To add to this: I bought a Steermouse license well over a decade ago. I paid once. I’ve been using it ever since and it’s maintained and updated. No subscription. Isn’t charging for updates. This is what software should be.
I'd love to use this but is there any risk that this will get Google to flag me as a bot/malicious? I wanna make sure I can still pass captchas and don't screw anything up for testing on my dev machine.
By the first definition it requires “unselfish regard”. If MrBeast is pulling 54 million a year (along with lots of fame and clout) he’s not exactly qualifying for the first definition.
Definition 2 is the one I’m most familiar with from the animal kingdom, and it actually requires that the giver either gain nothing or lose something. So that may be where people are coming from who take exception to his behavior being described as “altruistic”. By definition, it is not.
My grandmother was quite the baker, and was known in particular for her pies. For apple she swore by the Pippin. She was very upset when they became uncommon in supermarkets.
I’ve carried on her tradition, and as a substitute I do half Fuji and half Granny Smith. I think it provides a nice balance. But, I’m always on the lookout for Pippins.
One point not mentioned (and I’m just paraphrasing Levine from Money Stuff here):
It’s crazy because it would probably be BETTER if you had more bots. Then you could say that your revenue per user was higher and you could argue that you had more room for growth. So, if anything, lying and OVERestimating the bot count would help your valuation more.
I don’t know about your reduced capacity argument. The reason Buffett sold his airline shares so low is he foresees supply outstripping demand for quite some time in the industry. Presumably that would apply to other travel/experience stuff as well. And for gasoline I think the Saudis et al can ramp up preeetttyyy quickly.
Care to elaborate on some of your points/concerns here? I’m not an expert, but it sounds like short interest is still so high that if a coordinated group can hold the line they’ll squeeze the shorts. But you and other posters make it sound like that isn’t possible. Can you or anyone else explain why not?
Simplifying things to PGE’s current plight I do agree with you.
The larger problem is as the GP mentions the misaligned incentives. Here in Sacramento we have SMUD, which is a publicly owned utility. No shut offs here. I have a friend who’s an arborist for SMUD. Before that he was an arborist for PGE.
For years at PGE he was trying to jump to SMUD. Why? Because they place a higher value on his services. PGE, being beholden to shareholders, treated him as 1099 and paid significantly less.
PGE shuts off power in part because they don’t keep their lines clear. Because they didn’t employ enough people like my friend. And those they do employ don’t stay longer than they need to.
Short-term shareholder incentives don’t align with long-term incentives of the public in this case. It’s a problem. Pointing out that California’s government has flaws doesn’t negate that point.
Any idea what percentage of this reduction is due to offshoring manufacturing?