On one hand, the idea of using Microsoft’s crazy amounts of money to try to build a subscription gaming business feels like it should have been more successful than it has been. On the other, I think gaming has some distinct qualities vs TV/Movies/Music or other types of software that makes the idea seem way less appealing. Curious to see what the new direction looks like
On one hand I think we should applaud when regulators target the specific issue (like noise or pollution level) vs using some other metric to achieve their desired outcome. On the other hand I don’t have a ton of faith that current administration will set the targets at levels that have the general public’s interest in mind
I kind of do have that faith. Sean Duffy's reality TV career hasn't really hampered the transportation agencies
I think staff at the agencies as well as industry staff are very passionate about what they do in their respective domains, and even with the agency heads being industry plans or uncredentialed susceptible to regulatory capture, I still think I can appreciate the willingness to revisit old prohibitions in combination with modern advances.
They simply mention that the sonic boom will be less than it has been. It seems obvious the current admin is just stripping away regulation that harms the billionaire class.
I worked in call centres for Telus and Shaw. I’m a white guy from southern Ontario. I’ve had at least 100+ calls where a customer went on a racist tirade directed at me. I think you’re underestimating how much of a role racism plays
It's really encouraging to see these kinds of success stories. I really hope people who are concerned about affordability start to view things from more of a "yes and" point of view. We can work on reducing the barriers to building more housing of any kind while also advocating for more social housing development.
> We can work on reducing the barriers to building more housing of any kind while also advocating for more social housing development
One of the NIMBY lobby's greatest wins was putting these options on the ends of a policy spectrum.
They're not. They're complementary. If it's cheaper to build, it's cheaper to build social housing. And if you have a vibrant construction sector, you can build more public housing faster.
Sorry, yeah, IZO/IHO --- rules requiring some margin of AMI affordable units in new developments (which makes new development harder to pencil out, while giving warm fuzzies to locals who want to genuflect to affordability while still fencing out new neighbors).
Probably the best thing you could do in terms of social housing construction would be to have the government put up some capital to buy land and build new housing on that land, then immediately sell it and use the proceeds to do it again and again with exponential growth because it's actually profitable.
But that's also what construction companies would be doing regardless except for the subsidy, at which point you might be better off doing something like exempting construction companies from property taxes for two years if they at least double the number of housing units on their land in that time.
In the context of the the lack of confidence investors seem to have in Intels long term vision this makes sense but it really doesn't feel like a good sign for their future
Weather data is incredibly important to a huge number of activities and to the general safety of the public, which is why the government is providing it in the first place. Debt to fund it is almost certain to economically productive. The republican controlled congress is cutting taxes and raising debt levels. A similar argument could be made that we should continue to fund services and raise taxes to reduce deficits instead
Companies can and do offer data for a fee. In the same way that private toll road existing doesn't mean we should get rid of the highway system, a paid option doesn't mean the government should stop providing a publicly funded option given the immense value it provides to society
If the government option successfully creates a government monopoly, maybe we should?
In this case we simply don't know what the market needs or market value of these services are because no one is incentivized to compete with the subsidized government program.
How have they created a monopoly? This comment is on a post about a company that charges for this data, not to mention competitors like foreca or the weather company
I've noticed this user has a habit of asking these "questions" and then suddenly falling quiet when pressed more closely. (I think they are concern trolling)
I'm deeply worried about the number of people I see online who don't understand what Vanguard (or Blackrock, State Street, etc.) do and develop conspiracy theories instead. I think it presents a real risk for ETFs going into the future.
ESG scores and similar have a very real and visible impact. Maybe if you are that worried instead of calling them all conspiracies you could actually address them.
