It requires a front-loaded investment in infrastructure, which means lower returns for a few quarters.

Most companies wanted people to use horses for as long as possible because that meant they had to adapt, change, and invest. Why do something that’s difficult when you can just do the same thing? This works out when you don’t really have competition because the cost to enter the market is so high due to decades of mergers and acquisitions, consolidating all means of production and materials to a select-few companies.

There are more efficient, greener ways to go about producing pretty much everything we use that doesn’t destroy the earth. Problem is is that it’s not as profitable for share holders.

I don’t see either of those happening because there’s no short-term profit. Also, unintended consequences.

The bird is also looking at another bird.

Do we have concrete evidence that this is true? I find it highly unlikely Disney+ was hemorrhaging money considering all the parents that are indefinitely subbed to D+ for the Disney catalogue.

Unless the original programming like all the Marvel TV shows (which are pretty low quality scripts) and the remakes (which are low quality) really cost that much to make.

I said it on another comment, but Taiwan’s China and the PRC’s China are different. There was essentially a schism is the ‘40s with each side claiming to be the true government of China.

Yea, but Taiwan’s China and the PRC’s China are different. There was essentially a schism is the ‘40s with each side claiming to be the true government of China.

Take into account that the ‘average American’ also likely makes closer to the median salary ($45,000) than the average salary due to all the billionaires offsetting the average.

Possible rescue story is more interesting than hundreds dead. It’s sad but we hear about death all the time at this point.