aylmao

+1. I think eggs prices are easy to spot since:

- they're sold everywhere

- they're bought by everyone

- they happen to be exceptionally high at the moment

It makes them an easy poster-child for inflation.

Just for the sake of sharing prices in the context of North America— in Mexico 12 eggs go for $2.21 [1], 18 for $2.46 [2] and 30 for $4.90 [3]. This is just a normal supermarket, and the brand is just a common local one, not the cheapest and not the most expensive.

[1] https://www.soriana.com/huevo-blanco-bachoco-12-piezas/65002...

[2] https://www.soriana.com/huevo-blanco-bachoco-18-piezas/39041...

[3] https://www.soriana.com/huevo-blanco-bachoco-30-piezas/65002...

I don't know about all of FAANG and about recent policies, but last I checked, Facebook and Google adjust your pay based on location. Even if you start in the USA and transfer to another office you'd take a pay cut.

As far as I know they still pay more than average for the area, but you wouldn't keep your USA salary.

I don't own a car and was looking at options recently. Tesla just doesn't seem that great, and I'm wouldn't say I'm particularly adverse to buying one due to Elon.

- IMO Tesla's minimal M3 interior aesthetic at first was cool because it was different, but really is just quite boring. It looks like necessary cost-saving from a time where EVs were more expensive to manufacture that just never went away.

- Chinese cars look great. I took an Uber ride in a BYD in Mexico City; it was very good. The ride was smooth and the interior was very futuristic. They're apparently cheaper too. They're an option for me because I don't live in the USA.

- It doesn't sit well with me that Tesla has promised so many things it hasn't (and probably will never) deliver. I'm not buying a Tesla expecting to eventually have a robotaxi, or even expecting it to eventually drive itself, but it's still just sketchy that they promise so much on such ambitious (at first) timelines and then just don't deliver.

- Tesla doesn't win on price. There are cheaper options. I feel like I'd be paying for "the brand", but I'm not a "for the brand" buyer.

- The stuff Tesla seems to be better than others at —the speed, the acceleration, or even the autopilot— are not things I personally consider I need. They're cool party tricks. My friends who have Teslas have shown us the acceleration punch, autopilot in the highway, etc. Autopilot almost drove us into another car once, so definitely not paying $8,000 for that. The 0-60 I know I'd barely use, the top speed it's fair to say never, and I wouldn't miss them much as a nicer interior or whatever else I can buy me with what I'd save if I opt for a cheaper option.

I still can get by without a car, so I'd rather wait a year or two to see how the EV market develops. Looking at the options available right now it's just not looking great for Tesla, and outside of the USA and Europe, I'm not even sure it has that much to do with Elon's antics.

Not hating, just describing.

And to be fair though, the players do make the game too.

I wouldn't say it's what makes the ultra-rich possible, but it certainly makes things easier for them.

Do we?

In school the max grade we can get is 100%, and everyone seems fine with that. People don't seem to complain that there's a cap.

In videogames there tend to be max levels, or max scores. People play them knowing they won't ever hit them, and no one seems to mind.

No one starts a job thinking they can get infinite raises. A lot of people tend to have a general idea of what the max compensation they can expect in their line of work is, and seem to be fine with that.

I think people tend to be pretty ok with theoretical or even hard limits, especially if they're far from them.

+1. It's very different gambling $10 million if it's all the money you have, vs if it's just 4.58% of your net worth, as is the case with Ellison for example.

IMO because you have to be a psychopath/sociopath to make that amount of money.

We're talking hundred's of billions of dollars here; $20 million is already a big fortune where 2% interest gets you $200,000.

These people (on paper) have 5 orders of magnitude (100,000x) more. At that point you aren't doing all the questionable things it takes to get there for the money. IMO you have to be broken in some way, shape or form to do what it takes to get there.

> seems like a cheap knockoff of v0

I can't count the number of great creations that started as a "cheap knockoffs" of something else.

> Even the name.

"A" for app? Even if it didn't make sense (and I think it does) it's short, memorable, and "making sense" wouldn't matter. Didn't stop "Venmo", "Snowflake", or "Apple" haha

Don't be too committed to your taste in UI/Names. You might miss out on good products like this one

The UI is very well built! Love the details too— from the line additions/deletions live counter while the AI is generating code, to the logo that points towards your cursor.

Is it us, or is it VCs?

For the foreseeable future at least.

It doesn't assume it, it's syntax, you can just use it without knowing where it comes from.

It's like english. You don't need knowledge in obscure proto-germanic linguistics to use articles in your sentences. But if you want to understand why we seem to randomly attach "a" before nouns— proto-germanic linguistics has the answer (probably, I just speak english I don't know where all its syntax originates).

I can't think of a period in history where most nations were democracies either, where most women could vote, or where most people had access to public education.

But alas, here we are.

> The best time to do this is when Americans are demoralized and doubting their own righteousness in world affairs, doubting the competence and merit of their military leadership, with their own problems to worry about at home, with isolationist-inclined leaders.

I personally disagree with this read for two reasons:

1. I think this underestimates the USA's capacity to sway public opinion. Especially if it's helping on a war of defense (vs a war of attack) the USA government could IMO very much ease opposition. We saw this when Russia invaded Ukraine; a quick media and public response in support, various angles explaining why the USA/NATO should be involved (from fear to righteousness), Russophobia/Putin-phobia, etc. To this day, the main argument against the support of Ukraine I see widely and in public discourse isn't so much "is it the right thing to do", but rather just about the cost.

2. I think the USA can very much wage a war in spite of strong popular opposition too. We've seen this during the invasion of Iraq and the middle east. Most damningly perhaps we saw this during the Vietnam War. The war lasted 20 years, from 1955 to 1975, in spite of huge protests especially starting in the mid-sixties.

> A very quick war against American forces in the region followed by Taiwanese capitulation could leave the Taiwanese public largely untouched by the war [...]. This hinges on the US dropping out of the war and licking their wounds after Taiwan gives up on the first or second day, rather than continuing the war even though the Taiwanese government has now 'consented' to the invasion.

This personally sounds like a bad wager for China. They're betting a lot on "the best case". Would Taiwan quickly capitulate? Would the USA drop out of the war quickly too? Would the general population actually be largely untouched? How hurtful would it be to China if Taiwan and the USA don't act this way, or if the war on the ground actually causes major damage? Since IMO China is not in a hurry, I think it'd be smarter to simply wait; for it's own power to grow, for Taiwan's to diminish, and for the USA to lose interest and/or the capacity to fight in this possible war.

10 years doesn't sound too short a time for me haha. I'll avoid guessing time frames here, but if I had to make a prediction, I'd say it's quite possible we see reunification without an international war happening here at all.

> Thus even if the US has a bigger military most of it won't be in theater on day 1 of a conflict, leading China to have every incentive to move as fast as possible and present a fait accompli to the West.

I disagree. I've think we've seen and will continue to see China acting slowly on this, because their primarily incentivized to not attack. This, on three fronts:

- China is not looking for a vassal state. It's looking for national reunification. War is a terrible way to incorporate people into your nation. Effective perhaps, but very much a last resort.

- Time isn't on Taiwan side— TSMC is losing is edge. The technological gap between TSMC and Chinese silicon companies is shortening with each year that passes by, and this is meaningful not only because TSMC is 25% of Taiwan's GDP [1], but also because it's the most strategic export they have geopolitically. World leaders care more about any disruption to the supply of cutting-edge chips than they care about the name of the island on a map. This is specially true for the USA, and the reason why they want TSMC to manufacture in Arizona.

- Time is very much on China's side. In the past couple of decades China has consistently become more competitive with the USA in most strategic aspects, and bettered it's strategic standing overall. If your chances of winning are increasing every year, you don't want to attack today; you want to wait until you think your chances of winning have peaked.

If anything, I'd argue the USA is in a tough spot. If a war is going to happen, it would be in the USA's interest that it happens soon, albeit after they can secure advanced-chip production outside of Taiwan.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC#:~:text=Taiwan's%20export...

It doesn't always work this way, and very much hasn't in the USA. It's been more akin to:

Fear of invasion creates massive military spending

Massive military spending creates a need for justification, and ability to invade

The need for justification, and ability to invade create wars abroad

Wars abroad create enemies and fear of invasion

Not as much as ships and not nearly efficiently enough to fight a war

To be fair, the hair looks quite similar to the original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39_OmBO9jVg

I agree. I'd expand this by noting this doesn't only apply to borders, but the whole territory too. The article does note:

> [...] the trade in other chemicals involved in the manufacturing of fentanyl - some of which can have legitimate purposes - remain uncontrolled, as those involved in the trade find new ways to evade the law.

One has to imagine there's local manufacturing of fentanyl too, and one has to wonder the magnitude of it.

Worth noting, Canada doesn't actually charge 270% tariffs on milk. The base tariff for milk is 7.5%:

> Canada’s whole system is built to avoid a surplus -- hence its name, “supply management.” [...] Within quota, the tariff is 7.5%. Over-quota milk faces a 241% tariff. [1]

I also have to agree with Derek Holt here:

> Derek Holt, an economist at Scotiabank, said in a research note. “Better judgment would question whether an entire trading relationship needs to be jeopardized in order to appeal to dairy farmers in Wisconsin.” [1]

[1] https://www.farmprogress.com/management/does-canada-really-c... https://www.farmprogress.com/management/does-canada-really-c...

I haven't been to Portland since 2018, but I have been to and seen LA and San Francisco downtowns. They didn't decriminalize, but their downtowns are pretty unpleasant too.

I wonder to what degree Portland is a product of its local policy (like this decriminalization/recriminalization) vs the national trends that are seen across the USA.

> Despite this, the trade in other chemicals involved in the manufacturing of fentanyl - some of which can have legitimate purposes - remain uncontrolled, as those involved in the trade find new ways to evade the law.

From a purely economic perspective, it just sounds like local production will replace foreign imports if the US does manage to stop fentanyl from entering from abroad.

Actually, yes. I think the government should be addressing the cost-of-living crisis, loneliness crisis, the high cost of health, the overprescription of opioids, and the cultural issues that all contribute to people opting for fentanyl in the first place.

If the government manages to stop fentanyl imports, people will simply either manufacture fentanyl locally or opt for other drugs. I agree that it's not a matter of self-control— a fentanyl addict can't simply will its way out of it— but there is a reason they chose to consume fentanyl in the first place, and despite knowing its effects, willingly chose to "escape reality".

That' doesn't address the main point of the ge96's comment though, which is that we seem to be replacing a problem with a dependence in medication, which could cause further problems. It seems akin to solving the loneliness epidemic [1] or the prevalence of depression, which some call an "epidemic" [2], with anti-depressants.

[1] https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-soci...

[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221265701...

Working on US healthcare affordability would avoid plenty of these (and many other) deaths.

+1. I do think there's certain efficiency gains in concentrating decision-making in companies, but nepotism and hereditary power are strange characteristics to keep from feudalism

I would also call it having all the worst attributes of a CLI, without the succinctness, OS integration, and program composability of one.

Source? If you're curious cost as it relates to supply and demand of higher education, here's one [1].

[1] https://www.stern.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documen...

The world keeps showing the USA things can be better, but some of you really are entrenched deep in American hubris