I think it’s clear he’s a fan of Apple and Tesla but he does make negative statements about them, the Cyber truck was not a positive review and he always criticized the fit and finish of Teslas. And he critiques Apple’s idiosyncracies like the proprietary charger and lack of calculator app on the iPad.

I guess my point is that he’s not a journalist he’s a reviewer, we are tuning in for his judgement, his opinion. If he personally likes the products from a certain company, that’s not a bias that impacts his capacity to do his job well.

Like movie reviewer giving Pixar a bunch of 10/10 reviews, and then criticizing Cars 2 as a mediocre cash grab. Maybe they are biased for Pixar, or maybe Pixar just puts out a lot of good movies. As long as you’re calling out the bad moves, that’s what we want from a reviewer.

The fair concern is when he gets exclusive access like this, I don’t necessarily care about the puff piece interview but you hope it doesn’t influence his future reviews.

The last time he was in the wider media discussion was because he negatively reviewed the Fisker Ocean and the Humane Pin and people were calling him a company killer.

The one example I’m familiar with is a name brand ice cream company that produces the store brand ice cream too…in that case the recipe is different, cheaper ingredients to cut costs to the bare minimum. But using the machines for a higher volume saves money.

I’m sure ‘same exact item’ does happen too but just ‘same manufacturer’ doesn’t mean exactly the same item.

Can’t believe Harriet Tubman got all that infrastructure up.

It’s not “the beginning of a meltdown” because everybody still owns all their money and no bank is failing. There’s a customer service issue for users of a non-bank service. That is part of the risk you take when you’re putting money in a non-bank.

It sucks for the users obviously but like where would a contagion even begin? This is already the largest BaaS middleman. This is as big as this issue gets.

If you’re saying “you should not restrict ALL culture to rich people” then, we’re not. There is plenty of culture available for free on YouTube, or on broadcast TV channels, or FreeVee. And paying for one paid subscription doesn’t make you rich, $10/mo or whatever is an accessible price for a subset of digital media to a non-rich person. And those libraries are sufficiently large that you would not run out of material to watch even if you only had one service.

If you’re saying “everyone should be provided literally all digital content for free at all times” that is a pretty extreme position which does sort of break the economics of any content being produced. Digital content would have to be plastered in way more ads or be government subsidized or something to have the money to make more of it. That’s not a political position I’d be on board with.

If you just want the current system but with you being allowed to download the stuff you want to see on services you don’t pay for…again, there’s an argument for that, but let’s not pretend it’s some high minded one. It’s selfish. You probably have the money to pay for HBO Max for one month to watch the new Game of Thrones and the Barbie movie but you don’t want to pay money and it’s really easy not to.

That doesn’t track at all. I can’t afford a Lamborghini so the need arises for access to stolen Lamborghinis for cheap? It’s absolutely not a need, you can just go without or only access the free media that is available to you. In the car example, I can just buy an old Civic.

If it’s stealing bread to feed your family that is one thing, because it’s an actual need. If it’s getting stuff because you want the more expensive version instead of the version you can afford, there’s no need there.

The ethical argument is that there’s no one harmed because you can’t afford it anyway. It’s not that you need it like a starving man’s bread.

If there was no DEMAND it wouldn’t exist. It exists illegally specifically because it can’t be done legally at the price point. That doesn’t mean anyone needs it, all the content is presumably available elsewhere. It just costs money and people don’t want to pay money.

I don’t want to pay money either, I’m just not high minded about it.

Fortunately and unfortunately, there have been so many changes and breakthroughs on solar power over the last 50 years that this doesn’t really tell us much about current technology.

I’d like to rent your home for a weekend, I’ve always wanted to try living under a rock.

What does it even mean “one less account to track?” The money is still coming from a bank account, if you track the money in your account you would still have to account for a check, and it would be even worse if the check isn’t cashed right away.

Is it that you don’t have the monthly credit card bill if you send a check? But you’re spending the same amount of money regardless, checks are more like one-off credit card transactions, that don’t confirm payment like a credit card does. Checks are worse for the payment-neurotic. That’s maybe an argument for debit cards, it’s not an argument for checks.

Even if there was, there’s no currency that is guaranteed to not depreciate in the future.

Putting a percentage of your income in the stock market is a very good idea. Even if you’re a conspiracy person and you think a mysterious “them” controls the world, “them” are rich people who own stocks. They will make sure the value of stocks go up.

If you’re not a conspiracy person, just look at history. The value of stocks always goes up in the long term, and you hold retirement accounts for the long term.

Catholics and Protestants are two different tribes. They’re all Christians.

But if Eastern Orthodox counts as “Christian” while Catholicism doesn’t, that destroys the reasoning. If Eastern Orthodox doesn’t count, then you’re just referring to Protestants.

I don’t think there’s any explanation other than anti-Catholic bias, Protestants just want to claim their way of doing Christianity is the only way.

I can’t tell if this never works out, or if the type of players that get into this situation are just not that good to begin with.

I’m definitely a city person. I love walking to things (for which I need sidewalks) and hate cars. I like being able to walk to a bar, personally I find more sense of community with close neighbors instead of being a mile from anybody. I have a rural friend who once asked if I got freaked out that my neighbors could see what I do in my yard and…no. Doesn’t bother me. Honestly I feel safer when I leave for vacation that my neighbors would text me if something was wrong at my house. I’m not scared of violent crime because it’s vanishingly small odds in most residential areas that aren’t poverty stricken.

Any outdoor activity I don’t do frequently enough that it’s worth having a huge plot of land for it and I don’t want to have to mow an acre or more. I wouldn’t be able to survive on satellite internet.

The thing I’ve heard is, think of how when you’re a mile away from each neighbor, it’s your tax dollars paying for the road, sewer, sidewalks, water, electric, gas lines, for a half mile in each direction. Initially and for maintenance and replacements. That’s why a lot of rural areas just don’t have sidewalks or fiber internet or sometimes they’re using well water.

In a city duplex, you’re paying half the utilities for like 20 feet in front of your house.

It just is more efficient to live closer together, the reason cost of living goes up is because everyone wants to live in the city and employers want that supply of workers so they try to get in or close to the city too and it’s a virtuous cycle of concentration. But housing supply being what it is, and all the jobs being nearby, means housing prices go up. Still worth it to most people hence why there’s still demand, but higher than living in a place with fewer jobs and amenities.

You’re probably still right but the comparison to a job doesn’t make sense because the labor component isn’t continuous for streaming. The job would be live touring, streaming would be additional income on top.

700,000 streams per month across their entire discography gets you to the poverty wage for an individual.

Plus it is entirely passive income once the songs are out so they could tour live in addition, or go get a non-music job if it’s not enough.