Yes - and even from the government - consider McCarthyism or Hoover's FBI and the civil rights movement.
This fear of saying the wrong thing seems to say a lot more about the expanding reach of both corporations and individuals (and for individuals, the growing scale of memetic behavior) rather than some change in attitude towards free speech.
To emphasize the point on the value of signaling - I know plenty of people who actively avoid branded items that could easily fit into their budgets because they think it's ridiculous to pay the premium - this is also signaling, especially if you belong to a tribe that knows you have that sort of money. Gets lost in the mental calculus of why a person buys a certain good (value, function, etc.), but as another commenter pointed out, luxury designer brands often fit better which makes the wearer look better, and the decision is rarely just about about which item provides more value for the 'cover a part of your body' use.
Yes - those El Salvadoreans - since they are born with only 3 fingers on each hand, they have a very difficult time using tools that were designed for people with 5 fingers on each hand.
Did you read the article you posted? Actual tulip mania, as described in the article, is much more similar to what is happening in bitcoin than the mythologized tulip mania.
Frantic speculation in a narrow space with the market eventually crashing when speculative buyers are no longer willing to bid up?
Do you live in Quebec? Why do you get to decide what is reasonable for them?
Personally, I have an issue if municipalities try to impose differential standards, but asking Uber to have its drivers conform to existing standards seems reasonable.
Also yes, I apologize, you are right - they get 20% of the value of the SPAC, so if they buy 10% of a company, they are only getting 20% promote on that 10%.
Why not just ask Social Capital to invest out of their VC fund? The only difference is liquidity in public markets, and if that's all you want, why are you giving up 20% of the upside from your current valuation when it would cost you less than 1% of your current to IPO yourself?
For asset managers, the reason you form a SPAC is because you will get upside in the form of convertible warrants that will net you ~20% ownership, essentially for free (cost of your time to find and close a deal, and minimal upfront cost), assuming the stock price outperforms the original issue price.
You should ask yourself why an existing owner who believes in the future of their company would be willing to give up 20% upside to avoid the cost of an IPO. I would suggest that the very act of giving up this 20% promote for a 'hot' unicorn tells you something about the valuation that the SPAC eventually does a deal at.
Why? The argument being made is that the workers should suck it up and accept the low pay and grueling working conditions because of the importance of the work Tesla is doing. If you accept this argument, then why can't I also say that you should simply accept that giving up on your commitments to your family is also a necessary sacrifice?
Do you have any 'good' sources on other complaints about working conditions? Honest question, quick google search gives me a number of results but nothing that seems to have meaningful follow-up of any sort.
> but at the same time what Tesla is doing is much bigger than the individual
I don't think you really believe that - if you truly internalized this, then isn't the conclusion that you should go find any way possible to contribute to them as well?
I attended a public school in a Minneapolis / St. Paul suburb. Nothing particularly special about the school that I can recall today, although it was in a school district that included grad student housing for University of Minnesota so maybe the student body, as a whole, was more motivated than you may have found elsewhere.
Classes were tiered into ability, even at this age (I do not remember what the rubric was for deciding your tier) and for math classes I was pulled in to a self-study course along with 2 or 3 other students. There was no 'formal' class and instead the teacher would spend varying amounts of time with each student as they worked through the material on their own. Each student would work at his or her own pace.
I think this sort of system would do wonders for those both at the very top and at the very bottom. In college, I found office hours were somewhat similar in that students both behind and in front could get focused time with a professor to either catch up or advance even further ahead.
This is ignoring any budget and teacher constraints, but this seems like a real issue for both the 'top' and 'bottom' students.
Yes, but the funny end result of this is that bilateral trade deals will likely include similar or even more draconian restrictions w/r/t corporate sovereignty and IP laws as the policies being put forth are US-standard.
Regardless, you are not refusing anyone service - you are not banning people from your platform, you are designating your platform as something not be used for certain purposes.
This fear of saying the wrong thing seems to say a lot more about the expanding reach of both corporations and individuals (and for individuals, the growing scale of memetic behavior) rather than some change in attitude towards free speech.