The "formula" was capitalism, introduced by Deng Xiaoping, which lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty.
However, Deng also introduced China's 1-child policy (decidedly not capitalism), which is now beginning to seriously strain the system. The future is indeed uncertain.
Sorry, that's not what I meant.
What I mean is: You are predicting that the overwhelming proof will ever exist.
This prediction may turn out to be true, but why should I believe your prediction over that of anyone else's? Do you have some insider knowledge or expertise that you can share?
Edit: Also, what do you give the odds of your prediction, by severity of outcome? I want to see how the odds you provide stack up against the economic and thus social consequences of under-regulation or over-regulation.
I hear what you're saying but foundationally this is a bullshit argument. The entire debate evaporates if you simply shift the burden of proof where it belongs and state that Things must comprehensively prove their safety before being released onto the market or otherwise into the wild.
Well Threads is making pretty decent strides given that it was spun up in record time (by ex-Twitter employees that have an ax to grind for some reason)
There were no ex-Twitter employees involved in Threads at the time it launched. AFAICT, it was a frontend over a pared-down Instagram comment-system.
Designing something like Twitter isn't hard, and it used to be a pretty common design question that could be answered in 30 minutes or less. Instagram certainly doesn't need outside help to help scale stuff, let alone people specifically from Twitter.
>There were no ex-Twitter employees involved in Threads at the time it launched.
This is not what I heard. I heard they hired up tons of prominent ex-Twitter.
>AFAICT, it was a frontend over a pared-down Instagram comment-system.
Do you use it? I do and it does not seem to operate that way. It is a more involved than that.
Yes they did rely on IG's infrastructure to help speed up development but this was a deliberate design choice and I don't blame them: They have this large asset of users and built up infrastructure, might as well use this advantage.
A contract written by yourself (aka: Largest shareholder) given to a board you picked (aka: Chairman of the Board of Directors), giving yourself a payraise (aka: about the CEO's bonus pay) is obviously null and void.
You can't just give yourself a pay-raise. Even if you're the largest shareholder, the controlling member of the board of directors, and CEO of a company.
If you accept the public's money, then the _other_ shareholders, even small minority stakes, have a say in the matter.
If you don't like the fact that Delaware looks out for smaller shareholders, you can I guess move out to other states or something. But for the most part, people accept the fact that public companies have rules that go above-and-beyond normal. Wanton acts of corporate corruption aren't tolerated in Delaware.
--------------
The rule in play here is shareholder fiduciary duty. The Board of Directors failed to represent the needs of all of its shareholders like they are legally obligated to do. A large pay-bonus to a CEO who already controls a large stake in Tesla (who'd benefit from Tesla improving anyway) is obviously a bad move. No other CEO in history had such a large share-increase bonus.
In any case, looking out for the little guy is a deeply American value. We understand the problems associated with Tyranny of the Majority. If you want to fully own a company, then stay a private-business (like the Mars family), don't come begging to the public for public money.
AI is going to be massively deflationary. How useful is UBI when the cost of goods and services approaches zero due to automation?
With that said, I can imagine the federal reserve will then helicopter in money to everyone in order to reach its 2% inflation target, which kinda sounds like UBI.
