Max Kennerly

US Income Tax Revenue: $2.2 trillion
US Imports: $3.8 trillion

This would be a $1 trillion annual handout to the top 1%, paid for by massive inflation in consumer goods, something like 55%-60%.

Breaking the economy to give the richest even more, that's the Republican way.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/13/trump-all-tariff-policy-to-replace-income-tax.html

@michaelgemar@mstdn.ca @GreenFire@mstdn.social @theogrin@chaosfem.tw There's a commercial market for the smaller satellite-launching rockets. There's no commercial market for manned spaceflight—puffery from investors about space tourism doesn't count, as Virgin Orbit's failure shows—and that's a huge source of SpaceX's revenue. That's just government money going to billionaires so they can blow stuff up for lulz.

@michaelgemar@mstdn.ca @GreenFire@mstdn.social @theogrin@chaosfem.tw I think "physical goods" requires some differentiation. If the government is purchasing physical goods that have a competitive non-government market, sure, purchasing from private industry is likely more efficient. Passenger vehicles, chairs, printers, etc. But for customized items or goods without a competitive non-government market like spacecraft and weaponry, well...

Sorry, but you can't convince me that the test of a reusable rocket system is supposed to involve destroying the launch site—which was reusable on every prior generation of space flight technology—and launching debris thousands of feet away.

#SpaceX is not a serious company, it's a clown show, and it should not have a single dollar in government funding, much less billions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViAb3vYIh_8

@jag0325@c.im Probably a bit of both!

Twitter can't pay its bills. The banks that funded the acquisition can't syndicate the debt. Revenue plummeted and shows no signs of improving. There aren't even any plans to improve revenue. Stock awards are worthless.

@ckane@mastodon.social JK Rowling's marketing image is not an important topic to anyone except JK Rowling.

NYTimes is laser focused on the important issues, such as "explaining why the terminally online asshole billionaire is the real victim"

@dixongexpat@mastodon.social I think you see some sort of bright line between "impersonation" and "parody" when it's really a big gray continuum with a lot of subjective judgments. And the "impersonation" in question--funny tweets labeled Elon Musk but with a handle that clearly isn't his--falls on the parody side, not the impersonation side.

March: Elon Musk reaches out to The Babylon Bee and makes what is apparently the first reference to buying Twitter, then posts a poll asking if Twitter "rigorously adheres" to the principles of free speech.

October: The Babylon Bee files an amicus brief with SCOTUS arguing "parody shouldn’t be stripped of constitutional protection just because it’s not clearly labeled as parody."

November: Musk bans parody on Twitter unless clearly labeled. 🙃

https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1589409807009992706