The actual reason why is that everyone was expecting Hillary to win and she had vowed to "end private prisons."
So everyone was calculating in a 90% or whatever chance Hillary wins, with some percentage chance she actually fulfilled her promise. Instead they got a 100% chance they would stay around for 4 years and probably get a tax cut. Pretty big adjustment is appropriate.
(Also old 2016 articles about Hillary are so quaint. They even mention Obama closing Guantanamo lmao)
Yeah the guy who was going to pass permanent corporate tax cuts and temporary individual tax cuts, funded by chaining individual tax brackets so taxes go up for individuals after 10 years, won. That's great for corporate profits. And great for the 10% who own 90% of stocks.
It's horrible tax policy and detrimental to the majority of Americans but it absolutely should make stocks increase.
If you're saying "you should not restrict ALL culture to rich people" then, we're not. There is plenty of culture available for free on YouTube, or on broadcast TV channels, or FreeVee. And paying for one paid subscription doesn't make you rich, $10/mo or whatever is an accessible price for a subset of digital media to a non-rich person. And those libraries are sufficiently large that you would not run out of material to watch even if you only had one service.
If you're saying "everyone should be provided literally all digital content for free at all times" that is a pretty extreme position which does sort of break the economics of any content being produced. Digital content would have to be plastered in way more ads or be government subsidized or something to have the money to make more of it. That's not a political position I'd be on board with.
If you just want the current system but with you being allowed to download the stuff you want to see on services you don't pay for...again, there's an argument for that, but let's not pretend it's some high minded one. It's selfish. You probably have the money to pay for HBO Max for one month to watch the new Game of Thrones and the Barbie movie but you don't want to pay money and it's really easy not to.
That doesn't track at all. I can't afford a Lamborghini so the need arises for access to stolen Lamborghinis for cheap? It's absolutely not a need, you can just go without or only access the free media that is available to you. In the car example, I can just buy an old Civic.
If it's stealing bread to feed your family that is one thing, because it's an actual need. If it's getting stuff because you want the more expensive version instead of the version you can afford, there's no need there.
The ethical argument is that there's no one harmed because you can't afford it anyway. It's not that you need it like a starving man's bread.
Fortunately and unfortunately, there have been so many changes and breakthroughs on solar power over the last 50 years that this doesn't really tell us much about current technology.
I'd like to rent your home for a weekend, I've always wanted to try living under a rock.
I find it hard to believe that, outside of work computers, many people would be choosing Windows over Mac or Linux, especially is AI is their goal.
I'm sorry, why? Microsoft basically owns OpenAI and has begun integrating it into their products. Apple doesn't have any AI capabilities beyond Siri.
What does it even mean "one less account to track?" The money is still coming from a bank account, if you track the money in your account you would still have to account for a check, and it would be even worse if the check isn't cashed right away.
Is it that you don't have the monthly credit card bill if you send a check? But you're spending the same amount of money regardless, checks are more like one-off credit card transactions, that don't confirm payment like a credit card does. Checks are worse for the payment-neurotic. That's maybe an argument for debit cards, it's not an argument for checks.
I really like my job but if they started monitoring my data like that I'd absolutely quit. There's already a monitoring mechanism, it's called your boss needing you to complete tasks on time. If you're doing that, the only thing data monitoring does it falsely call out people who are doing their work.
If by "they" you mean Elon himself then yes and it sure is getting dumb.
The last time he was in the wider media discussion was because he negatively reviewed the Fisker Ocean and the Humane Pin and people were calling him a company killer.