idiot_stick

>What an incredible, amazing experience.

You realize you can do everything you said, without living in someone's closet, in 99% of the world, right?

YC is making billions and their workers are living in closets. That's insane.

>Defending against that is costly.

Costly, yes. But do those costs out-weigh the immediate benefits of slave ownership? Probably not.

I have a hard time thinking slave-owners were hurt by slavery; they made out like bandits, but their gains don't counter all the harm done to those enslaved.

>during which she run the company into the ground.

That might be an exaggeration, but yeah. It's hard to fathom that someone could sock away enough wealth to last generations for accomplishing so little (from an investor's perspective).

>Surely you jest. As the parent noted, such reasoning is squarely on the path to insanity.

What's insane is people comparing the government drugging us to equalize our IQ to the enforcement of a law that requires a publicly funded institution to put closed captions on their videos if they're to be publicly available.

I'll bet a reasonable solution comes from this, sets a precedent for the future, and the huffing and puffing will be for naught.

>Yes, but deaf people are always at a disadvantage.

I agree.

>The law cannot eliminate that. All it can do is make reasonable compromises to mitigate it.

I also agree with this. And I believe that's what this law is doing: saying "you may be at a disadvantage in these ways, but you won't be in this way if we can help it."

>The deaf are already at a measurable disadvantage. They're deaf. We should take steps to mitigate that.

Which is why we're not trying to cure their deafness. Instead, we're trying to ensure that the deaf have access to the same information those who aren't deaf have.

>How is this a good thing?

If I'm deaf, I know that you have no advantage over me merely because you can hear. I think that's "good". The laws are in place to protect minorities.

>How is society improved by taking them down?

First of all, I agree with you. I think most others do as well.

The problem is, we can look at a case like this and say, "Obviously we shouldn't lose access to this." Then there's a next time, and a next time, and a next time. And eventually the deaf are at a measurable informational disadvantage to those who can hear. That's why these laws exist.

So, everyone should take a step back and figure out a reasonable solution. I hope that's the reason for the judgment.

>Going into debt to vacation in the Caribbean (which is what he did) is not the same as using it to say start a business or get an education.

They differ only if the metric you choose to measure against the debt is "money". But some of us do things for other than money; happiness comes to mind.

>Tesla's YTD return more than matches the overall market

What is so significant about YTD?

You can arrange the data in any number of ways to tell a story: A Tesla investment since 2014 has lost money (and been diluted). Go back to 2013 and suddenly it's a goldmine.

Tesla having been a "good purchase" depends on what you paid. But I have a feeling that more people are sitting on a cost basis >$250 than <$100, in which case a TSLA investment has been mediocre.

>probably much smarter to distribute their lender among multiple entities than one giant bank that would have leverage on them.

A less charitable reading is that no single lender wanted to write the debt. A billion isn't substantial...

>"Surely you understand this?"

It's my whole point. Being a "content creator" is irrelevant, and not deserving of making money. Billions of people are creating content all day, every day. The vast majority of it is crap.

Good content creators will find a way to get paid. So, going back to the original comment:

"Do you expect content producers to get paid"

No. I don't "expect" it, and neither should they. If you can't get people to support the content generation, perhaps you overestimate its value?

>Or are you only consuming meme gifs or something?

Not sure what your point is, but it seems like you think meme creators deserve to get paid, not me. After all, they are "creating content", and I'm blocking their ads too.

Right out of the Tesla Playbook: Make an announcement ("Model Y!") then raise cash.

It's a surprisingly small amount, which makes me think they couldn't get the terms they wanted/needed/

>How would you solve this? Paywalls for everything?

Sure, why not. I don't care. I have zero problem finding content I want via a variety of methods, free and paid. I have more content than I can consume.

But if you choose to go the ad supported route, know that I'm going to block your ads, so there's no point complaining about it.