Yes - and even from the government - consider McCarthyism or Hoover's FBI and the civil rights movement.
This fear of saying the wrong thing seems to say a lot more about the expanding reach of both corporations and individuals (and for individuals, the growing scale of memetic behavior) rather than some change in attitude towards free speech.
To emphasize the point on the value of signaling - I know plenty of people who actively avoid branded items that could easily fit into their budgets because they think it's ridiculous to pay the premium - this is also signaling, especially if you belong to a tribe that knows you have that sort of money. Gets lost in the mental calculus of why a person buys a certain good (value, function, etc.), but as another commenter pointed out, luxury designer brands often fit better which makes the wearer look better, and the decision is rarely just about about which item provides more value for the 'cover a part of your body' use.
Yes - those El Salvadoreans - since they are born with only 3 fingers on each hand, they have a very difficult time using tools that were designed for people with 5 fingers on each hand.
Or.... “In the last decade, most of the big U.S. airlines have shifted major maintenance work to places like El Salvador, Mexico, and China, where few mechanics are F.A.A. certified and inspections have no teeth.”
Did you read the article you posted? Actual tulip mania, as described in the article, is much more similar to what is happening in bitcoin than the mythologized tulip mania.
Frantic speculation in a narrow space with the market eventually crashing when speculative buyers are no longer willing to bid up?
What was going for tulips is that they had an "expiration date" bitcoin will probably take longer because there's no such thing.
To me bitcoin lost its appeal after transaction fees became high. The value is ok, since you can still use fractions of it, but current transaction fees and time to wait for confirmation makes it unsuitable for daily use. So in my mind bitcoin already failed what it supposed to provide.
Do you live in Quebec? Why do you get to decide what is reasonable for them?
Personally, I have an issue if municipalities try to impose differential standards, but asking Uber to have its drivers conform to existing standards seems reasonable.
When "existing standards" clearly benefit an entrenched, poorly-performing business model at the expense of an innovative, disruptive, and tech-enabled business model, those standards should be reassessed. Innovation and industry move much faster than lawmakers and regulators.
For asset managers, the reason you form a SPAC is because you will get upside in the form of convertible warrants that will net you ~20% ownership, essentially for free (cost of your time to find and close a deal, and minimal upfront cost), assuming the stock price outperforms the original issue price.
You should ask yourself why an existing owner who believes in the future of their company would be willing to give up 20% upside to avoid the cost of an IPO. I would suggest that the very act of giving up this 20% promote for a 'hot' unicorn tells you something about the valuation that the SPAC eventually does a deal at.
Or a company is raising a normal round of funding and this is suddenly a much better option - 1) funding, 2) liquidity in public markets, 3) backing of SC and whatever help they may offer. If I was raising 600M anyways, these added benefits seem like a good deal to me.
Why not just ask Social Capital to invest out of their VC fund? The only difference is liquidity in public markets, and if that's all you want, why are you giving up 20% of the upside from your current valuation when it would cost you less than 1% of your current to IPO yourself?
I'm not sure where you're getting the 20% number...?
The ownership stake is dependent on how the negotiations go and how much the company is looking to raise at what valuation/terms. Social Capital will argue a liquidity premium should be applied, and I'm sure the company will say what you're saying (they can IPO <1%). However, they could both stand to benefit, so I see a deal happening with this SPAC
No it's the founders of the SPAC (Chamath et. al) get 20% of the SPAC, which will then be diluted once they merge with the target startup.
I do think you do raise a fair question of what stake Chamath et. al should get for sourcing a deal. 20% is definitely high, and I think a typical SPAC is something like 5% sourcing stake for the owners.
Also yes, I apologize, you are right - they get 20% of the value of the SPAC, so if they buy 10% of a company, they are only getting 20% promote on that 10%.
Do you have any 'good' sources on other complaints about working conditions? Honest question, quick google search gives me a number of results but nothing that seems to have meaningful follow-up of any sort.
I thought of applying to Tesla as a software engineer, but after reading through Glassdoor reviews, I decided it's not worth to destroy my life, even if it's an amazing company in what it will hopefully achieve (and not so amazing in how it treats workers)
This fear of saying the wrong thing seems to say a lot more about the expanding reach of both corporations and individuals (and for individuals, the growing scale of memetic behavior) rather than some change in attitude towards free speech.