fieryscribe

Most things go out of business. That's why the franchising model exists. Local owners know their local market best and they take a calculated risk on it.

From what I understand, McDonald's franchisees can make 5-15% of gross revenue of their location. That's a decent return, along the lines of other investments. As with all investments, you may lose too.

Maybe? It's how McDonald's runs things too. They make the food centrally and ship it to franchises. They take on brand risk, food logistics at scale and so on. Franchisees deal with local demand, operations, hiring, local laws and so on.

It's not an exact 1:1, but that seems to be the model here. Tesla does the things that can scale (FSD, manufacturing, etc.) and operators do the things that can't.

They could, but running local operations isn't his forte, preference or interest, it seems. Even if he had a massive fleet of these, he'd have to navigate local laws, demand, operations and logistics.

His revealed preference is to run things centrally and at massive scales.

If McDonald's was profitable, they wouldn't try to franchise it.

That's what this is. You take on operating costs and you understand your local market. They own the brand.

And East Asia, especially Hong Kong since 2019.

For now anyway

He's been right this entire time and caught a lot of flack for it.

Unrelated, but you just reminded me of an old blog: Groklaw. I can't believe it's been over 10 years since it was active

As is git. I think it's intentional

Fellow Reason subscriber here. They're more balanced than most.

What is echonewshub? Is this a reputable source? Their Privacy Policy seems incomplete and the T&C pages seems to have been generated by GPT

Daniel Rensch and others have said that Magnus has not seen chesscom cheating algorithms or lists. It had been a rumor in the chess world for a while that Hans has cheated before

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. This is the comment:

> FIRE has done way more for campus free speech issues this last decade or two ...

> You mean conservative speech? Or has FIRE actually defended speech they despised, like the ACLU used to?

It seems to imply that FIRE has done way more for conservative campus free speech issues. I supplied examples of times when FIRE supported non-conservative campus free speech. I'm not quite clear how else to read that comment, but would love your take.