And yet you have not linked to the mediabiasfact site's profile of the sources you provided...That is an example of bias. Are you going to answer my question?
Ps. This is a new account. I've been here 11 years and I have noticed those that cite the guidelines are often trying to hide behind them. Also, your own positions are depending upon assuming bad faith.
They take 5% + $0.50 for each transaction. Seems pretty high to me, guessing that is why they're effectively hiding this information. Interesting conversion technique.
They take 5% + $0.50 for each transaction. Seems pretty high to me, guessing that is why they're effectively hiding this information. Interesting conversion technique.
I like how on hacker news every personal problem can be solved by three activities; Therapy, Meditation, and...Salsa!
It's probably good advice. Although, I like to combine all three by doing painting and poetry. These activities might be better suited to some hackers.
A trivial example of the pervasiveness of what you are describing is the fact my comment that merely stated "These things are no mutually exclusive" got flagged within 30 seconds. It is a comeplete denial of agency.
You need to have discipline to be able to benefit from a mentor. And probably vice versa.
I saw people express skepticism before this stuff, that is part of why this is effective. It partly depends upon there being low trust in "sources of truth". Want to know the funny thing? The people that eroded the trust are now the ones complaining the loudest about the results.
Also, why does sex sell? Because people desire sex.
No, western people do not care about Iran and China, providing they are not actively making their lives worse. And vice versa.
I think the attitude you are expecting people to have is insulting both ways. You are denying the Iranians and Chinese have any agency...Do you really think they or their Goverments spend all their time just reacting?
Ps. If you say to someone in the west "What do you think of those re-education camps?" they will reply "Sounds like a university". Sadly, they are not completely wrong.
Yes, it is now their asset. After they built a stake and gained control.
Even the common takeover trope of relationship building between an insider and the acquirer happened here. All Vision Fund's dealings with WeWork seemed to go directly to Adam Neumann. And to be frank, he seemed to be out of control, he was going manic, and it seems as though this was encouraged by Vision Fund.
Neumann did very well out of the deal. What happened to the other co-founder?