saghm

I'm not opposed to using the same shortcuts as editors (which is what tmux already does; you can even pick between emacs and vim shortcuts, in addition to configuring your own); there's just a lot of other stuff I _don't_ want from a text editor for my existing terminal output, like, editing text.

For sure, I'm just saying that there are a lot of cases that would probably reach the threshold needed to convince a judge that don't exist because prosecutors don't actually file charges. I don't see any reason to assume that a judge would block a case if surveillance law were changed to forbid something and a federal prosecutor tried to bring charges against members of a former administration for violating them. I think in the past, there's been a reluctance by administrations to try to press charges against previous ones (e.g. the Obama administration not wanting to prosecute anyone in the Bush administration for "enhanced interrogation"), but the current incarnation of the DoJ seems a lot more open to pressing charges for much pettier political reasons than true violation of federal law, and if a Democrat wins the White House in 2028, I would not be shocked if there's significant political pressure to try to prosecute members of the current administration (assuming they don't receive blanket pardons, of course).

> However, if they're at parity then the incentive is to just squeeze your assets for as much income as possible until you run their value into the ground. Which seems like a pressure for business owners / shareholders to be even more short-sighted than they already are.

"Companies often act dumb, and therefore we should charge them less in tax" is not a particularly compelling argument to me.

It's a sale of stock from a third party to the company. I don't know how you could claim otherwise.

Ah okay, I had misunderstood you as referring to like, bot farms or something, not developers going out of their way to make it easier for people to accidentally click

IP protection once again scales with your wallet, where the benefits disproportionately help those who already have the most resources and hinders those with the least.

Pretty much the first thing I tried to set up with I heard about Zellij and decided to give it a shot a while back was how to scroll back and copy paste text without using the mouse, since that's one of the core features of tmux for me. If my recollection is correct, the closest thing that I was able to figure out was some sort of built-in way to open output in a vim buffer, with the info I found when googling basically saying that it was intentionally not something the developers felt like it was important to implement anything closer to tmux for. Maybe it's changed since then but I distinctly got the impression that it using it would force me to adapt to a bunch of new workflows that didn't resemble anything I had seen before, and it didn't really seem worth the effort.

This entire discussion is post hoc, unless you're assuming that everyone who is commenting here happened to also have criticized him publicly in the past. There's no statute of limitations for people voicing their opinion on something they just learned about from a while back.

I get what you're saying, but fraud is different from accidents by otherwise real people.

I'm not sure what the third company you're referring to is (I've read through the article twice and only see DoorDash and Instacart (which I guess is incorporated as "Maplebear", but not a separate company from what it sounds like), but I've ordered from both of them, albeit not recently (my wife and I have been using FreshDirect lately). The value proposition of getting groceries delivered for us is that we don't drive (or have a car) and the grocery store is over 20 minutes away walking distance from us. The extra cost to have them delivered is far less than the cost and maintenance of having a car, and the convenience of being able to have it done even during times when I'm busy working from home is added bonus. My wife also has a condition where the treatment is essentially turning off her immune system every six months, so the safety of not exposing her to something by doing shopping in person is not something I'd ever want to give up.

I guess I could like, get a shopping cart and spent an extra 40 minutes hauling stuff back and forth every time we wanted groceries, but even that would be somewhat dependent on weather; a delivery driver is not going to have to walk 40 minutes in heavy rain and can bring frozen goods in an amount of time that doesn't result in them being soggy or completely melted messes by the time they reach us.

> This is incorrect. A buyback is when a company buys its stock. It is giving cash to shareholders, and taking the shares back

When a company buys stock, the money comes from the company. You're literally saying the same thing as me and telling me I'm wrong. It's not worth it for me to read beyond that because it's not clear you're reading what I'm saying properly.

If you wanted to base the entirety of the world economy on baseball cards, I'd say that you're crazy. The fact that you put company names on them instead and don't make them physical cards doesn't make it less crazy.

This just sounds like nonsense to me. Why would it be "more valuable" to have a piece of paper with the name of a company on it that makes more money on it than a company that made less money if it never translates to actually getting money from having it? You might as well be describing baseball cards, because someone else will want to pay more for a card that has a player who does really well even though they don't get anything from having it. That might be reasonable for collectors, but it's a pretty clearly insane basis for such a huge portion of our economic activity.

I can't tell if you're being condescending intentionally or not, but I'm not sure how you could get the impression that I don't understand what "buyback" means. Obviously it comes from the company; otherwise it's just a regular stock sale that doesn't need any additional descriptor.

The issue to me is that the division between "money companies get from selling their shares" and "money companies get from selling their products" is artificial; whether it gets taxed differently is a procedural issue, not something that inherently defines what "value" is. When the value of something is only from selling it again in the future, it's inherently only valuable as long as there's someone else to pass it onto to sell it again later. Sticking the company in the middle of passing it along doesn't magically change whether it's sensible or not. That's what I mean by "effectively a Ponzi scheme", even if it's not strictly one in the definitional sense. The same arguments for why a Ponzi scheme is undesirable apply.