fdschoeneman

I agree that Bezos should have disclosed his links to the construction through Amazon, but I also think every single reporter for NPR, including and especially the one who wrote this, should disclose their personal, family, and political relationships to political parties and politicians before reporting on them.

One standard.

This piece would be more useful if it explained what it means by winning. Early on, it seems to define winning as the amount of taxpayer subsidies going towards it, at least in the US; but then it talks about the growth in the rest of the world without showing, at least before I stopped reading, how much of that growth is driven by tax and regulatory incentives.

It was well known before Kimmel made his comments that the shooter was in a romantic relationship with a trans woman. Having said that, even if he did not know about that relationship it was irresponsible of Kimmel to repeat rumors he could not have known were true that the shooter was maga.

Yes but you're not a mind reader and you don't know how much of his firing was due to government pressure vs a decision he was alienating half the country irreparably - and I'm curious to know why you didn't mention his ratings had been slipping. Surely that has some place in the discussion?

It's unclear that was why he was fired.

There's certainly a place for revisionist history and the Spartan legend seemed like a fair target even before Steven Pressfield's Gates of Fire, but it seems ironic to be skewering the Frank-Miller-300 caricature in service to his own caricature of the "second-amendment-sticker-on-my-pickup-truck" guys who are his real target.

"I just bet those Spartans would be coal rolling me in their diesel Ford F-350's with their lifted tires and MAGA bumpter stickers today if they could!"

Because he ruined twitter? Okay. I see you.

I agree with this but not everyone does. My argument here is crafted to those who do not understand why taxation is theft.

And what is he trying to change about society?

Okay what do you think his primary goal is?

Why do you not like him?

Okay. What are his intentions? Since you're a mind reader?

It's the most likely interpretation toe because it fits the known facts.

Ungenerous interpretations don't make sense and don't fit the known facts.

Musk isn't hiding his intentions. He's blasting them. He wants to make humans an interplanetary species. He wants his name to be associated with that for millennia. I don't see anything wrong with that and have trouble understanding why people hate him souch for it.

In answer to your question, it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how much money musk has, or you have, or bezos has, or the government has. What matters is where that money is invested.

If musk was using his money to bang hookers on solid gold yachts, fine, complain about it. But he isn't. He doesn't even own a house.

Stop worrying about another man's dollar and start worrying about being a better and less covetous person.

The former.

Yes because companies are totally unchecked and there's no regulation at all and because of this we have governance that brings us Donald Trump and Kamala Harris and bullshit wars and tampons in boys bathrooms and under lock and key at Walgreens. Good grief. This is not the kind of thing technical people or hackers want to read.

"Ignores" may or may not be a strong word, but it's certainly the most accurate one I can think of to describe what you did. You ignored it. As in you failed to account for what is called outside of China "the elephant in the room." Kind of odd that you find it triggering. It's almost as if you are not being entirely honest.

Yes because the straw scenario you imagine, in your attempt to make a point using junior college sarcasm, is literally the only way to get legislation passed. Good grief.

There may be something worth investigating further, but that's not relevant to the point I made about the Guardian's journalism here.

It means that the Guardian is run by, written by, and read by people who are significantly more likely than other British people to be socialist or agree with socialist ideas.

Is the larger point I was making unclear?

That is a valid criticism but it seems like a criticism of Britain's health care system. When people and organizations can have access to free ambulances and healthcare and the costs are paid for by others, the demand goes way up.

The article mentions an Amazon policy to always call an ambulance when they find a medical issue. Seems to me the journalist should have told us more about this policy, as well as whether or not a similar policy exists at Tesco. This isn't enough for me to conclude this is just more biased opinion masquerading as journalism from socialists at The Guardian about one of the left's favorite capitalist whipping boys, but sounds like it would make sense to take a deeper look.

It's almost as if they're making their comments from a place where they are unable to read about these Chinese Navy military activities.

This comment ignores the facts of Chinese naval activities that many of their neighbors, including the Philippines, are wary of. You can say that US diplomacy is taking advantage of these facts in a way you don't like, but pretending the facts do not exist makes it necessary for people who do know them to ignore you.

So use the existing democratic process. Use your persuasion. Use your words.

They collected my email when I signed up to try and then told me I couldn't try it. Unethical.

The towns are outsmarting Airbnb? Or are hotels bullying homeowners who compete with them?

It's unclear why this article is on hacker news.

The towns are outsmarting Airbnb? Or are hotels bullying small competitors?

True. Nevertheless, if one believes in what many environmentalists and scientists say they believe, and one understands math, one must also support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power -- on their front lawns, if need be. The fact they do not is suspicious.

It doesn't have to be the only solution. But any proposed solution that does not include, in addition to some expansion of wind and solar energy production, an immediate and massive nuclear expansion is suspicious to me when it comes from somebody who purports to simultaneously believe in one or more of the apocalyptic climate scenarios.