hllooo

Not necessarily, if they can produce the crops more cheaply. Since each country ideally wants to secure it's own food supply, it's inevitable that many countries will find themselves subsidizing local production that would otherwise disappear in a competitive international market.

Additionally, hostile countries do not need to flood markets sustainably if the goal is simply to hollow out food production in the target country before taking more overtly hostile (i.e. military) actions.

what no they do fall at the same rate. acceleration is F/m so the mass of the object cancels out

That's partly the point though, isn't it? You're not accountable for your performance, you're accountable for the performance of the company. And the performance of the company could be extremely good or extremely bad, very much independently of your contributions.

I see your point but your numbers are way off. Tesla has already made ~900,000 cars this year and will probably make 1.3 million before the year ends.

I mean people didn't know it wasn't an accident until another plane hit the second tower...

are these actually lies? i know tesla stopped accepting bitcoin but it doesn't seem surprising to operate nodes when they did accept it. companies change policies all the time so i wouldn't call this a lie unless they never did it all. is that public information?

"almost all" possessions is pretty vague. perhaps this is false but it's not obvious at face value and wouldn't be malicious. it seems mostly a question of semantics (does renting = owning? do we mean houses and cars or clothes and silverware?). if someone tweets "i'm selling all my shit" are they lying?

break pads never needing to be replaced is obviously not 100% true since some percentage of every part will inevitably break, but if pads without defects outlive the rest of the car, i don't see how you could disagree with this statement. teslas are barely old enough to evaluate this statement and doubly so for cars produced in 2018.

i don't follow this stuff nearly closely enough to know if these are lies and it's not clear to me the information needed to evaluate those tweets is publicly available or even exists. i don't dispute he's made misleading statements and exaggerated but i'm not convinced it's obvious he's lying or that not seeing it means you have blinders on.

lol yes it is

requiring special safety equipment seems like a pretty good place to draw the line...

it can work if you're offsetting existing short term gains and hold the replacement for >1 year, or if the stock never recovers, in which case you pull forward the deduction

No, he's making a statement saying that his data shows working age people dying at a higher rate. It says nothing about elderly people.

The head of Indianapolis-based insurance company OneAmerica said the death rate is up a stunning 40% from pre-pandemic levels among working-age people.

...

Davison said the increase in deaths (that his company sees) represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying (to account for this increase), but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.

Plus, he actually could say "that elderly people aren't dying at the same rate" in his dataset and be technically correct. The elderly are not part of his dataset, so it's vacuously true.

There are two parties and you have to pick one. If the argument is that trends on the republican side are so insane you must vote democrat, it's certainly not whataboutism to argue there are also similarly insane trends on the democratic side... you can disagree but you can't honestly call it whataboutism.

iirc the solar system contained the closest planets, which is why they chose it. I don't think it matters if they want mars or earth, there's no way we would let them do that (send a massive military fleet definitely just to mars). they wanted to ensure their technology remained superior by the time they arrived

Redistribute the proceeds as a tax credit then

> That just becomes the price of doing business and that cost is factored into other areas of the business model.

Yah that's the point and business with less environmental impact will be more competitive. Industries/products with more of an impact will be more expensive, reflecting their true cost.

> Even worse, it just gives more capital to inefficient governments

Most pollution/carbon taxes are proposed to be revenue neutral, i.e. all the proceeds are returned to the tax base. This is also important because like other (non-luxury) consumption taxes, a carbon tax is regressive.