utter nonsense.

There was no real problem sidelining as many people during the pandemic and similarly the economy even the economics of places like NOVA and DC during government shut downs was not collapse.

Any landlord with sense would have waited to start evictions knowing their usually in good standing tenants who are late this month likely have a temporary reason. State and Locals could have found a way to make food-stamps or something like it availible to ensure groceries got purchased.

It was in no way necessary to bail out the credit market.

Similarity lenders and mortgage services are not unsophisticated, they could have easily run some reports to see which entities were paying more than monthly load payment etc. They could have reached out to those borrowers and offered to match some portion of additional dollars. That would not have required modifying loans that might be parted up or anything, it would have secured cash for current obligations at the cost of profits, but well that is how its supposed to work.

The finance industry got away with fleecing us all because the Treasury, Fed, and POTUS turned out to have a pair testicles between em.

Exactly AIG never should have got a bailout.

I honestly thought Bush was/had been doing a fairly good job up until the point he turned his back capitalism.

He'd be drawn like a moth to flame in this discussion yet he hasn't materialized. - Must mean his primary account has mod points. I have already seen a number of 'disagree' mods here.

So you're argument is the current status quo is a backdoor to price discrimination; where social pressure encourages the people who are able to pay more.

You might be right and I don't have a problem with negotiated pricing, or algorithm driven pricing. It is just haggling dressed up. I'd much rather Door Dash us an algorithm to effect this though, like this guy orders deliver a lot, he'll pay...take on %5, or this order is several $100 probably an office paying with company cash, cha-ching... This is food from a N-tier restaurant apply...

You get quoted a price and you accept or don't. There is no opportunity for much actual abuse. The problem now is you have propaganda telling perspective gig workers what a great opportunity Door Dash is - most of these people are probably not the most on top of their personal accounting. I hate to see them get to the end of month and then figure out because they did not make much in tips they actually lost money driving; which I expect is entirely possible..

Again I do believe a free people should be able to make whatever contract they want. I don't think its wrong to 'over charge' someone if you are upfront about the price tag. Sure maybe you are selling at 500% margin, if they want to pay without taking the effort to look around at the market place, so be it. I think it is more abusive though flash that 'add tip' button which may not have been expected after the transaction has been otherwise agreed too, and I think its abusive to sell employees on uncertain comp, I don't like to hear "well our base salary is only X but the bonus here are great" at interviews either. That turns into surprise we had a bad q4 no bonus this year way to easily.

Again not saying we should legislate these practices, but this is where education is key. Usually when a transaction is more complicated than you'll give me X, and I'll pay you $Y for it; that added complication/structure is designed to benefit one party or the other. More people should realize that.

Nope - I don't like the behavior but if people want to work for Door Dash, and customers want to use it as it operates today, that is their problem.

I would have no interest in being a door dasher and while I might choose to be a consumer, I only do so as long as their the only game in town.

I don't know. As a member of the freemarket faithful I think people should see the real costs of everything, obscuring it does not help anybody make more rational choices.

It is like tax withholding - that should not be a thing, people should be made to write a check or setup an ACH for the full amount of their taxes owed. People who are expected to actually owe more than few large, should pay quarterly estimated taxes. I think it would change a lot of peoples opinion about the value of government services. The current system is just a scheme to split the payment up into multiple places so as to obscure what the real bill is.

The expansion if tipping is the same nonsense, now historically couriers have been tipped which is what these people are. However we have gone to the expectation of that being restaurant style tips of 15-20% sometimes more! As if they have been hovering over me keeping my water glass full, and bringing me anything else I might need for the last hour. A tip should be an actual tip - "thanks for being on time, here is some $(candy bar money) for the effort). It should not be 20% of the total just for doing the job in the case of a delivery person. If it needs to be that to make it worth their while, I think yes they should be paid more, and that should be reflected in the quoted delivery fee!

For actual hospitality workers, wait staff, concierge, guides, trainers, etc - sure tipped wages make sense, a lot of what the consumer is paying for is between them and that staff member and has little to do with the house. So tips should be significant and expected when reasonable service is offered. A delivery is not that, the expectation from the outset is item is supposed to be arrive at $place at $time. A door dasher is really not different from the FedEx guy, and I don't think they get many tips. As a consumer my entire relationship with them is "Here is your package", "Ok thanks". Door Dash *should* be paying them enough to make the work worth their time if I tip or don't. I know they don't and I do tip as result, but no it does not make sense for tips to be more than handful of percent of the total comp a delivery person makes.

No the EU should act like vassal state that it is and do what what the USA wants or face the consequences of being left to deal with Russia, north Africa, and Middle East on their own.

The point is an America First Government should be pressuring the EU to not impose onerous requirements on American businesses.

Doing so is there prerogative, but it should come with diplomatic consequences, right up to an including if you're unwilling to be a good market place for US products you are not worth defending if attacked!

The Administrator needs to unambiguously tell the EU, stop DSA actions against US tech companies or there will be negative consequences for the NATO umbrella.

The question is will anyone pull the plug does anyone have the will to pull the plug, who can actually make that decision?

I don't mean nominally either, I mean practically. Even if you are the CEO; giving the order to shut down you hyper-scaled AI/ML platform because someone some people from the 'safety' team you only hired to virtue signal in the first place say they think 'something' is happening. Its a career ending move, most likely, and you'll have to hang around and slug it out with half a nation of disgruntled 401k holders who saw the NASDAQ drop and are demanding the company start operating again.

Could president or some member of the joint-chiefs demand power be cut to the datacenter. Same problems what will people believe, what will the political fall out of 'blowing up the economy be'?

Now for the record I think this is all hype. These people are saying this stuff because what they really want you think is, 'omg omg if this technology is so powerful even the owners are afraid of it, it just has to be the next big thing, its like harnessing the atom was 70 years ago! BUY BUY FOMO BUY BUY' At no point is anything resembling the current state of the art over at OpenAI going to turn into 'Mike' (See the Moon is a Harsh Mistress). Its just marketing. However if a real synthetic intellect ever did appear AND start to have control over IRL events in any remotely unexpected ways I have little to no faith the organizations around it would recognize what was happening and respond appropriately. I suspect it takes more courage to pull the plug than most folks have.

I watched all the stuff the GPP mentioned when I was young, and I actually watch a lot of PBS now; but not nearly as much and less and less all the time. Why because i am replacing it with youtube'ers who genuinely are better.

As great as Roy Underhill's or Norm Abrams' shows ever were, I learned more applicable wood working from Acorn to Arabella and Sampson Boat Co, or at least understood them finally. Same things with cooking, ATK is still amazing, and Julia and Pépin shaped me in the kitchen; but there is plenty out there now that is every bit as good and its not hard to find.

I loved PBS in the late 80s thru the late 90s, but the era is over.

blah blah

is an incredible value for the money, said everyone defending every government dollar every time..

Certainly in the era before ubiquitous highspeed internet access and pick your self-publishing video platform, those things were great.

They are obsolete now. There is a time when even where you have found something that worked, the need is gone and it is time to stop doing it.

From a technical standpoint your are correct. From a practical standpoint there is something we all are not seeing.

The industry has customers that place a lot of value on relative anonymity. There isn't anything inherently illegal, immoral, or wrong with 'dark money' either it really isn't anyone's business what anyone else invests their personal wealth in. (beyond basic tax law enforcement etc, which yes privacy does complicate)

The industry also must certainly be aware they make quite a lot of money off players who are in fact sanctioned, using their platforms in complex laundering schemes and the like.

I don't see anyone who is running and IB, brokerage, or exchange wanting to just make all that go away. Maybe I am to cynical but if the people in those positions were really the types to say "hey we are willing to make less money, for the greater good" well there are at lot of things like know your customer standards and the like they'd have beefed up voluntarily already.

So I am left with there is a plan here we have not seen yet, like charging premiums for coin blending services or other various proxy ownership games like invite only trading of in house assets off chain.

One thing I am certain of nobody is trying to give the SEC radical transparency out of the goodness of the big hearts

The dumbest part of the entire thing is - a college campus is one place where it should be like super easy to find some folks to wager with. Maybe like I dunno talk to some of the guys in your hall, activity lounge, wherever.

Setup some squares - everyone can photo the board with their phones so there isn't any funny business. You could even like socialize and watch some of the sporting events, maybe find girls like sports to watch as well get a couple bags of chips and some sodas and actually have a good time?

Oh the best part some of these people you call 'friends' win and maybe you win next time. There is no house taking a cut...

i don't think a little friendly gambling with people know is to likely to get anyone into addiction or encourage people to take risks they can't really afford but commercial gambling be it on sports, prediction markets, or stocks is down right predatory. The pattern-day-trading rule exists for good reason - its to prevent Etrade from turning into Draft Kings, and it has worked. We probably need something like it for Sports/Prediction market betting. If you can't find 25k worth of assets to park in an account, then you should be limited to handful of bets/plays a week. That way people don't get hooked, and hopefully you don't get people playing with money they can't afford to lose as often because, by virtue of the fact if you can keep it on account for x days you don't urgently need it.

Collect a rent from OpenAI everytime some little girl asks mommy to print some Disney Princes invitations to her imaginary tea party.