I think it's easy to believe a narrative like this about someone generally disliked, but the reality about basically everyone is that we have good moments and bad moments. People that are famous are constantly being watched and evaluated.
Given the inevitability of those bad moments being observed and reported, I don't think it's a good foundation for evaluating someone's character. In this case, it's mostly useful for confirming an already negative point of view.
from the article you linked, it seems that Zuck told everyone else to gang up on the next hardest player so he could win.
That they went along with it is... kind of in line with what Wynn-Williams said.
Would they still have all teamed up on Zuck's opponent if Zuck hadn't been their boss?
The $22B number comes from the stock market downturn leading to a loss of wealth of $7B for Musk that happened to be on the same day that Slim said they will cancel contracts for an unspecified amount with Starlink and invest $22B into developing their own infrastructure.
Well usually it's levied at the border for physical goods so the importing company (usually not the end consumer for consumer goods) eats the cost (or prices it in/passes it to the consumer).
You're right though, with digital goods it's ambiguous. If the company has a US entity is that the importer? That's the scenario that popped into my (somewhat tired) head. Probably because Canada has been trying to impose taxes on US tech companies with a similar argument.
If you buy a good online in a separate country, where is the transaction made?
Not any kind of expert, but from my research, Article 19.3 of the USMCA says that tariffs can't be imposed on digital products:
1. No Party shall impose customs duties, fees, or other charges on or in connection with the importation or exportation of digital products transmitted electronically, between a person of one Party and a person of another Party.
You act as if this administration is concerned with silly things like laws or that either the courts or Congress is going to stop him.
This isn’t hyperbole. Right now, Oracle and Akamai is illegally supporting TikTok even though a bipartisan law was passed and it was upheld by the conservative court because Trump said it was okay.
The USMCA is irrelevant. Almost everything hit by the tariffs is not allowed under USMCA. Trump has claimed an "emergency" to bypass Congress and the USMCA.
Yes, if everyone isn't involved in arriving at the decision about what is fair, they won't feel that it's fair even if you come up with some brilliant objective measurement of contribution impact.
I would find a way to validate that there is a path to $1m/year. Perhaps talking to some of the folks to see if they would commit to paying if you're able to deliver what you're building.
If you can get some written commitments in place, it will be a lot easier to pitch to investors if you decide to go that route, and you'll get a better valuation.
It doesn't sound like you are able to bear a worst case scenario at the moment since you have dependents, so you want to be as sure as possible before you lose your income stream.
Thank you for writing this. They say that you don't know what you have until it's gone, but reading experiences like this reminds me how precious and fragile life is, so that I can more deeply appreciate the time I do have with my loved ones.
The author's other writings on the four magic words helped me understand his point of view at visceral level. He is not clinging to preserving his son, he believes that his son's life is sacred, even in its diminished state.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-board-game-c...
I think it's easy to believe a narrative like this about someone generally disliked, but the reality about basically everyone is that we have good moments and bad moments. People that are famous are constantly being watched and evaluated.
Given the inevitability of those bad moments being observed and reported, I don't think it's a good foundation for evaluating someone's character. In this case, it's mostly useful for confirming an already negative point of view.