asjldkfin

6 ms·

1.
by asjldkfin 4mo ago
Can somebody explain how this graph makes sense? It seems to imply the top 2 people own 30% of the wealth, which is not what the data states.
2.
by asjldkfin 7mo ago
VC money at work baby!
3.
by asjldkfin 7mo ago
They took VC money, this was expected. But still, +30% is high.
4.
by asjldkfin 7mo ago
Why e-paper over a monitor with a presence sensor? Wouldn't it be cheaper and higher fidelity?
5.
by asjldkfin 11mo ago
It's a coordinated effort by the union. It means the piece isn't impartial- nor is the sponsorship disclosed.
6.
by asjldkfin 2y ago
"...has filed paperwork to go public..." Enough said
7.
by asjldkfin 3y ago
This is good news. For those who don't know, journalling apps universally suck. Especially when it comes to security. Day One, the canonically recommended app, doesn't even locally encrypt their entries, so basically anybody can a
8.
by asjldkfin 3y ago
"Radio Silence" does the same thing as this- but without subscription. And only $9.
9.
by asjldkfin 4y ago
I recommend people click into the link and read the full quote. The quote snippet is out of context and feels like its done strategically.
10.
by asjldkfin 4y ago
You are using the same logic that would cause somebody to make statements like "Ads don't work on me because I know they're ads". Don't treat people like they are rational, because they aren't. If you seriously
11.
by asjldkfin 4y ago
That's the point; VW puts out the "VW Golf", not the "Bugatti Golf", for a reason.
12.
by asjldkfin 4y ago
by the simple fact that nobody will think more of Omega with this collaboration, some people will think less of it. Net-of-net, it'll be a decrease in general opinions, which leads to a general decline in market value.
13.
by asjldkfin 4y ago
In the way that it's an asset that you derive value from.
14.
by asjldkfin 4y ago
Let's not get into a long-winded debate about something that's well established, researched and at this point, proven. There's a reason why Patek doesn't sell a $1000 version of their watch, or why Porsche doesn't m
15.
by asjldkfin 4y ago
I don't really understand what you're talking about- but yes, the watch industry- like all luxury industries, is primarily driven by marketing. It's not a scam, it's just the nature of the industry.
16.
by asjldkfin 4y ago
I'm not sure what there is to not understand? But yes, Swatch should not have released a cheaper facsimile if they wanted to maximize Omega's brand value.
17.
by asjldkfin 4y ago
Let's not be naive, if the market gave a shit about substance over marketing, we'd all be wearing Seikos and driving Toyotas.
18.
by asjldkfin 4y ago
Because it’s a marketing stunt involving an investment I made; an investment I made with the implicit understanding there’ll be some protection for the brand’s dignity.
19.
by asjldkfin 4y ago
I agree, but to be fair: 1. It has generated significant attention- which has value. 2. Like a BMW 1-series, I imagine the idea is that once people have the "beginner" version, they'll aspire to upgrade to the real thing. It
20.
by asjldkfin 5y ago
The most interesting thing about this war has been experiencing first-hand the idea of "our propaganda is news and theirs news is propaganda". It really makes you think twice about about NK, China, Saudia Arabia and all the other
21.
by asjldkfin 5y ago
The difference is that in Western society (assume you're Western), we've agreed that people should have the right to think for themselves and decided what is right and wrong- so it should be up to them to decided what is propagand
22.
by asjldkfin 5y ago
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're talking about. But I think it's pretty basic common sense that nobody censoring information will explicitly admit to it.
23.
by asjldkfin 5y ago
This is the exact same response you'd get if it had everything to do with censorship.
24.
by asjldkfin 5y ago
The problem here is that by their sentiment, there has never been a single industry, at any point in history, that hasn’t been “exploitative”. This is what happens when your definition of “exploitative” is based on a relative metric. Exploi
25.
by asjldkfin 5y ago
This article was too many words about absolutely nothing. No new ideas are presented, just the same things you’ve heard 1000 times already. Also, the bar for exploitation is so low for the author that it’s hard to imagine a modern day indus
26.
by asjldkfin 5y ago
Yes, but how much is a "slew" relative to the entire roster of working journalists?
27.
by asjldkfin 5y ago
Although I agree with the general sentiment of this article- journalists gravitates towards their career not for the job itself. I think he's making a pure speculation on the "journalists have rich parents" point. I think it
28.
by asjldkfin 5y ago
By "go touch grass", I assume you're probably a younger person. You certainly have the reading comprehension of one. I'd re-read this thread carefully and then take a moment to consider: is this really a hill worth dying
29.
by asjldkfin 5y ago
We're not talking about TFA, we're talking about the OP's comment- which mentions literally nothing that Splendor is so worked up about.
30.
by asjldkfin 5y ago
I don't see anything in OP's comment about second mansions or the homeless.

More ›