By cherry picking a few Republican priorities designed to spite big tech and totally ignoring the big enforcement efforts that the Biden administration has pursued through the FTC and the DOJ Antitrust Division, in both tech and non-tech industries.

The communication that kicked off this whole thing was saying something positive about Trump and something negative about Democrats in direct comparison, on an issue that the Democrats are actually way better on.

It’s not just saying something positive about a political official or party. It’s actively saying “this party is better than that party.” And he was wrong on the merits of the statement.

And then amplifying the message using an official account is where it went off the rails. CEOs are allowed to have opinions as individuals. But when the official account backs up the CEO, then we can rightly be skeptical that the platform itself will be administered in a fair way.

These fuckers act like they’ve never heard of Lina Khan. Let’s see if Republicans try to replace her with someone with a stronger track record. Or, if they’re so serious about tech competition maybe they’ll get on board with net neutrality.

And look, I actually like Gail Slater (the Trump nominee that kicked off this thread). She’s got some bona fides, and I welcome Republicans taking antitrust more seriously, and rolling back the damage done by Robert Bork and his adherents (including and probably most significantly Ronald Reagan).

But to pretend that Democrats are less serious about antitrust than Republicans ignores the huge moves that the Biden administration have made in this area, including outside of big tech.

We want to desalinate water so that we have fresh water.

Doing so generates salt as waste and requires safe/responsible disposal.

We can sell some of the salt, as a product.

But the market won’t buy all of the salt.

So the salt just goes back to the “waste” category, and we need to find disposal methods.

I don’t see where scarcity (whether artificial or natural) comes into play. The world has lots and lots of salt, and anyone who wants it can get it very cheap.

Even if you’re using metric units, area of land times height of water is a common calculation. If you have a 200 hectare plot of land that you want to plant wheat on, and know that wheat needs about 35cm of rain to thrive, but a drought comes in where you only get 10cm, then you’ll want to irrigate with 25 cm times 200 hectares = 5000 hectare cm of water. If you irrigate that volume from a 5000 hectare lake you can expect to deplete it by 1 cm, which would replenish with 0.1cm of rain if the watershed feeding that lake happens to be 50000 hectares itself. Or you could do it with square kilometers. Or square meters. The conversion itself just happens to want to stick with the area for ease of analysis, whenever talking about water use from rain or rivers or lakes.

See also the calorie (non-SI unit of energy that is still convenient for certain calculations), electron volt (non-SI unit of energy useful in quantum physics), or the watt hour (non-SI unit of energy useful for electricity use or battery capacity). These are all metric derived, but different units of the same thing (energy) based on ease of conversion in different calculations.

It’s the amount of water to fill an acre sized area with 1 foot of water.

Acre inches and acre feet are used in a lot of land use and water use analyses. If a crop needs a certain number of inches per year of rain, or calculating the depth of flooding a certain amount of rain will cause, or how much water can be diverted from a river while fulfilling obligations to downstream rights owners, etc.

It’s like watt hours or calories or light years or electron volts: not exactly an SI base unit but sometimes an easier unit for certain types of conversions and formulas.

Using scientific terminology in colloquial speech is weird and creepy in most contexts. Calling kids “juveniles” and women “females” carries certain connotations, most of them bad.

The scammers, which is to say most people at upper level positions in these companies, they just don’t respect human life at all, and they’ll take money wherever they can get it.

I think a lot of the profiteers in this space believe their positions are important and improve health outcomes, and that what’s good for the world is good for the company. Pfizer will tell their investors that inventing a life saving drug (e.g., a COVID vaccine) will be good for health, and that the shareholder therefore deserve to make a hefty profit from it.

Same with the hospital execs. They’ll pat each other on the back about how much good their hospital does, and see the very expensive billing department as an important function in their war against insurers.

And actual scammers, who bill for services not actually rendered, order unnecessary procedures, and prescribe the drugs the pretty rep is pushing, tend not to think they’re doing anything wrong or that they’re not hurting people.

People in each of these groups are saying in hushed tones that the insurance companies had it coming, and kinda sorta cheering the death of the United guy with their caveats (“well I’m not saying murder is OK but I’m not shedding tears,” etc.).

We only had enough trash to sustain a dumpster fire for one year but by some miracle it’s been stretched to 8 years.

The providers (hospitals, clinics, labs, doctor practices), insurers/payers (whether for profit like United, nonprofit like most Blue Cross Blue Shields, or government like Medicare), and pharmaceutical/medical device companies fight each other the whole time to make the most money off of the patients/beneficiaries/taxpayers. Big Pharma runs up prices and persuades doctors to prescribe their treatments, while doctors themselves have a profit motive in running up unnecessary treatments, all while insurers try not to pay for stuff, necessary or not.

It’s a broken system, but it’s also worth pointing out that the scammers in each camp hate the other camps just as much as the public does. There are hospital execs and pharma execs basically cheering on the anger at insurers, who will turn around and rip off the same victims in a different way.

At the same time, if a bank goes under, that means they owe more than they own, so “ownership” of that entity is basically worthless. In those cases, a bailout of the customers does nothing for the owners, because the owners still get wiped out.

The GM bailout in 2009 also involved wiping out all the shareholders, the government taking ownership of the new company, and the government spinning off the newly issued stock.

AIG required the company basically issue new stock to dilute owners down to 20% of the company, while the government owned the other 80%, and the government made a big profit when they exited that transaction and sold the stock off to the public.

So it’s not super unusual. Government can take ownership of companies as a condition of a bailout. What we generally don’t necessarily want is the government owning a company long term, because there’s some conflict of interest between its role as regulator and its interest as a shareholder.

That shouldn’t mean we make up the facts.

You’re the one getting facts wrong!

You’ve said that the Jones-affiliated bid was higher, which is incorrect. The Onion’s $7 million bid was higher, which is why the bankruptcy judge said that the other bidder should’ve been given an opportunity to improve its bid.

You’ve said that the $7 million valuation wasn’t based on anything. It’s a straightforward formula for determining the value when to reduce the claims of the creditors who wanted to credit bid.

You’ve said that the $7 million valuation was made up based on estimates of future cash flows. Future payments have nothing to do with the bid, and weren’t used in the formula to calculate the value at $7 million. That value is how much this bid brings to the estate immediately.

Even future payments were a percentage of profits and but not guaranteed.

That’s not part of the bid. The bid only had two components: a cash portion and a commitment to reduce claims by certain creditors. For non-participating creditors, it’s the exact same equivalent as a $7 million cash payment to the estate.

Future promises were made to families to incentivize them to reduce their claims (and therefore bring more money to the estate), but that’s not part of the bid itself.

I think you’re struggling to understand what’s happening here because you’re so anchored on your initial incorrect perceptions.

There was some future payments promised

It’s not future payments promised. Just a division of who to split the proceeds with. And so for the typical creditor who didn’t credit bid, The Onion’s bid was worth the equivalent of a $7 million cash bid, and therefore was more valuable than the Jones affiliates’ $3.5 million cash bid.

It’s just math. The Onion bid was higher, and the judge said that the losing bid should’ve been given an opportunity to improve the bid to get a chance to win, and maybe raise even more money.

The value of the Onion’s bid was $7 million ($1.75 million in cash, $5.25 million in credit), when you include the credit bids from the families. That’s where you’re getting tripped up in trying to understand what the court was ruling.

They are not telling the onion to offer more money, they are giving the one with the highest bid the chance to make it even bigger.

No, the Jones-affiliated bidder had a smaller bid, but should’ve been given the opportunity to try to outbid the then-highest bid from the Onion.

Basically the judge said that the trustee, as auctioneer, should’ve gotten the two bidders into a bidding war to maximize the price.

I’ve been following this closely.

The normal way bankruptcy auctions go is basically some version of this:

1. Everyone who wants to bid has to sign an NDA about the assets.
2. Everyone who signs the NDA can perform their due diligence, look at financial statements and other confidential information about the assets in the auction, to figuratively kick the tires. If there’s actual physical property involved, bidders are generally allowed to physically inspect it (if it’s a tractor, for example, you can bring a mechanic to help sort out the tractor’s condition).
3. Before the deadline, every bidder submits a secret bid to the trustee.
4. The trustee evaluates the bids, looks to see which is best, and decides whether the top bids are close enough to hold a live public auction or allow topping bids for the bidders to say “hey you’re only $1 million short from the current top bid, you want to throw more money at this?,” and going around and around until the trustee is sure they’ve gotten the best and final bid from everyone.

The judge is upset that the trustee didn’t really do step 4, which in the bankruptcy process is designed to squeeze out the highest possible price for the sale. The losing bidder says they submitted a lower bid than their absolute top “best and final” they would have, because they thought they’d have an opportunity to improve the bid in a step that never happened.

So they’re going back to do it again. Presumably the trustee will propose a new auction process that explicitly puts out well defined rules on how creditors (like the Sandy Hook families) can credit bid with credit against their own claims, instead of actual cash. They’ll need to calculate exactly how much each dollar of credit bid brings to the non-participating creditors (like Sandy Hook families who don’t want to credit bid), and make sure that for each creditor who isn’t credit bidding gets the most money out of the sale.

I don’t think it’s over. The judge specifically said that he believes the trustee tried to do the right thing, but ultimately didn’t follow a process that was designed to raise the most money.

there was a $10k bounty,

$60k. $10k from NYPD and $50k from the FBI.

I think that some people had trouble with the raised angle of the hostel smile photo, and the way that cameras of different focal lengths (technically, more a function of distance between camera and subject) tend to flatten three dimensional features in slightly different ways. The posts where people were saying that various pictures don’t look like the same person, but like you, I think they look pretty similar.

Well, efficiently, at least.

You can always heat up a hot air balloon and have it yank a system of pulleys, but you’re gonna lose a lot of energy that way.