Alaknár

So, what you’re writing is in good faith, I can tell, but shows a fundamental lack of understanding how shares work.

If the value of a company goes up, the number of shares doesn’t change, the price per share increases. So, if a company emitted 100 shares, and they were valued at $10 each, for the worth of the company being $1,000.

Now, stuff happens, and the company is now worth $10,000. It doesn’t mean that there are now 1000 shares, it means that each share is now worth $100.

Which means that there are no “excess shares”.

What a company could do is something called “stock dilution”. For example, you have that company from before, worth $10,000, with 100 shares, $100 per share, right? They dilute the shares and emit another 100 shares, bringing the total to 200. But the value of the company is still $10,000, it just means that the value per share is now $50.

Seems like a good idea? Here’s the problem - control over a company is still determined by the percentage of owned shares. You had 100 shares? You need 51 to independently control the company. You now have 200? You now need 101 shares for the exact same level of control.

Which means: either the CEO of that company loses control of the company (effectively “gives it away”, potentially to malicious actors from the competition who just want to shut him down), or he still needs to own 50%+1 shares (so from 51 to 101 shares), meaning his wealth doesn’t change at all.

I agree! I’m only saying that often the “simple solutions” aren’t really solutions when you stop for a moment to really think about the consequences.

Of course! It’s just never as easy as people think.

THIS might be a better solution, although it still doesn’t fix the “CEO is only earning $1 a year” situations like with Bezos or Zuckerberg.

Alright, let’s run a quick model.

Let’s say the upper cap is $1000k.

You are a CEO and you get a salary of, say, $10k, plus 1000 shares, each worth $1. So, in total, that year your worth is $120k + $1000 = $121k.

Now, you’re incredibly successful as a CEO, you make your shareholders drool for your company’s shares. Which makes their price skyrocket. Each share is now worth $1000! Such success!

But wait! No! Catastrophe!

Your worth has just gone up to $120k + $1000k! The share’s value on their own hits the upper limit of wealth!

They’re not your money, mind you, you can’t do anything with them unless you cash them in, sell them.

So, you have two choices - you stop getting any salary and have $0 for spending (hopefully the office cafeteria is well stocked!), or you sell some shares, give the money to charity, and pray the stock price doesn’t go up. And if it does, you have to sell again, lose the money, and… oh, but now you no longer hold a controlling interest in your own company - some three dudes who work together bought up the shares, spread them around evenly (so neither of them goes above the $1000k), and they effectively control your own company, telling you what to do with it.

Companies shouldn’t be able to have over, say 1000 employees either.

So, instead of having some large companies, you end up with chains of “totally not the same” companies that just work together. “Oh, we’ve outsourced our HR to company X, which is Totally Not The Same as our company, they just don’t work with anybody else and we have full data transparency with them.”

You mean the Kung Führer?

Yup! Some 90-95% of women wear the wrong bras. Especially those who have been extremely gifted by nature, this can lead to pain in their later years.

Going to an actual bra fitter and getting a fitted bra or two is something every woman should get. So, people, if you love your gals, get them a gift of an actually will-fitted bra. Doesn’t need to be fancy, but if it fits, she will love you for it!

Source: SO got a fitted bra, couldn’t shut up about it for three months, just being in complete shock about how comfortable it was.

Because, like it or not, it is the main place. Government entities from all over the world sit there, not on Mastodon.

Also, I’m not entirely certain that abandoning the clueless “average users” to the full extent of far-right propaganda without even a chance for corrections is the best approach, not when Twitter is still one of, if not the, most popular social network.

Haha, classic newbie blunder! You think it’s better to spend money on fixing the problem, instead of making money on redesigning public architecture? Haha, oh my!

It means they are ashamed of the distro they run.

See? You are being elitist. Your first thought is that they hope to elevate themselves somehow by saying they use Arch.

When they might just not be bothered (or don’t know) to say “Arch-based”. Because ultimately, there’s no difference. When you’re troubleshooting packages, or whatever, there’s no functional difference between saying “It’s Arch” and “It’s WhateverTheFuck OS (Arch-based)”. The latter just takes more time to type out.

If you want to go around telling people you use arch

See this? You think people go around telling other what distro they’re using. You are elitist. It’s just an OS, bro.

I think you just need to stop being elitist about it.

Who cares? Honestly - who cares how someone installed their OS? We should be doing everything to get people to switch to Linux (of any flavour), but instead dudes like you go “oh, you have XYZ OS? Well, that’s not really Arch, is it?” What even is the point?

love garuda

An equivalent of Rani should legally mandated to be on all Arch-based distros.

US and UK weren’t one country. US was a UK colony

Yeah, so exactly as with USSR and Ukraine.

that’s why they celebrate independence day

Yeah, so exactly as with USSR and Ukraine.

The only reason Ukraine and Taiwan want to separate from Russia and China respectively is because of American interference

Nobody gave a shit about Americans in Ukraine when the Orange Revolution happened, or during the Maidan Protests. They just wanted democracy and re-integration with the West.

One more time: Ukraine was an independent country around 400 years before Muscovy (proto-russia) became a thing. It got gobbled up by the various superpowers of the area, but always retained its national identity. Culturally, there’s a very clear continuation from the Kyivan Rus all the way to modern day Ukraine.

You might as well suggest that the Scottish independence movements exist because of “American interference”, even though they existed for hundreds of years before the American Independence.

You’re just repeating russian propaganda points verbatim, so I don’t know if you’re this ignorant, or a russian bot. If it’s ignorance, feel free to ask questions, I know lots of people are super confused with what’s going on in Ukraine and that area due to russian disinformation campaigns.

US and UK used to be one country. Should US now become subservient to the UK based on that?

Are you high, friend? They speak Ukrainian, it’s a completely different language. Similar, but different.

Imagine you’re suggesting that Spain is “basically Brazil” because they “speak Portuguese”.

Calling Ukraine “new” just shows how ignorant you are. Kievan Rus has been around since 11th century. Ukraine is older than russia by 3-4 hundred years.

and it is a former USSR territory

So is half the EU. What’s this got to do with anything?

That’s because 90% of these articles about their technological breakthroughs are bullsht.

Nothing they’ve done in recent years is ground breaking.

Room temperature superconductors? Fake.

Self-driving bus using painted lanes for navigation? We have trains and trams for that.

Thorium reactor? Germany had one in the 80s, shut it down because it was expensive, there’s around 20 different projects happening in Europe and North America to make it more efficient.

The fusion reactor from the article? They maybe potentially hypothetically achieved one breakthrough of the dozens still needed to make fusion viable.

Etc., etc.

Most people who look to extreme solutions tend to be hyperfocused on their immediate surroundings without paying attention to the fact that alternative solutions or states exist.

For instance - the US or UK law and law enforcement systems are faulty (to put it extremely mildly), sure… But that doesn’t mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, it means we should look to, and take inspiration from, more positive examples. Countries such as Norway, Finland, Switzerland have judicial systems and law enforcement systems that people can (mostly) count on, and trust them.