ancorevard

If you want to find root cause, you need to dissect that one number.

Without breaking out China vs non-China you would have concluded that Apple is slowing down/customers unhappy/products unattractive. This would have been the wrong conclusion for the non-China world.

You don't treat the world as one unified market.

Remove China from their numbers, and they are growing.

China's economy is still cratering.

Because the number is the wrong metric for measuring the health of their products and customers. Unfortunately, the financial analysts have been so intensely focused on unit metrics to the point that they can't seem to grasp the true reality and condition of the company.

As a result, Apple had to go so far as to: 1) State that their goal is to make their devices last longer. 2) Stop giving unit numbers.

Still, I anticipate it will take years before financial analysts to internalize the true nature of this beast.

See: http://www.asymco.com/2018/09/13/lasts-longer/

...written by Glamour magazine.

Perhaps one of the greatest sinners in this regard actively profiting from content that leads to covetousness, jealousy, etc. leading to mental health issues and what not.

"one of the few tech companies actually committed to diversity."

What does that even mean?

We need a larger time frame to put our world in its proper perspective.

Freedom, including freedom of the press, is an anomaly in the history of the human race. That it came about is pretty much a miracle, there is nothing natural about it. And there is nothing natural about keeping it. You have to fight hard not to loose it.

The US in this perspective has been a large force for freedom in the world. But that can change any moment. There are forces within US that wish the Constitution would just go away.

That said, the US government is still a far far cry from being the totalitarian dictator the Chinese Communist Party currently is in China.

If you equate AT&T's said practices with Huawei's practices, then you just answered your own question. The Chinese Communist Party is not friend of freedom, nor of free journalism.

I don’t know what your definition of socialism is which makes it difficult to respond to you. But in any historical manner, Norway is not a socialist society. We now have more freedom of choice in the market place than most countries and also compared to our own history. Norway was more socialist after the Second World War, where many industries was built up by the government. But since the 80s our government slowly divested from almost all these industries leading to much more affordable prices and greater competition. It’s a great country to start up companies and create wealth.

There are aspects of Norway that is socialist, but the country by historical standards and by the very definition is far far from being socialist.

It is difficult to categorize countries as socialist or free markets, since all countries has a bit of a mix. However, it is easy to see what it is decidedly not. Compared to socialist countries like USSR, East Germany, North Korea, Venezuela, we can all agree that Norway is not like those, it is indeed far closer to free markets than compared to socialism.

"I'm pretty sure ICE's actions were what tore those families apart."

ICE only enforce the laws that already exists.

So only two possible parties are at fault here:

1. Congress, if the current laws are bad.

2. Parents, if they are in violation of the law.

"Growing apart" is not something that _happens_ to an intimate relationship such as a marriage, it is the natural consequence of the priorities of the two individuals involved. To stay intimate with another requires an enormous amount of investment of both parties.

So yes, growing apart does take place, but it is the effect not the cause.

"grew apart" is a not how reality works.

A relationship by nature "disintegrates" if you don't work hard to sustain it.

But you are right that no one should be surprised, the outcome is as predictable as gravity and is bound by the same natural laws.

Look, most government regulations ultimately favors the incumbent while making it much harder for new entrants to challenge the large organizations. Thus creating less competition which ultimately solidifies the status quo.

I actually applaud the company for staying true to their organization's moral values. And I'm grateful for the freedom they have to choose to do so, so I'm actually a liberal.

That said, only certain companies are able to take advantage of virtue signaling in branding. In retail, it will typically be the brands like in this case. They are the endpoint of a very long supply chain. And perhaps that's good enough for a customer – to only need to navigate the values the various brands advertise. Going deeper will be way beyond any consumer, the number of organizations and their moral values to navigate becomes overwhelming.

Take something as simple as a pencil, try to navigate the values of the multitude of organizations involved in producing a single pencil.

Super surprised to hear it was Huawei that accidentally did this.

Is this the same country that lit fire on Uber drivers' cars?

Is this any different that what Safari has been doing?

"2. the good way is to build mass transit and radically change society".

Study transportation needs of people and you will discover that mass transit only fulfill some parts of people's mobility needs.

Study: https://micromobility.io

"I'm not sure why people paint this process as complicated."

Reading between your lines here it seems like you have never tried to define what is allowed behavior and what is not and more importantly, tried to applied that to specific issues.

It's easy to all agree that pornography, hate speech etc. is bad. But what is pornography, and what is hate speech? Where do you draw the line...

What is hate speech?

We all (hopefully) agrees that hate speech is immoral and bad. But once you attempt to define it, and even more importantly, once you get specific and try to police it you will learn how slippery that slope is.

More important than the 0% commission is how open this platform will actually be, or will it also engage in politics and police certain speech as they see fit?

"All societies have regulated speech."

Unfortunately, yes in various ways. But the devil is in the details. Who decides what specific ideas should be outlawed?

Peter Thiel.

Please don't attribute Facebook's lack of values to all other startups, that's a gross generalization.

A company's values reflects the values of its people, especially the founding people. Facebook's immoral behavior can be traced all the way back to its start and ultimately its maker.

Privacy is not a principle Facebook is willing to act on.

One point to consider that relates to the first year at least is breastfeeding.

Science very heavily favors breastfeeding above the substitute. While pumping breast milk is a choice, it can be difficult in practice and some science points to it still being different for both the mother and the child in terms of hormonal differences and of course the physican touch/emotional wellbeing.

Life is short, few things are more meaningful and rewarding than raising human beings.

China's economy is looking scary at this point.

Also from Bloomberg: Chinese consumer tax receipts down 70% in November. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-31/china-...

[flagged]

Norway or the others in the EU simply do not have the courage. They do not take responsibility, and just hope that this thing goes away by it self.

In China, there is no difference between international espionage and corporate espionage. Their Ministry of State Security has proved this again and again.

Stealing intellectual property from companies advances their military goals.

There is such a thing as information, knowledge, wisdom and finally free will.

Warren Buffet is Warren Buffet because of the way he consumed the information available to him, interpreted it and finally reacted to it.

Certainly, Warren does not control the many factors in the environments he found himself in, factors that was favorable for him to get to where he is today and factors that were obstacles to him. But his chosen actions are his, the paths he took, the burdens, the risks, and the responsibilities.

I would perhaps think of him as wise, not a genius or any such worship nonsense.