JI00912

Who knows. They could just have missed a letter from the court.

A fine is a criminal sanction and this is apparently a civil case which means they were awarded compensation (and not a fine). Precedent is only set by the supreme court and in principle only in matters regarding interpretation of law. In this case, anyone else wanting money would have to file their own law suit. However, the case is not finally decided since Tesla may still respond.

> And yet, they are also true if they are statement of fact:

The whole point of lying by omission is that the statement is true -- even when what is communicated isn't.

> invariably all of them have figured out non-punitive methods of crime reduction that are far more effective than jail

Well.. large segments of our populations commit very little crime. But when crime is committed, the police and the justice system are useless. Convicted for the 350th burglary? They'll be let out again and maybe be back tomorrow, if the prosecutor even bothers prosecuting them since it's pointless.

So DO look at us for crime prevention but NOT for managing crime when it happens.

Lies of omission are lies just as much as lies of commission because they communicate something that is incorrect.

Well the detection algorithm for that would simply be a function that always returns `true`. There might be a small percentage of false positives, but pretty much negligable.

Almost every major change is made by convincing others to act because there is only so much one person can do. The probability that ano88888 is positioned in such a way as to start a car company is pretty close to zip.

> The move comes on the heels of Israel’s deadly bombing campaign in Gaza...

Of course some 100+ rockets were also launched indiscriminately against Israeli civilians. That apparently is no concern for the Apple Muslim Association.

Condemning violence is one thing. Ignoring violence by one side while condemning violence from the other is something different.

> That Apple DOES NOT make any statement referring to “both sides” or similar...

Basically they support the attacks on Israel and make some thinly veiled attempts at masking this.

Indeed the government has incentives to spend time, money and energy on campaigning. Unfortunately running things is a different matter.

Removing the incentive to make profit does not create incentives to improve efficiency and service. The government has no such incentives.

> awarding the multi-year contract to the elected government is strictly better than to a private company where there's little/much more indirect incentive to do anything in the interest of the consumer.

Well... the incentives really aren't different for the government.

> Ummm... that's what I said. That's my point. It's become normalized for corporations to not take responsibility.

This is something completely different and unrelated...

1) All bank robbers wear clothes.

2) beckman466 wears clothes.

3) Therefore beckman466 is a bank robber.

But everyone wears clothes (i.e., not specifically bank robbers).

See! It's normalized to rob banks.

> This argument is just “everyone does it.”

No it isn't. That's not the argument at all. You're just projecting whatever you want to say on what you're reading.

> Obviously taxes on revenue would not need to be as high as on profit to generate the same tax income

No income has been generated by a business running at a loss. You had a number of things. Now you have less. Nothing was generated. You can distribute all you want, but you have less all of the time.

> It would also be hell of a lot simpler, because all those crazy shell company incentives go away

There's nothing wrong with shell companies. If you want to do anything, you have to register a business. It's just lazy journalism.

If Uber lost 4.5 billion, that also means they spent at least that much money. That's a lot of people who were able to sell good and services. That's actually a good thing. And while spending this money, Uber provided a useful service.

Besides the journalist apparently not understanding how taxation works, the phrasing is used to make the situation sound nefarious without providing any evidence. 50 shell companies? Ok...? What if it was 20, would that still be suspicious? Or just 1? How many are ok? What are they used for? No info at all. The entire 'article' is a bunch of random remarks with no context.

This is not journalism. This unresearched text belongs far down in somewhere in a comment field.

If you make 100$ and spend 150$, you have revenue of 100$, no profit and a debt of 50$. So you'd have to pay taxes on the 100$ from your -50$.

> Well considering they are usually used by corporations/capitalist firms to avoid all kinds of responsibilities to society, I seriously question your lack of critique here.

No they're usually used by basically all companies that aren't tiny.

> institutional terrorism that is going on on a daily basis

Ummm...

> They are gaslit with propaganda

Eh take a hard look in the mirror. The marxist hate machine has never helped anyone.

I think we just witnessed a murder.

> Monopolies are inherently harmful to the customer. A monopoly implies lack of competition.

Depends why there is a lack of competition. Are there barriers of entry to the market? Were they put up by the company? Or do they just have such an awesome product at a great price they no one can offer a better / commutative alternative?

> IMO, we need some way to declare a company "Big" and apply special rules to them.

Careful though. A monopoly may abuse its position, which is bad, but a big company may be big because they are good and people use them, which is good.

Good.

Did he though?

> if your idea for a yacht is luxury and privacy, why would you ever buy a sailing yacht?

It isn't.

Facts exist. Fact checkers don't. It would be great if they did. We could just do away with science and ask a fact checker. But they don't exist.

Nah.

I don't know. Did they? Clickbaity titles.....

Not at all. We might for example see recidivism drop off after a few convictions. That would be the case if prison could reeducate people.

I'm saying that once someone has a couple of convictions, the change that they will commit crime again is about 100%, which sadly goes against the nice idea that people in our prisons "return as reasonably normal members of the society".

> before having any sense of what a proper dose might be

Did he really not have _any_ sense of a proper dose? Seems unlikely.

I will say that hiring people who are risk averse is great for middle managers who will say NO to most opportunities because they're more afraid of failure than they are interested in opportunity.

Hire risk takers and you get risk takers.

Mostly Brottsforebyggande Rådet. You have to dig into their statistics though because they tend to like publishing what looks good.

Edit: Also personal experience, unfortunately.

Edit 2:

> Where are you getting the data that recidivism rates are close to 100%?

Recidivism rates for people with a few convictions.