I wonder what might cause the trend to turn in one direction or another. For example, if 8% of equities are owned by one group while the other 92% are owned by another, then I suppose I’d expect both “shares” to grow proportionally to one another. In other words, if the market as a whole gains 50%, then I’d expect the ratio of shares owned by each group to remain stable… the only thing I can think of that might explain the difference in outcomes is perhaps a difference in portfolio composition, which could reflect a gap in investment preferences, or perhaps some opportunities are available to one group while excluding the other. Seems likely to be a mix of the two.
No. If you read the article, you’ll see that this isn’t Sauer’s argument. It’s another ragebait title, and based on the comments in this thread, it’s working.
EDIT: Okay, I see the flaw in my thinking. Carry on.
Marianne Sivertsen Næss, chair of The Standing Committee on Energy and the Environment, which considered the original plan, told the BBC that the Norwegian government was taking a "precautionary approach to mineral activities".
She said: "We do not currently have the knowledge needed to extract minerals from the seabed in the manner required. The government's proposal to open an area for activity enables private players to explore and acquire knowledge and data from the areas in question. Opening up areas is not the same as approving extraction of seabed minerals."
Good point. In business there’s a concept of when introducing some new good or service or opening a new location brings in new sales that would not have happened otherwise, in which case we would say the business benefits from it, versus when it cannibalizes existing sales, in which case it does not add value for the business.
I agree with you, it seems unreasonable to assume gambling revenues cannibalize spending on other goods and services at a rate of 100%. Hardly anything is ever 100%.
All 379 people on board the JAL Airbus A350 jet escaped before the plane was engulfed in flames. From the moment of collision, it took 18 minutes to get everyone off the plane and accounted for. But five of the six crew of the smaller Coast Guard plane were killed.
JAL estimated the disaster would result in an operating loss of about 15 billion yen ($105 million). The airline was discussing compensation individually with passengers, two of whom had pets that died in the incident. U.S. insurer AIG was the lead insurer on a $130 million "all-risks" policy for the two-year-old plane that was destroyed by the fire. Shares of JAL fell as much as 2.4% as trading resumed after the New Year's holidays, before closing up 0.8%.
I have an ad blocker in my desktop browser, but when I tap a link in Voyager, it opens in the app (without ad blocking). I can usually work around it by toggling Reader Mode, so it’s no biggie.
I tapped/slashed/exed through all the pop-ups and other ads that are docked to one or more edges of the screen on that site so other readers don’t have to:
Overall, we rate The Japan News Right-Center biased based on story selection that slightly favors the right. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record.
Regardless of how we feel about Threads, given its impact I don’t think any article about “The Fediverse in 2023” would be complete without mentioning it.
Not to downplay all the blood, sweat, and tears that have been shed while making the fediverse work, but if I may offer some unsolicited advice to the author of the linked post: Publicly airing out a team’s dirty laundry tends to be… counter-productive. Usually it’s best to “keep it in the family.”
In this case, we don’t know what’s going on in the original project owner’s life right now. The author of this post could have just said “hey all, we apologize for the inconvenience, but the original project appears to be abandoned, so we’ve forked the project with the intention of patching some of the known issues and adding some new features.” (insert GH link here)
Although the original project dies, this new project is born, and who knows—the original project’s owner might even show up again someday and start making meaningful contributions to the new project (or not).
I say all this without knowing the full history of this project, and I don’t mean to downplay the author’s frustration, just my two cents.
All of that said, in my mind this situation makes for an interesting case study on the pros and cons of different ownership structures for public/open projects.
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammad Shia al-Sudani stated today in a joint press conference with his Spanish counterpart in Baghdad that the Iraqi government intends to end the presence of the international coalition in this country.
I wonder what might cause the trend to turn in one direction or another. For example, if 8% of equities are owned by one group while the other 92% are owned by another, then I suppose I’d expect both “shares” to grow proportionally to one another. In other words, if the market as a whole gains 50%, then I’d expect the ratio of shares owned by each group to remain stable… the only thing I can think of that might explain the difference in outcomes is perhaps a difference in portfolio composition, which could reflect a gap in investment preferences, or perhaps some opportunities are available to one group while excluding the other. Seems likely to be a mix of the two.