1. You don't believe in the mission or direction of US warfighters 2. Supporting warfighters is developmentally distinct from what you want your corporate competences and direction are. 3. you don't want military to be more safe an capable.

This is where people go to post long verbose statements.

You can usually find the short version on Twitter.

He might get 5 to 10% in the restructuring that's underway. That would be 25 to 50 billion dollars

I thought that restructuring finished in the fall, and he still didn't get any equity?

The question is over what timescale and volume.

Toyota shouldn't have to sell their first new car off the line for 100 million to pay for the entire manufacturing line.

Your first SAAS customer shouldn't have to pay back all your costs.

Can you plan to break even after your first month of sales? first year? 10 years?

This isn't typically an area where laws and regulations can work effectively because who knows until after the fact? Taxation laws do deal with this from a different perspective, for example most jurisdictions won't let a company take losses every year forever, as they judge the intent of a corporation. Even this is incredibly complex so I'm not sure how your idea would work, even the term "break even" doesn't have a clear definition, ex: do Capital assets still depreciate the same in the AI world? When did Amazon start to break even? What if they didn't deliver shopping on top of aws? Was that an unfair subsidization?

Amazon doesn’t for the most part deliver shopping on top of AWS.

Amazon runs two sets of infrastructure “CDO” and “AWS”. It’s a myth that Amazon used excess capacity to start AWS. AWS was always built out as separate infrastructure outside of AWS.

Some Amazon services do run on AWS. But when Amazon runs workloads on AWS, for internal accounting, they are considered a customer.

Source: former employee at AWS

So we are going to pass a law that any new company initiative must be profitable in $x years? Are we going to outlaw loss leaders?

What about banking regulations that mandated that SBC put those deposits into treasury bonds?

The bailout did not accelerate bond maturity. Those were picked up by other Banks when assets were sold off.

Last, who is the other banks that paid for the bailout, not taxpayers, at least not directly. If you call higher FDIC insurance rates for JPMorgan Chase a taxpayer cost, how does that logic scale to the rest of the economy?

now you are talking about replacing not judges, but your elected representatives.

I think it is more than just tolerance and stink eyes.

Some cultures actively celebrate children and families. They center them in social life in an inclusive way. This covers inclusion in social events, institutions, and civic design.

Kids are not only FUN, but interesting, challenging, and rewarding.

I would be very interested in a breakdown of how the American perception changed over time and what the drivers were.

Since total fertility rates have the same trend all around the world, why restrict the breakdown to Americans?

Seems kind of obvious that doing adult things with freedom during one’s 20s and 30s is deemed more fun than raising children, which necessarily includes foregoing many or all of the adult things due to lack of funds and time.

> Seems kind of obvious that doing adult things with freedom during one’s 20s and 30s is deemed more fun than raising children

This is exactly what I am talking about. Is the obviousness of this statement constant across time? Would someone in the 1960 or 1980 have found it equally obvious?

Alternatively, is it the emphasis on prioritizing fun that changed?

Alternatively, has both the perception and reality of fun given up changed?

Im mostly interested in breakdown in America because I am an American. Some countries match, some dont. If the underlying drivers are common, I would still find them the most relatable and interesting in the American context.

yes. As long as they are more valuable to people than the lives cost, they will stick around. Part of this is a pragmatic utilitarianism the world run on.

How many people can a doctor kill and still survive? Nobody expects perfection because they like having doctors.

If what you say is true, why ever would the US want to defend them?

I would not want to risk American money or lives defending defending a country that doesn't want to defend itself.

That said, your anecdotes don't match my experience with sentiments in taiwan

> If what you say is true, why ever would the US want to defend them?

Ho Chi Minh went to the Americans and asked for help because the French were raping the Vietnamese and other things. The Americans refused to help them. So the Vietnamese asked the Communists for help. It is strongly believed that the American-Vietnamese war would have been adverted and Vietnam would have had a similar economic trajectory as Japan and South Korea after WWII if the Americans had helped.

Bill Clinton who learned from history did the opposite as Harry Truman and put two aircraft carrier strike groups between the island and the mainland during Taiwan's democratic election defending both democracy and Taiwan self determination.

There were a few American presidents who promoted and defended democracy. Unfortunately the whiny snowflake administration in power now isn't one of them.

Why not?