The unspoken, rarely acknowledged element of this story and other valuation stories is the devaluation of the US Dollar. That certainly contributes to the trend of record valuation after record valuation.
The state requires flood insurance for property that is in a defined flood area, and that insurance is sometimes either quite expensive or in some cases just not available at all.
That's just a problem with how Dashlane and/or eBay implemented Passkeys. I have tons of site passkeys (1 per site) saved with 1password and use them across multiple devices just fine.
How about a binary - either you subscribe to Gemini or you don't. Rate limits or gates for higher tier models/capabilities, that you can upgrade to unlock. Think Small/Medium/Large. Anything more complicated than this is immensely annoying to both consumers and enterprise customers. For power users/nonconformists, include a pay as you go option using credits or cost per action that has access to all capabilities out of the box.
You are right that the intrinsic value hasn't changed, but wrong about the cause of the price movement. When an auto manufacturer trades at a 67 P/E ratio that's a sign that the stock is way overvalued. Competitors with far more successful and profitable operations trade at a much more reasonable 8-10 P/E. Plus the insane amount of debt that Tesla holds, and the inherent fragility of its financials (Tesla would not be profitable if not for Carbon Credits, which could be revoked by an act of government at any time), suggests that the valuation of Tesla is pure hype and hope. A correction was always inevitable.
Carbon credits might become a real problem for Tesla. They have all those credits to sell to other companies due to their own car sales. Fewer car sales, means fewer carbon credits, resulting in lower revenues.
Since they almost exclusively make money from auto sales and have never had substantial income from anything else, I sure do think they are an auto company.
A lot of tech companies make no money at all for the first years or even a decade of their existence. This one decided to make some money, giving themselves a longer runway to do very hard things (like building gigantic automated factories that can build automated things that can build automated things).
You’re right that a company that sells cars is a car company. But investors tend to invest in future prospects, and Tesla’s future is not as a car company.
The adage goes, “you can be right or you can be rich”.
I’m not saying Tesla will succeed or even that it’s a good bet.
I’m saying there’s a valid investment thesis that posits P/E for Tesla is a poor metric.
Fetuses aren't people (it could be argued that they become people some time between the second and third trimester, but that's not really relevant because D&C is almost never done in the third trimester). Pregnant women are people. Does a pregnant woman somehow magically lose rights once she becomes pregnant? If the answer is yes, pregnant women do lose rights, then how much? What weight do you put on the rights of a hypothetical person-to-be compared to a fully alive not at all hypothetical pregnant woman?
>>>IMO at that point you’re essentially asking who deserves to live.
The answer is the pregnant woman. She is the one who deserves to live, every time, full stop.
> Does a pregnant woman somehow magically lose rights once she becomes pregnant? If the answer is yes, pregnant women do lose rights, then how much?
Nobody is losing rights. Nobody has the right to end the life of another barring cases like self-defense.
The mother made a choice (ignoring cases of rape) to have sex which could, even with contraceptives, lead to the outcome pregnancy.
> What weight do you put on the rights of a hypothetical person-to-be compared to a fully alive not at all hypothetical pregnant woman?
IMO, both parties deserve to live. If a fetus threatens the mother it should be terminated for her health. If the fetus doesn't, then the mother shouldn't (morally) have an abortion.
> The answer is the pregnant woman. She is the one who deserves to live, every time, full stop.
You're missing the point of my question about "who deserves to live". Should we encourage abortions for single mothers because their child might not have a happy life? Should we abort fetuses who have some disability? I'm sure that any of those individuals, once born, would prefer to live regardless of circumstance.
> I'm sure that any of those individuals, once born, would prefer to live regardless of circumstance.
Sure, but if you wait ~5 seconds when trying to conceive a child then that first potential person won't exist and a different one will instead (different genetics and subtly different environments). We always and continuously make choices about which (and whether) potential individuals will actually exist.
As a fetus ages its expectation of existing in the future increases over time but never to the extent that its' mother expects to exist, so expected utility of mothers exceeds fetuses in every scenario.
If we had magical technology we'd simply instantiate all the possible people from scratch and let them enjoy preferring to live. As it is we have to choose the best limited set of individuals who get to exist, and part of that means not allowing a slave class to exist whose sole or primary purpose is reproduction to the exclusion of their own happiness and agency.
> You're thinking of this in a very strongly technical way that comes across as so callous and is tough to even read from a human perspective.
I have strong empathy for people in general, and sympathy for fetuses (I have no memories of that time to empathize with but I assume it would be mostly comfortable and familiar unless disturbed) who may have some conscious experience (still understudied to my satisfaction). Therefore the only way to adequately compare outcomes is technically to avoid bias caused by emotional bias e.g. toward babies that I think most mammals have. Babies are tiny, cute, vulnerable, and we have a natural tendency to protect them and extend that protection forward to children and backward to fetuses.
> From a purely technical perspective not really. A fetus age 8 months has probably a 95% chance of living to 75 more years. A mother age 35 probably only has a 95% chance to reach 30 more years so the baby is kinda more valuable here if you like using cold calculations to value human life.
But similarly to 35-year-olds vs. 75-year-olds we only in extremis compare their expected QALYs for decision-making, as in mass casualty triage or for organ transplants. There are, of course, many people who willingly make the calculation and offer their own life to save another's life, and probably numerically highest the women who freely decide to favor the survival of their unborn offspring over their own health. I favor choice because I trust individual women to be the most accurate in deciding the value of their own QALYs vs. the expected QALYs of another, which is also generally the accepted standard for all of society. The only exception I am aware of is military drafts where individuals are explicitly expected to lower their own expected QALYs to increase everyone else's expected QALYs.
> Nobody is saying this. If a woman gets pregnant and she didn't want it to happen, that sucks. It really does. But this is the biology they were born with and as human beings we know that sex can cause babies. If I love committing insurance fraud then surely I should accept the risk of doing so right? (given that my participation in said fraud was consensual)
I'd respectfully disagree and continue to claim that many people are still attempting the reproductive and child-rearing subjugation of women in the world today.
Biologically, fetuses are unavoidably at risk of death before birth. It probably sucks for fetuses that die before birth, but neither fetuses nor women consented to being embodied in a universe where these biological realities exist. Knowledge of our place in the world doesn't alter that; knowing that they are at risk of pregnancy does not make women any more personally responsible for fixing the situation than fetuses are responsible for keeping themselves alive until they're born. Biology dealt us all a suboptimal card in many ways; we can be sad about that and grieve the human cost of it. We shouldn't force responsibility onto each other, especially unfairly. I don't see any proposals for every man having to enter a lottery to receive one unwanted baby who they are legally the parent of at a probability equal to what women are naturally exposed to.
Does it matter if they are conscious? Is it the ok to kill a person in a coma if you know he will probably wake up in 9 months? Is it okay to kill someone while they are sleeping? I don't see where consciousness comes into it.
> But similarly to 35-year-olds vs. 75-year-olds we only in extremis compare...
I think you missed what I was trying to convey here, but that was totally my fault. I wasn't clear and I'm too lazy to make a graph to try and explain what I meant. It doesn't really matter though because I in essence agree with you on this point.
> I'd respectfully disagree and continue to claim that many people are still attempting the reproductive and child-rearing subjugation of women in the world today.
I'm sorry I don't understand this sentence. Did you accidentally omit a word?
> neither fetuses nor women consented to being embodied in a universe where these biological realities exist
Yeah, sure! That's life though. I didn't consent to being mortal and having to also watch people I love die. I also didn't consent to being able to listen to beautiful music or experience the thrill of creating. I am placed firmly in a universe I have no control over and I can only be grateful even though it is not even nearly all good. Women are much, _much_ more selective for this exact reason - it is natural. A woman has a huge and heavy responsibility to choose a man who's problem it indeed will be to also look after the baby. She also reaps much greater rewards by experiencing a bond that a man can simply never experience.
The problem of abortion is linked to a society where relationships have been de-stabilized. The cure is not to kill the babies of mothers who are misled and left behind in the wreckage of broken and casual relationships, but instead to foster healthier ways of relating with each other. Society is unfortunately a bit sick at the moment and in recent decades, horrible symptoms like abortion, which were always taboo, are being brought to the surface.
All my other comments flagged without counterargument, and this is the only one I can reply to. What is the point of this website if alternate viewpoints are essentially not allowed? This place is a sad echo-chamber.
> Nobody is losing rights. Nobody has the right to end the life of another barring cases like self-defense.
The common example of the violinist analogy disagrees here. You are under no obligation to provide continuing physical support to another person, even one everyone agrees is fully grown/sentient/alive/etc. Similarly, you are under no obligation to donate your liver/kidney/blood, even if you already promised to do so, even if not doing so will cause someone's death. In every case except abortion, we respect medical bodily autonomy to an extreme degree. And indeed in other cases we often find it immoral to force someone to assist a family member's survival on an ongoing basis (see "Savior Siblings").
> I'm sure that any of those individuals, once born, would prefer to live regardless of circumstance.
Not always, lots of people desire medically assisted suicide. Blanket assuming that everyone desires to live regardless of circumstance is factually incorrect.
No parent has been convicted of neglect for not donating organs or blood to their children. They haven’t even been charged because it’s literally not a crime. This comment makes zero sense.
My dead body has more rights than a pregnant woman. Even after death, I have final say in how my organs are used and I can decline to let anyone have them.
I agree, and I wish there was an option to always require both a passcode/password AND biometrics in iOS and MacOS. While it would become a hassle having to do it every time, it would at least guarantee that one could retain their 5th Amendment rights if the device were seized.
Having no backup to biometrics could lock you out permanently if it stops recognising you for some reason, so it would need to accept just the password, and at that point you can just turn biometrics off entirely
Yes, that clause/phrase restricts the company's rights with respect to their license to your data. Essentially, a clause like that is necessary for users to interact with the service. Makes sense when you think about it, how can they provide service if they can't use the data you provide them?
It's a pretty typical clause you'll see in most SaaS policies.
Source: I work for a SaaS, but I am not a lawyer, caveat emptor.
I want to pay for their product, but not enough that I have to ask my lawyer about the language. I did see that one of the features of the enterprise plan is custom terms, but that's not the plan I'm interested in.
