Oh, wait!

  New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.

  Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted & demonetized, so no ads or other revenue to Twitter. 

  You won’t find the tweet unless you specifically seek it out, which is no different from rest of Internet.

It's a unique situation in that hype is easily and definitely measurable: market cap. You would arguably need to subtract any use for real-world applications, i. e. the drug business using it, which can easily be approximated (to the closest full percentage point of market cap) by the formula x = 0.

(I didn't see this linked in the post. Apologies if I missed it)

And I am German.

Maybe housing? But that’s almost literally the Woody Allen joke, “nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded”.

More specifically on the article’s thesis: yes, California’s tax revenue may be more sensitive to an economic downturn. But that’s due to extremely high income from startups that just doesn’t exist in other states. It’s running a budget surplus that’s something like half of all other states’ total revenue IIRC.

If that extra income disappears, people will still work, earn income, and go shopping. The state’s revenue will just revert to normal-state levels.

Hacker News has taken this weird turn to hate California to a degree usually reserved for, say, female CEOs or renewable power. This story may seem to satisfy this urge, predicting as it does a hard crash for the state. But it’s really just reporting on the altitude record the state is currently setting.

Edit, in response to the answer below: TIL, thanks! I’ll have to switch to making jokes about their Nobel being second-rate and their models being thinner and on more crack than those of the fashion world.

For Sri Lanka, it seems it wasn’t oil production but merely the domestic petrol distribution? Also unclear how much of it was British and not American.

For Turkey I can’t find the company at issue, but it apparently happened before the Second World War and I’d guess American interests just weren’t very substantial at the time? The article suggests the US was supporting Turkey in getting out from under existing relationships with the old powers of Europe.

Traditionally, violence was also useful to get people to work for free. If you’re really good, the first round of violence makes the mere threat of it effective for subsequent rounds / business projects.

Maybe say you’re hiring and make the work an “example project”. If it’s too much for a single applicant (more than a week), have a “operations management” applicant divide it into suitable sub-packages.

Child labor is illegal almost everywhere, so the only way they can be made to work is without pay.

Interns are great not just in the Oval Office.

The love for nuclear power some internet communities exhibit has far left the realm of the science people often invoke as their reason and gone into full-on scientism. Nuclear scientists have respect for radiation. They wouldn't take offense with the mere mention that it has unwanted byproducts. They built and ran a couple hundred reactors for a few decades, and only two of them managed to render large swaths of the landscape into uninhabitable wastelands, which is quite a feat. But it was only possible because they didn't minimize the danger with the sort of I-would-love-a-reactor-in-my-backyard attitude that seems to be prevalent now. Which is, by the way, not only getting the science wrong, but also the politics: nuclear power is out not because it is dangerous, but because it is too expensive and, at this point, too slow to build.

While science bros have been huffing isotopes, actual scientists, with the help of some eerily effective subsidies, have improved solar and wind power and battery technology to the point where it is competitive and scalable not just to replace nuclear power, but even coal. Why people keep making the same arguments as they did a decade ago, a time span in which those technologies became 80-90% cheaper and more efficient, cannot be explained by the natural sciences.

Who is "the government" in this case? What power do they have over this person? The power to stop them from saving money? How is that power useful or desirable to anybody?