There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

dragontamer

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

dragontamer ,

You need to see the new Wily Wonka movie. (Probably a 7/10 movie, good songs, kind of bad plot but enjoyable)

But yeah, stealing Cocoa beans from Oompa-Loompas is a big plot point. And… Oompa Loompas stealing it back is also a thing.

dragontamer ,

That’s a lot of ranting.

I get it. PuyoPuyo main story is necessary for casuals to get introduced to the game. Chaining 10+ long while harassing is a skill that took me a literal decade to reach, and there are far stronger players than me at the game.

But PuyoPuyo Tetris was that big casual story driven game that truly did bring a lot of players into the scene. Myself included. So yeah, I wouldn’t be a serious PuyoPuyo without that.

PuyoPuyo Champions/eSports is pretty good for competitive players. We got Fever and Tsu mode, the main modes that people care about.

There are also more casual mobile games like that Apple Arcade one brought up. The real issue is that modern video games make money from Apple and Android stores, not really the consoles anymore.

dragontamer , (edited )

Mobile games just make more money now than console games. It only makes sense to aim for casual gamers on the Apple Arcade or Android Play store.

It’s a problem in that it somewhat alienates the hardcore console players. But the console market is shrinking. That’s true for all fanbases, not just PuyoPuyo.

The only stuff that gets money in the console market are super mega AAA games that reach millions, like FFVII remake. But these mega-games cost so much that there’s no risk or creativity anymore. (I like PuyoPuyo Tetris’s style, it was a risk and a bit different. We need game makers to take risks like that)

dragontamer , (edited )

The stock market and bank-bonds are how factories buy more equipment so that peasants can run that equipment (ie: more jobs).

Farms don’t run on peasants alone today, they need fertilizers, tractors, combines and other machines. These machines cost money, and the easiest way to raise money for such machines is from the stock market. (IE: sell stock, buy machines, distribute profits from those machines back to the shareholders). Shareholders then buy more stock from more companies, and the cycle grows.

Now maybe its a bit consumerist to be overly focusing on our production + consumption. But there’s a good reason people talk about it: its the core of our economic growth strategy. Encouraging the “peasants” to participate in this through 401k plans (tax-advantaged accounts that encourage stock-buying) is one trick we have, albeit flawed but its one of the better plans that we got.

dragontamer , (edited )

The market adjusts.

When Elon was forced to buy Twitter, all those loans came due as Elon Musk had to sell TSLA stock to pay for capital gains, then sell TSLA stock to bring down his margin and stay good, then finally sell TSLA stock to pay for Twitter.

There’s no free lunch anywhere. Elon Musk is the kind of guy who takes insane risks (and honestly, its beginning to look like its all collapsing). Yes, USA has a lot of opporunity and we provide a lot of loans for dumbasses to hurt themselves, but that’s a good thing in the great scheme of things. Eventually, it always collapses. It does take 10 to 20 years sometimes for the bad effects to build up though.

Or however it is people like Elon and such get their low risk loans to play with while keeping their money in the market.

That was interest-rate policy. Today loans are 10%+ for such effects. Our mistake was keeping rates too low for so long. But that’s different than our tax policy.

dragontamer , (edited )

Of all methods for managing food production, capitalist free markets are one of the worst.

There’s a few great leap forwards that suggest otherwise. Government mandating farming (or a lack of farming) also leads to problems.

For better or worse, today’s farming relies upon very expensive equipment to reach the necessary yields. It doesn’t matter what system of government or markets you use, you cannot get around the $Million+ equipment needed for today’s farms.

The only question remaining is how do you fund such equipment? Capitalist markets provide us the shareholder + bondholder as two classes of investors. Bonds require a %yield paid ever year, while shareholders are largely content with (realistic) promises of future profits. If shareholders think one kind of crop is better, they will invest their money into different companies or equipment. If one kind of crop (and equipment for that crop) loses value, then shares will drop, shareholders will stop investing, and the shareholders will move on to better profits.

Just a few years ago, I saw shareholders get together to give Elon Musk $5 Billion to build the Nevada Gigafactory. For better or worse, shareholders here in USA are excellent at raising money. Now the decisions of shareholders (ex: trusting Elon Musk) are suspect. But no one can deny the huge efficacy at raising billions of $$$$ at a time with this methodology. yahoo.com/…/tesla-tsla-increases-secondary-public…

Now… shareholders are fucking stupid. That’s the problem. But at least there’s a lot of shareholders, so some shareholders are going to make the right decisions. And some smart shareholders might be smart enough to invest into the correct things (ex: an underrated crop), leading into greater profits.

dragontamer , (edited )

Sounds like you’re speaking off of ignorance. Farm collectivization has led to some severe famines, but after the collectivization was completed those nations rarely saw food insecurity. China still hasn’t had major food insecurity since being collectivized. I think there are ways to prevent that from happening, because it hasn’t happened in every country that collectivized the farmland.

China imported $104.6 billion in food alone just last year, mostly from the USA.

They’re not the example you think they are. They are increasingly reliant upon imports (and USA’s capitalist system) for food security.

Now there’s plenty of downsides to capitalism. But collecing fucktons of money to fund $Billion ventures is one of the good things that capitalism does exceptionally well. You’re arguing against literally Capitalism’s greatest strength here. Go poke a hole at all the other problems capitalism causes, you aren’t going to make progress on this front.

BTW: China’s increasingly grown capitalist themselves, reliant upon huge bonds and stock markets to raise funds like the USA does. The debate is over, capital markets are widespread even in former Soviet Bloc’s and former Communist countries. And its been like that for decades.

dragontamer ,

It sounds like you just want US Government to nationalize John Deere and take over the production of tool equipment.

If there were no innovation happening (ex: Boeing situation), I think you’d have a point. But my understanding (I’m not a farmer, but just someone looking outside in), it seems like farm equipment innovation continues to skyrocket. IE: As bad and awful as John Deere is, they are doing their primary job of innovation and building new equipment.

dragontamer ,

There’s the joke. Agriculture is both subsidised and highly capitalized.

Now what?

dragontamer ,

I’m absolutely for right-to-repair laws. I don’t think patents are full evil, but they absolutely need reform. Copyrights should likely be weakened as well.

So I don’t know about “abolishing intellectual property”, but I can meet in the middle: I can agree that patents have become stupid as the patent office no longer can keep up with the pace of inventions and fairly evaluate who is, or isn’t, deserving of patents. Reforming our country to this new reality (ie: that patents are unfairly, and inconsistently applied) is absolutely required.

dragontamer , (edited )

HFT is about faster price discovery and often is just arbitrage between exchanges.

If the New York Stock Exchange price of AAPL is $1 more than the Chicago Exchange, then a HFT detects that and buys the Chicago Exchange’s AAPL + sells NYSE AAPL, bringing price discovery to the masses.

That’s why HFT is, in practice, allowed. Because the vast, vast, vast majority of HFT is important arbitrage between our collection of exchanges in the USA.

These “dumb” price differences need to be fixed, and it makes sense for the people who discover these differences to profit from them. It also provably makes the markets smoother and better for everyone involved. (New York can know that the price changes over in Chicago will affect them within milliseconds, keeping all the exchanges across the country nearly in sync).

dragontamer , (edited )

Have you even used ChatGPT? Its slow as fuck.

HFT is trading within milliseconds. Not trading within dozens-of-seconds.

dragontamer , (edited )

Also, this would be a completely different sort of AI than a glorified chatbot.

Uh huh. So you’re just spitballing I take it.

Name the algorithm. What’s the AI algorithm that’s about to take over the high frequency trading world? A .pdf or citation to a journal would also be nice, something that explains why this new hypothetical algorithm you’re talking about is better than the HFT / Arbitrage that I talked about earlier.

dragontamer , (edited )

Yes. People have been trying to use AI as a statistical method for making money for literally fucking decades. Neural nets, genetic algorithms, statistical sampling, etc. etc. etc.

All you end up making 99% of the time is a volatility and/or momentum bot. Either a bot that makes tons of money when the stocks are predictable, or a bot that makes tons of money when stocks have wild unpredictable swings. When the opposite happens (ex: volatility is less than expected, or greater than expected), the bots collapse and you lose like $10 million bucks and everyone shuts down the bot. Every single time.

Its not even clear how you’re supposed to “test” a trading bot. Everyone’s got ridiculous ideas and “new AI” algorithms that try every few weeks, and they all fail before the unpredictability that is the market.

And then it turns out that you could have traded on volatility by just buying VIX and holding it anyway. So if you want a glorified volatility trader, there’s easier ways to do so than spending $millions on developers and $millions on computers and hooking it up to a $100-million bank account and praying for the best.

Just put the $100 million into VIX (or short-VIX) and bam. You roughly accomplish the same thing except it didn’t cost you $million developers or $million computers.

The stuff that makes money are like, Black Scholes differential equations (which are extremely fast. No "AI’ here, just numerical methods that directly compute a price). Of course, Bvlack Scholes is what they teach in college so everyone knows it. The secret sauce is the stuff that all the firms add to their computers and keep literally secret.

dragontamer , (edited )

I work in computers.

When it starts to happen, it will be a paper in a research journal. Then it will be years as people analyze the paper and come to undersstanding of what the new stuff can do.

Things don’t just “pop up” magically without warning. There’s papers, journals, discussions. If we aren’t even at the “discussion” point yet, its kind of worthless to spend more thought on it.

All this “ChatGPT” thing is an advanced neural network. Those things were first discovered in 1960s, Tensors (ie: applications of neural nets to SIMD compute) was 90s / 00s thing, and NVidia GPU optimizations to the models were researched through the 2010s.

I can reliably count on research taking decades. Because computers, algorithms, and AI is very difficult. Anyone paying attention in this field will see it coming.

dragontamer ,

Again, I’m not talking about ChatGPT. That is an entirely different type of AI from which I am talking about, something you should understand since you “work in computers.”

You know that ChatGPT is a neural net tied to a large language model, right? Or the ANN fr that article you posted.

The other thing I’ve seen was hooking language models to predict positive vs negative news from news feeds, Twitter, and other sources of online discussion. Which is 100% in the realm of language models.

This is why it’s important to be specific about the algorithm you are talking about and not to just spitball. There’s lots of theoretical applications but no one has made much progress on making money as much as the HFT arbitrage bots.

dragontamer , (edited )

ANNs form the basis of LLMs dude.

In any case, you’re spitballing. Its all theoretical talk without any actual algorithm of note. You’re not talking about how Wall Street is organized or what HFTs are doing, which was the point of the post at the root of this discussion.

dragontamer , (edited )

Its about Support Vector Machines (a statistical method) and ANNs (of which ChatGPT is one type of).

Did you read the link? Or did you just pick up the first hit from Google when you noticed this discussion wasn’t going the way you hoped? It doesn’t seem to have anything to do to counter my discussion point from earlier.

dragontamer , (edited )

You literally started this thread with:

More proof that the stock market is based on people believing in magic.

And you’re here arguing with me that magic tech that doesn’t exist might exist in the future. I’m trying to tie this discussion back down to reality by roughly describing how HFT work and you suddenly go all hypothetical on me. If you want blind faith in future tech, then sure whatever. Go believe away. But there’s some pretty basic contradictions in your argument style that’s quite amusing to me.

dragontamer ,

TSLA has a PE Ratio of 42. Toyota has a PE Ratio of 11.

If Tesla becomes a “normal car company”, we’re looking at 75% declines in the stock price. The only reason why its being propped up at all is because of Elon Musk’s cult of personality.

Yeah, Elon Musk has successfully tied himself to the company like a suicide pact. The Board is also largely under Elon Musk’s control.

dragontamer ,

But the two people most important to the contract are the salesguy and the customer.

The sales guy can say “Hey, sign here stating I gave you a FSD demo”, and the customer says “Wait, why??”, and the sales guy says : “If you don’t sign that, I’m forced to take you out on a 5 minute demo”, then the customer signs it.

So they’d just easily avoid the whole endeavor anyway.

dragontamer ,

This isn’t about “proper operation” of a car though. Every car buyer has a drivers license after all.

This is about Elon Musk trying to sell a $12,000+ upcharge onto customers (or a monthly payment of $200/month).

dragontamer ,

FSD is the $12,000 upgrade package.

This isn’t the “free” Autopilot package included in every Tesla. This is literally an upselling maneuver for Tesla. If this were a “learning” kind of thing coming from Tesla / Elon, it’d only apply to people who were interested in the $12,000 FSD package, not the entire damn customer base.

This is dealership-level bullshit. Actually, its far worse than any dealership bullshit I’ve ever seen. Its not like Hummer sales-reps are going to force me to sit through a “Crab Walk” demo or Toyota sales reps are going to have me sit through Toyota-features when I’m shopping with them. There’s a bit of upselling going on in any car buying process, but $12,000+ upselling maneuvers (like FSD advertisement) is well into the bullshit territory.

dragontamer ,

Early wikis were wild.

“We” implemented forums by just repeatedly editing a page and leaving a --Username, and it was all on the honor system.

Kinda emulated like this --User2WouldReply

Yeah, like this --User3

dragontamer ,

Is it wrong that I’m stuck trying to figure out what language this is?

Trying to figure out what string.length and print(var) exist in a single language… Not Java, not C# (I’m pretty sure its .Length, not length), certainly not C, C++ or Python, Pascal, Schme or Haskell or Javascript or PHP.

dragontamer ,

It’s len(str) in Python. Not str.length.

Fewer people are using Elon Musk’s X as the platform struggles to attract and keep users, according to analysts (www.nbcnews.com)

Data from two research firms and figures published by Musk and X suggest a deteriorating situation for X by some metrics. Musk has marketed it as the world’s “town square,” but in number of users it continues to lag far behind social media rivals that focus on video, such as Instagram and TikTok....

dragontamer ,

He used to impress me with his approach on building an electric car company with full self-driving vehicles in the 2010’s. I wasn’t a full believer, but I thought he was competent and wanted Tesla to succeed.

Elon Musk didn’t build the company.

Elon Musk invested into the company, and then sued Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning into giving him “Founder” status. When Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning left the company, it all started to go to shit. Sure there’s some momentum, but by 2015+, its clear that Elon Musk’s buffoonery has taken over (ex: using Tesla money to buy his cousin’s company SolarCity) and today we have 100% Elon bullshit like Cybertruck.

dragontamer ,

Reporting on “X” is what’s keeping it alive, IMHO.

Nah. “X” had $Billions in cash from the buyout deal + loans. X will simply not fall until all that cash dries up, and they reach the end of their loans. Even then, Elon Musk can just command Tesla to buy a whole bunch of Twitter-advertisements to transfer money to Twitter/X and keep the party alive a bit longer.

I don’t know how long it will last. But Elon Musk was over $200 Billion in assets when he bought the company. He’s lost a ton of that money, but Elon Musk still has a long way to go before he runs out of options. It does seem like Musk’s wealth is collapsing before our eyes however (their big bet on China / Gigafactory Shanghai looks like its about to go bad this quarter), but I don’t expect X to fall until after Elon Musk runs out of money.

There’s a lot of money that needs to be deflated / lost before this whole thing collapses. But like gravity, it should be inevitable. No one can lie, steal, and cheat money forever and get away with it IMO, eventually people catch on. But it can last for more decades than people expect.

dragontamer ,

The problem wasn’t the glass.

The problem was using wtf touchscreen controls to shift between drive and reverse. Mrs. Chao confused the two then died.

Shitty UI kills another person. Tesla fucking up basic UI design is the real villain here.

dragontamer ,

www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/…/ar-BB1jAkIW

Within minutes of saying her goodbyes, she called one of her friends in a panic. While making a three-point turn, she had put the car in reverse instead of drive, she said. It is a mistake she had made before with the Tesla gearshift. The car had zipped backward, tipping over an embankment and into a pond. It was sinking fast. Could they help her?

dragontamer ,

I’m more inclined to blame Tesla’s electronic locks and confusing manual override before blaming the windows though

Quick, do you know which panel to remove to find the non-electronic manual override in a Tesla? Car is sinking fast and the electronics just shorted out from the lake.

But sure, tons of bad design decisions here. It’s hard to blame any one of them as the singular cause. If Tesla had easier to use manual override doors instead of electronic locks, if the windows could be broken, if the screen wasn’t a confusing touchscreen mess, etc. Etc. Lots of factors and all are the cause.

dragontamer ,

At least you can still feel the rotating Jeep shitty gear selector.

Touchscreen controls on a Tesla have no feel or feedback. It’s a touchscreen.

dragontamer , (edited )

Because insufferable Tesla fanbois have for literally fucking years told us that touchscreen controls are better.

No they aren’t you dumb fucks. When you cant feel reverse vs feeling drive, people will get confused. And when you get confused on a 3 ton 600horsepower vehicle, people fucking die.

Go shove the shitty defense of touchscreen controls up all your collective asses. Tesla fanbois are insufferable.

Anyway, human computer interaction folks (HCI) have been talking about these issues for literally a decade. Tesla vehicles are prone to sudden unintended acceleration. Tons of people have gotten locked inside a Tesla unable to escape. Etc. Etc. Tons of terrible UI issues and human control issues. It’s well known at this point.

dragontamer ,

Your 2005 Saturn didn’t have electronic locks that failed when the 800Volt battery pack touches water.

The number of Tesla drivers getting locked in and dying is disturbing. Who puts a safety critical electronic only lock tied to the main battery pack? Tesla, that’s who.

Fire? Your electronic locks fail and you die. Water? Same same. Etc. Etc.

dragontamer ,

Right here sir, where all the dead people are from obvious safety glitches.

Tesla cars can’t even reliably open their doors when they catch on fire or sink into a lake. Electronic locks, electronic touchscreen shifter, electronic death traps.

You can’t even turn on the windshield wiper without dumb electronics getting in the way of stupid Tesla’s.

dragontamer ,

youtu.be/7csgV2CuKNg?si=q9vOaUlW9SRY2rsD

Like, it happens. No other car maker has videos like this.

So we know Tesla’s have it. What we don’t know is if it’s a UI issue or a physical malfunction. Given what I know about Tesla’s shitty UI design, it very well could be user interface issues.

dragontamer ,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr7ym1zkda8

Anti-air guns are the countermeasure. RADAR good enough to detect drones + an aimbot and programmable air-burst round to “shotgun” your pellets to damage those soft plastic bits.

We’re going back to WW2 tech. AA guns were considered obsolete because Helicopters + Missiles had more range. But now we need to build cheaper AA Guns for the anti-drone role.

AA Guns are also useful vs infantry, so in an infantry vs infantry fight, having an AA Gun platform will be useful even without any drones around. Airburst and rapid fire is always useful, and I expect the computers that make RADAR possible will be far cheaper today than decades past.

dragontamer , (edited )

If you know that a given point is at risk of attack, using a static defense like AA guns is practical. Say you have some sort of specific, high-value target that you can put AA guns around. That may be a very sensible thing to do.

Did you see the Youtube link?

This is a lightweight AA Gun that can be mounted on a cheap pickup truck. This isn’t a “Static” defense, this system is more mobile than infantry. It will move with the infantry, it will protect the infantry, and the infantry will protect it.

Say you’re trying to defend against something like a Shahed-136. It can hit pretty much anywhere in Ukraine. You can’t stick an AA gun on everything that Russia might consider trading a Shahed-136 for.

But you can have an AA Gun on a Pickup truck follow your infantry around, protecting that company. If you have 100 men out on the field, it makes sense to give them at least one AA Gun to protect themselves against a wide variety of drone threats. Or if one AA gun per 100-men is too expensive, then maybe per battalion (~500 men). Etc. etc.

If the enemy drone is moving less than 200mph, the cheaper AA Gun will reliably protect the troops, as long as the person watching the RADAR doesn’t fall asleep. And at 115mph, even a Shahed is slow enough that AA Guns reliably work. Most drones are far slower than that.

If that’s not the case, then using some form of mobile defense is more important – say, I don’t know, you have a fleet of gun-armed, jet-powered counter-UAS UASes. Dollar-for-dollar, they might not be as effective as a static gun. But…you can route most or all of them in to meet any given attack.

That’s called an F22 Air Superiority Fighter.

Yeah, that’d be nice, but I’m assuming those are off the table for obvious reasons.

The problem is that if the other guy expends an equivalent amount of resources, he can buy a shit-ton of drones and fly them all through a single gun’s engagement envelope. Even if he doesn’t even bother to try to attack the antiaircraft gun, your gun defenses are just going to get overwhelmed, because all of the attacker’s resources are engaged, whereas the vast bulk of the defender’s resources are not in the fight. Maybe you hit a tiny percentage of drones, but the rest are going to be able to simply fly through.

Lets start with basic problems first. How can a battalion survive a typical onslaught of Russian drones?

Well, anti-air guns. Bam. We work our way up as the more important, lower-level problems get solved. I know people are talking F16s now, so maybe we’re at the point where fighter jets are the next step forward.

No one is going to shoot at a cheap AA Gun (like the “MACE” system) with hundreds of drones: the hundreds of drones will mostly get shot down and ultimately the price wouldn’t be worth it. Bullets are far cheaper than drones after-all. Now whether a particular MACE will try to shoot down high-flying drones like Shahed is another question, but its also just another problem all together.

MACE’s job is to protect the infantry inside of its shield. And its highly effective at that.

dragontamer ,

The critical factor is whether you can concentrate your defenses in time to meet an attack, once you have detected that incoming attack.

Force concentration is a job for fighter jets. Most jets can fly at Mach 1, or even Mach2 (700mph to 1500mph). At which point, a 120mph Shahed-136 is basically standing still.

Different weapons for different tasks. The AA Gun is cheap and meant to be widely deployed across the whole frontline. Infantry could use them against other infantry (30mm airbursts will still wreck enemy infantry), and also rely upon those guns to protect themselves vs enemy drones.

dragontamer ,

I guess I read it differently earlier.

dragontamer ,

You can’t armor up a helicopter, and these drones are mostly quadcopters.

I’ve never heard of Kevlar stopping a 30mm round before either. Note that a 50cal is 12.7mm bulltet. A 30mm bullet is considered a cannon an an effective 118 caliber weapon.

50cal is well beyond the size where Kevlar is useful, let alone a 118 caliber airburst round. You need thick steel or Aluminum plates and a drone can’t carry that kind of armor.

Smokescreens work on the ground where terrain can provide hiding. I’ve never heard of an air platform using a smoke screen.

Maybe a flare to draw fire / RADAR, but quadcopters move too fast and cover too much ground for smoke to be useful to obscure sight. AA guns engage at about 3mi or 5km away, who cares about a few meters of smoke?

dragontamer , (edited )

Common 30mm systems carry 700+ rounds and fire 10 per second.

So no on both cases. As I said, gun and bullets are the answer.

Note that these are programmable airburst rounds, meaning the system is self-exploding once it hits the desired range. It wouldn’t take more than 5 shots to blanket the area of a smokescreen.

There is no mix and match here. You have yet to describe a system that can handle a typical 30mm gun, let alone two or four of them working as a team.

The actual teammate is a helicopter. The anti-helicopter is a stinger missile. Etc. Etc. And so the war games continue. But I see no role for your hypothetical drone swarm.

By the time you have enough drones to saturate a freaking machine cannon on aimbot that modern AA guns are, I’ll add a 2nd or 3rd gun as a teammate. Bullets and AA guns are pretty cheap.

Drones can’t effectively fire rifles because of physics. Sorry, just not stable enough. 30mm guns weigh a half ton, easy for ground equipment to move and is why 30mm systems can fire for 3mi out.

Any small gun you put on a drone won’t have the range, stability, or accuracy of a ground based autocannon. You need to upgrade all the way to a CAS system like A10 before you compete, but missiles have negated that role on the modern battlefield.

And missiles don’t need a drone to launch.

3mi range is distance to horizon on the ground btw. No drone can fly lower than the ground. Any amount of elevation means more range on the AA gun.

dragontamer ,

Your gun can fire 10 rounds a second. That’s 50 rounds in 5 seconds. 200 micro drones, hitting from all sides could easily overwhelm it.

It takes 3 minutes for a 60mph drone to travel 3 miles.

It takes 1minute 30 seconds for a 120mph drone to travel 3 miles.

So no. I’ll literally run out of ammo (70 seconds of firing) before you arrive.

dragontamer , (edited )

Please show me a built up area where you have clear line of sight for 3 miles

Avdiivka.

The vast majority of these battles are fought in the open planes of Ukraine.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMx051QX7mU

I like your attempts at turning this into a 300m problem instead of a 3-mile problem. But I’ll take it that you know just how worthless a drone swarm would have been in the practical battlefield at Avdiivka, or other similar locations.

dragontamer ,

This article is a survey of Americans, not a computerized search.

Unless a number of bots answered the telephone survey, I think the stats here are legit.

dragontamer , (edited )

Twitter has 1.3 Billion / in interest payments alone as it took on $13,000,000,000 in debt for the honor of being bought out by Elon Musk.

The owners of that debt have been quaking in their boots all last year. As Bankruptcy proceedings would make them the new owner of Twitter.

Note that Twitter made $5 Billion revenue on its best year, and that’s likely halfed or worse.

EDIT: $5 Billion revenue on its best year. Far less today and you still have all the OTHER costs going on. I’m sure Elon will prop up Twitter with Tesla ads or something but Twitter cannot stand by itself anymore.

dragontamer ,

Israel is not our puppet state. I know a bunch of people think that but they don’t listen to us all the time.

dragontamer ,

Well yeah. I don’t think EVs are for the mass consumer yet. They remain quite expensive and remain unreliable.

Hybrids, like Toyota Corolla Hybrid, get 50+ mpg and are only $24k. If you can’t afford PHEV or EV, then drop down to the next tier. Hybrids exist for a reason and will have significant emissions saving / carbon emissions reduction compared to a normal car, by simply burning a fraction of the gasoline of a normal car.

I also don’t believe that we can buy or consumer our way out of this problem. Your actual biggest way to minimize your emissions is to find a bus.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •