Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | insane_dreamer's commentslogin


> Every US president in history has left office peacefully,

That's not how I would describe Jan 6 2021 not to mention Trump's other efforts to subvert the election results, and refusal to accept the results to this day.

> some people always think that the current president will crown himself a king and the Other Party will never ever be able to get into power.

Really? When has there been such a public outcry before? There have never been "No Kings" protests before, because they weren't needed. Even if you hated Reagan, Clinton or Obama, you knew he wasn't going to try to run for a third term, whereas Trump keeps publicly saying he might.


The issue is that donors don't have a _controlling interest_ in the organization.

Having said that, I would expect NPR to disclose, if editorializing a piece on Ms Kroc, the donation that Ms Kroc made to NPR (and they likely do that already).


They don't have control, but these foundations certainly have influence. Similarly for major advertisers, which also have influence in what is aired since editors don't want to anything that will alienate major sources of funding.

Because the editorial authors are employees of the news organization, they must disclose the conflict of interest between their employer and its owner or parent organization and the matter they are reporting on.

Let's say an editorial piece says "AWS is the best cloud service" but fails to disclose that its owner also owns AWS, that would be a breach of journalistic ethics. Similar case here.


> They would go and hire lots of them right back; it was an accounting trick.

How did it benefit the company's accounting? Doesn't it create an additional expense in both severance and hiring costs?


Bearing in mind that I'm nothing resembling an accountant, I believe it has to do with getting them off the books by the end of the quarter before the statement goes out. That shows as less liability for the quarterly statement. The cost of severance and hiring is for the next quarter, so it doesn't affect the current quarter's numbers.

So:

- Company has 10 employees at an annual cost of 100k each. That's 250k (1mm / 4) of employee expenses for the quarter.

- Company lays off 5 employees right before the end of the quarter. That's only 5 employees on the payroll in the current quarter, because you account for the number of employees when the statement is issued. Re-hiring and severance payouts are going to be done sometime in the future.

Congratulations, your employee expense was only 125k for the quarter!


Is $59B in _net profit_ last year (~double the year before) enough?

No, it's not! Let's transfer another few $B from workers to our needy shareholders.

Upward and onward!


Why would anyone gripe about "needy shareholders" on a site paid for and run by a tech VC firm for tech startups, founders, and fellow venture capitalists? If you disapprove of too much money going to shareholders, you're in the wrong place to find a receptive audience.

> If you disapprove of too much money going to shareholders, you're in the wrong place to find a receptive audience.

On this point the audience and I are on opposite sides, and that's fine by me :)


The goal of a company is to maximize profit, not reach a number and decide that is enough.

I think these days goal of a publicly traded company is to maximise the stock price for next 3 months.

If this was the case, then every company on the planet would be dealing fent on the side. Given this is not happening, we can conclude that there are secondary objectives of companies.

Did it have a claw back clause? If not, then it's quite different than the current situation?

Also, DEI in recruitment / screening can be important to ensure that the results of the study apply not just to the majority demographic. It's just common sense.


it never had a claw back clause -- that is the real problem here. And we've seen that the Trump admin is willing to actually claw back granted funds.

not at all the same


That's not how food prices works.

High housing prices is a complex mix of underbuilding due to zoning laws, companies buying up housing stock to rent, and (a few years ago) very low interest rates. One thing that is _not_ a factor is immigrants, because they are at the bottom of the social pile and usually can't get mortgages to buy houses.


>That's not how food prices works.

It very much is how all goods work, unfortunately. Food (except grain) doesn't travel or store well. If 100 million people left North America tomorrow, North America wouldn't start shipping the food for 100 million people to them whereever they went. Pretending otherwise might help you maintain faith in whatever religion you have that demands it be true, I suppose, but it's economically illiterate to claim otherwise.

>High housing prices is a complex mix of underbuilding

Or it's a simple answer of over-immigrating.

>because they are at the bottom of the social pile and usually can't get mortgages to buy houses.

Are they sleeping in ditches? No. They live somewhere. Because they live in those places, those places aren't available for non-immigrants to live in. It's really simple. They rent apartments, do they not? When demand outstrips supply, prices rise. When demand for apartments rise, even the price of houses goes up, because these things can substitute for one another to some degree.


It is. By a long shot too.

Your comments on here show you get into the same pointless arguments and make the same dumb quips everyone on Reddit does. Not sure what makes you think you're doing anything different here

You've been on HN for less than a month, chill out.

Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: