I've always wondered about that. It sacrifices much for portability. Seems great for a certain kind of commute or short trips, but I'm not sure I'd want to tackle seattle hills on it. That said, I've certainly seen a few around.
You can get them with gears to handle the hills. They also make an electric one too. I chatted up someone putting an electric one in their trunk and they love theirs. More gears, more dollars, and the electric adds considerably to the price too.
For my money, the sweet spot for a Brompton is 1-5 mile rides as part of a commute. Upthread there's links to people who tour on them, which is cool. I've done a 7000 mile bike tour, and I'm not sure I'd trade a touring bike for a folder for that kind of use. If I only had a Brompton, I'd try it, but I own, uh, three (3) other bikes.
Besides the ride comfort from the small wheels, it really does ride a lot like a regular bike. The ride comfort is a huge compromise, to be sure, but if you can ride a bike, getting on a Brompton takes basically zero adjustment. The steering isn't at all twitchy, and while they note that standing to pedal might feel weird, in my experience, it isn't.
he doesn't but increasingly people don't care about facebook, and that will come for instagram as well. These social apps seem to be .. generational. Boomers use facebook and they are dropping like flies. Twitter has it's own cohort, instagram it's own. I don't expect these products to last forever, tiktok took a huge bite out of instagram. These are fad products.
I think a good compromise there is to get rid of shorting.
And tax capital gains at a rate inversely proportional to how long the shares were held. E.g., 90% if held less than a second, 10% if held over 10 years.
what makes 'shorting' special? I understand what shorting is from a non-market-junkie point of view (essentially betting that a stock will go down).. is that just more 'gameable' than buying stock.. i guess i don't see the difference between 'i bet this will go up' and 'i bet this will go down' it's still a bet.
I assume it must be much easier to modify the market to make a stock price go down (e.g. hack the CEO account to say something silly/dangerous) vs trying to make the stock price go up.
The palantir of the novel weren't surveillance tools. They were a party line, the Gondorians used them to talk to their various outposts throughout middle earth, the three we see in the movies (there may be more in the books, it's been a long time) were at Isenguard, Minis Tirith and the Palantir of Minis Ithil (now Minis Morgul) that Sauron took to Baradur.
When Sauron took Minas Ithil and captured the Palanir that was kept there the Kings of Gondor forbade the use of them. It is shown that Sauron can use them to corrupt and read the thoughts of the other users. We also see him use them for their intended purpose when he conspires with Saruman.
All to say Peter Thiel doesn't understand Lord of the Rings.
the palantir weren't created for spying, they were created so that the various kingdoms of middle earth could stay in contact with each other. The palantir are a party line. It just got real sketchy when Minas Ithil fell (and became Minas Morgul) and Sauron got possession of the orb. After which the kings of gondor stopped using them.
"If Infowars' brand and property are sold, Jones could still start a new company or work for someone else. But because the bankruptcy judge ruled Jones' behavior "willful and malicious," the bankruptcy will not erase Jones' debt, meaning families can keep claiming any money he makes in the future until he pays the $1.3 billion he owes them."
Take some time to see how bankruptcy works. You cannot take all of someones property, nor can you take all of their paycheck. There are specific limits. You can also still come to an alternate settlement with your creditors.
This idea that he "can't have toys" or the court is "going to take is cat" because he has debts is insanity.
Let's say it's your family member. And they go bankrupt due to medical bills. Is this how you want the system to treat them? Justice isn't an opportunity to demean people you don't like.
People will tolerate all kinds of bad precedent and injustice simply because of their emotions. Which might be fine, but to see it drizzle onto the front page of Hacker News, I have to agree with the OP, is annoying.
I know how bankruptcy works, i've seen it up close. The problem, for him, here is that bankruptcy does not absolve him from his debts on this particular judgement because of his own behavior and choices. That's on him, if it is 'demeaning' so be it.
He could have cooperated with the original trial instead of stonewalling discovery until he was dealt a default judgement, he could have cooperated with the other trial but he didn't, he could have not tried to hide his assets in the bankruptcy process but he didn't... he could have done SO MANY THINGS. But he chose not to. fuck him.
I hope they invite the knowledge fight guys, a couple of podcasters who mock and debunk infowars, down to film a show in the infowars studio. They helped the sandy hook families legal with their case and are generally awesome guys.
reply