I counter with, I would think the board of any public corporation would have a succession plan ready, say for instance there is a health emergency with the CEO. Or more likely the CEO does something bad and needs to be removed. The response to this should be "Enrique Lores has decided to leave HP, the acting CEO is Stacy Smith who is fully capable of fulfilling the role."

From what I have seen over the years, public boards of directors are utterly useless. They provide almost zero oversight. They approve non-sensical CEO pay. Just awful.

Sidenote. I worked at a Fortune 50, public firm in a role where I was included in the exec deferred comp plans. There was a ~100 page plan detail and no kidding, 80 of those pages outlined all the stuff that only applied to C-suite comp. All the special goodies, health insurance for life, the corporate jet, crazy stock options that could never be under water. They could not lose money even if the firm went bankrupt. This part of the system is completely broken.

I'll bet Musk gave the major SpaceX investors an ultimatum...basically take this junk firm, xAI, or he doesn't let SpaceX go public, and their investments will remain locked up. But, oof, a $250 billion valuation on xAI...that value will not be returned in our lifetimes. But somehow TSLA is still at >$400/share so don't take stock advice from /. btw the TSLA PE is 392 ...that's bonkers)

Recall that previously Tesla invest like $2billion in xAI, but my guess is with Tesla's declining prospects in their electric car biz there isn't the free cash there to keep milking. So onto the next one...SpaceX. If the recent update to the "Kessler Syndrome" paper is correct , SpaceX is rolling the dice for each launch to basically end access to LEO for decades.

Appreciate the groundbreaking progress SpaceX team, Shotwell, Musk have made in the past 25 years. But as an investment...I'll have to pass.

We are in a day and age where this statement "...focusing on President Trump's policies for maximum security for all Americans," feels like it could be easily replaced with "focusing on President Trump's policies for maximum security prison for all Americans," Or at least subliminally the same.

All of the shelf cameras, shelf scales (for weight) etc in my mind were all just goofy experiments, proof of concept, letting the hardware folks play around. Amazon had cash to burn (reference FirePhone and everything Alexa)

The meaningful change was that it was a Members Only corner store. Basically like a Costco meets 7Eleven. The grocery industry rate for "inventory shrinkage" aka theft is something like 3% for grocery stores. Costco is something like 0.2%. The primary reason is that you need to shell out a Costco membership of $65 per year, typically with a credit car in order to shop there. And if you get caught stealing you are banned from Costco forever

The Amazon Fresh stores did the same, just with a Prime membership at $140/year also typically with a credit card. Yes, there were technically ways to get into an Amazon Fresh w/out a Prime membership, but those also basically required some level of credit/similar validation.

Point being, the main reason they could trust you in their stores is because they already knew you to be honest (enough) via your de facto social credit score. They knew you had already dropped $140 with them which they would keep if you got caught. Also those stores mostly stocked stale sandwiches and small packages of other items, not an enticing target for the shoplifting mobs.

IMHO the answer is business condos. I've seen a few signs of these around town. You buy the storefront that is part of a larger building. Now you can benefit from the increased land value. Don't have the capital up front, get a mortgage. Can't get a mortgage, that should tell you something about your business.

Worth mentioning is that there are a lot other changes happening at the same time that are affecting neighborhood shopping

1. Online retail. Those folks in quirky Hayes Valley are likely spending a good chunk of their retail expenditures on Amazon and other online shopping. Probably go into the fancy store, take a snapshot of an item and order it online.
2. Food delivery. I am constantly amazed at the popularity of waaaay overpriced food delivery. But local, quirky, cafes, etc are now competing with cafes across town and ghost kitchens.
3. Changing habits - people are going out less. Less to bars, less to restaurants, less to movies, just less. Less likely to include shopping if you aren't already out for dinner, drinks, etc.
4. Demographics - SF like all of the US and most of the world s getting older. As a group the older folks are less likely to spend capriciously, like the 20s-30s crowd

I RTFA and it's peppered with nonsense masquerading as a 'plan'. The basic premise comes back to the tried and true that certain business owners (landlords) are bad, but other businesses (quirky stores) are good, and the author and his cohort will choose which ones are good/bad. That should strike everyone as a path to certain ruin.
It sucks, but we have to let the local market do this choosing over a period of time. How many of us have bemoaned the loss of a treasured neighborhood store, but have also reflected that we rarely if ever shopped there. Prob the best a municipality can do is make it as inexpensive , easy, and quick as possible for new small businesses to start. Instead of having a storefront vacant for 9-19 months on permitting, get it done in 60 days and let them serve their customers.

Always depends on who is being laid off. Is it the juicy middle management that presided over the decline, the ones that somehow missed the exploding data center market that has been in the news since 2021? In that case maybe for the better.

Process engineers, probably want to keep those around.

I looked it up and that revenue/debt ratio for Intel is not good.

INTEL Revenue: $53.4B Long term debt: $44B
AMD Revenue: $32B Long term debt: $2.4B
NVDIA Revenue $187B Long term debt: $7.5B

Maybe they are sitting on a pile of 2% corporate bonds, like a Boomer holding a mortgage, but still, that debt is an anchor.
Near term I would say Intel benefits greatly from current administration interference in free-markets, if Apple is 'encouraged' to buy 14A chips, if other firms are 'encouraged' politically it might be the next few years Intel needs to steady itself. Also assuming datacenter/AI build out bubble doesn't crash for another 18 months or so.

According to this https://magazine.viterbi.usc.e...

LA only gets 14% of its water from Colorado River (aka Lake Meade)

Most of their water is from in-state, routed from Northern California to So-Cal. Assuming California's population continues to level off, dip somewhat I think LA will be ok. Also worth mentioning the State is trying to add more reservoir capacity (https://sitesproject.org/) in a large empty field, just needs to get through the lawsuits:

“Sites will perpetuate California’s antiquated and inequitable water distribution system to the detriment of Northern California Tribes, salmon and water quality,” said Regina Chichizola, executive director of Save California Salmon, a Tribally-led environmental justice organization. “It will promote the concentration of water and power in the hands of the few, and ignores Tribal rights and consultation. We have no choice but to challenge it in court.”

TACO

I see what you did there.

Why would we want to target Russian hardware? They and Belarus are invited to the president's "Council on Peace". Why would someone on the Council of Peace ever be considered a threat? The president himself has apparently stopped 8 wars which I think nets out to like 3 once you include Greenland, Venezuela, and the now accelerating timeline of Taiwan as a result.

BTW its s fun read, these eight wars that were reported stopped. Lotsa head scratchers on this one. Meanwhile the two current greatest threats to world peace are Russia/Ukraine & this Greenland fiasco (torpedoing NATO).

1. Thailand and Cambodia
2. Kosovo and Serbia
3. DRC and Rwanda
4. India and Pakistan
5. Israel and Iran
6. Egypt and Ethiopia
7. Armenia and Azerbaijan
8. Israel and Hamas

RTFA shows that the author of this opinion piece.

"Jon Rice is the former editor-in-chief at Cointelegraph, Blockworks, and Crypto Briefing."

Which are the firms he is dunking on in the article. Further quote:

"Perhaps when media owners and operators begin to recognize that sidelining expertise often leads to the destruction of value, they’ll have a little more respect for the people in their organizations who actually understand the industry."

Just another facet of the exciting and totally not-sketch crypto-sphere.

Cointelegraph is apparently owned by Luna Media, a Dubai based VC.

"We're creating a world leading cloud and AI hub in Nashville that is attracting top talent locally, regionally, and from across the country,"

Just saying it out loud makes me giggle.

Second thought is they didn't specify which "country"...

"Weight regain was faster after WMM [GLP-1] than after BWMP [behavioral changes] (by 0.3 kg (0.22 to 0.34) monthly)"
https://www.bmj.com/content/39...

Reading between the lines, keeping weight off is difficult. You are either on Ozempic for the rest of your life, or paying close attention to what you eat for the rest of your life.

Credit cards are a very competitive, liquid market. If someone, anyone could make money on a avg rate of 10% it would already happen and people would flock to that bank.

Why are the credit card rates set to what they are? If someone claiming there is collusion or other illegal price-fixing activity, then I wholeheartedly agree that should be investigated and swiftly remedied. Absent any such claim there seems to be a competitive market for credit cards, 100's (1000's ?) of banks issue cards, and they all determine the rate at which they think they can make a business. While I agree that avg CC interest rates are very high at around 22%, that seems to be the consensus around paying for delinquencies, fraud, whatever else. If this was an exorbitant rate and they could remain in business then we'd see lotsa 10% interest rate offerings already.

Different example. My bank offers a 0.5% rate on a saving account, I can easily move to another bank that offers 3% savings rate, but there are

• no

banks offering 17% because that's impossible to offer and keep the bank solvent.

No bank can offer a 10% credit card rate because it would be impossible to run that business without going bankrupt.