplastics to fertilizers and herbicides to toxic chemicals from chip manufacturing.
Define "make sense". I'm genuinely curious how you've arrived here so confidently. If it was climate change being the singular issue and nothing else matters short of actively murdering people, then any and all carbon producing economic activity should be shut down. But you're not going that far, so it seems "productive" economic activity is okay, but recreation is not. So we have to be cogs in the machine, but we can't have fun.
Not sure many would agree with you, or that even you would be able to stick to your own plan.
You seem more confident that me. What do you suggest, eight billion humans, each releasing as much pollution as they can afford, with no restrictions, increasing year on year? What effect will it have on the environment?
How many Walmart's worth? (Not a joke, genuine question) Big numbers are meh and for the clicks, just tell us what the aggregate state income tax delta is (federal taxes still getting paid). It's not a total loss, people will still move and work in the locales these jobs moved from, as well as pay property taxes (as real estate prices and rents aren't going down in CA and NY from all available data).
If California and New York want those dollars back, extract it through the federal government and the top 40% of taxpayers who pay federal income tax and can't avoid it (congresscritter hustle). You know, like red states do [1].
(tangentially, this will not age well when Texas and Florida come with their hands out for climate costs [2] [3]; grab those bootstraps y'all)
Not enough to even notice. I live in Texas. They always have some blurb about X company moving to Dallas and "creating" 500 jobs, and that's the last time you hear about them until they pop up in a WARN notice.
As a general principle, people in that line self-identify as unsuitable for the role and should not be given it, unless your goal is to destroy the community.
Which I guess is fine for Reddit - people will escape bad mods by forking subreddits off, and things will eventually settle down. Just don't expect your favorite subreddits to be there once the dust settles.
Citing Q1 raises red flags. A lot of things happen only at the beginning of the year, so it's not representative of the rest of the year. (Similarly, citing Q4 alone would also raise my eyebrows).
Results from all four quarters of last year are available. He could have used the annual result to bolster his argument - except of course the annual results debunk his argument.
I'm not sure what "half a billion" refers to, but here are the annual numbers[1], which are easily accessible on their investor relations page[2] or from the SEC EDGAR system if you prefer.
Regulatory credits: $1.465 B
Total revenues: $53.823 B
GAAP profits: $5.519B
To claim that the company would be unprofitable without the credits is nonsense.
Every company does financial planning. Tesla knows they sell more regulatory credits in Q1, so they can also plan to spend more during that quarter.
If you sell water bottles for a $2/ea loss, and the government makes soda companies pay you $3 for each bottle of water... you don't have a good business.
Hyundai recently spent the equivalent of Tesla's quarterly revenue (not profit) just to build a new EV assembly line. They are small and insignificant in grand scheme of the auto industry.
>If you sell water bottles for a $2/ea loss, and the government makes soda companies pay you $3 for each bottle of water... you don't have a good business
Why is that not a good business? It makes profit. How is a profit making enterprise not a good business? If someone gave you that business for free would you refuse to take it? Why would anyone refuse free money?
>Hyundai recently spent the equivalent of Tesla's quarterly revenue (not profit) just to build a new EV assembly line. They are small and insignificant in grand scheme of the auto industry.
Source? All I see is that they are building a $5.5 billion EV factory, and Tesla's revenue last quarter was $21.5 billion dollars. From where are you getting your information?
>They are small and insignificant in grand scheme of the auto industry.
How are they small and insignificant when the below is true:
>Tesla reported net profit of $2.3 billion for the second quarter ended June 30, up 98% year-over-year, outperforming GM whose net profit was $1.7 billion, down 40.3%. The Austin, Texas automaker even made three times more money than Ford, which reported a net profit of $667 million, up 19% year-over-year.
The only cars that Tesla ever sold for a loss were their original Roadsters. Every other car since has been sold for significantly more than the cost of production, even if you remove the emissions credit. Tesla lost money overall in the first 10 years because they were spending furiously on R&D and facilities, but ever since their first Model S they've made significant gross profit per vehicle.
