Exactly. Some of the fears that people have are about factors that affect all flights, not just the risk of a single pilot operating a single aircraft.

Flying is still safe and has a strong safety culture built into the industry independent of government regulation, that wouldn’t change overnight even if the government regulators change. But removing a slice of Swiss cheese is still bad, and cause for concern.

You’re mostly right, but your comment also assumes independent probabilities rather than correlated probabilities of danger. Sometimes multiple crashes can trace back to the same cause: one particular manufacturing defect on a model of aircraft sold thousands of times, one bad practice on air traffic control procedure, one bad actor targeting multiple aircraft, etc.

Purely hypothetically, as an example, if it turned out that there was a terrorist group targeting aircraft via anti aircraft missiles, then that group’s success at bringing down an airliner would actually worsen the odds of passengers on other aircraft, at least until we receive external information that the threat has passed.

These were his loyalists. He purged the career staff from leadership/management positions in these offices, and replaced them with people like these 6 prosecutors (conservative credentials like clerking for Scalia). The leadership in the Public Integrity Section got forced out (either resigned or got reassigned to an immigration task force), so the leaders who remained were specifically appointed by Trump.

The US Attorneys generally all resign upon a change of administration, unless asked to stay, and this Danielle Sassoon was appointed acting US Attorney by Trump. She’s a conservative Republican.

Oil is just in a precarious position with supply and demand.

High prices will accelerate demand destruction, as people and businesses move to cheaper energy sources, like solar/wind/geothermal/nuclear, plus spur the continued development of grid scale storage and demand management technologies. Sustained high prices could cause lifestyle and consumption habits to change, too: fewer gas guzzlers, fewer supercommuters, improved shipping efficiency, etc.

Low prices would put strain on the finances of producers, whether for profit corporations in the West or state owned (or closely affiliated) producers in places like Saudi Arabia or Russia, and would weaken those countries’ influence on geopolitical issues.

There’s a reason they want a strong cartel, which is what OPEC tries to be, but that cartel has been weakened considerably by non-OPEC Plus nations becoming huge producers. OPEC cut supply to try to hurt Biden, but it ended up being a handout to American, Canadian, and Norwegian companies, by propping up prices while losing market share. Meanwhile, sanctions on Russia (and Iran and Venezuela) add a bunch of friction (and some cost) to their exports, so that they need higher prices to break even.

For the first time in modern history, societies have access to non-fossil-fuel energy sources in competitive volume and price, to where an oil oligopoly can’t push around consumers. Trump can’t put that back in the bottle.

The same preppers who hoarded ammo and canned foods and water filters couldn’t be bothered to wear a mask when a real pandemic showed up, too.

Does anyone have the picture of these guys that was shared on X, the one that Elon Musk was proudly replying to?

I didn’t know eggs come in metric outside of the US.

That shouldn’t mean we make up the facts.

You’re the one getting facts wrong!

You’ve said that the Jones-affiliated bid was higher, which is incorrect. The Onion’s $7 million bid was higher, which is why the bankruptcy judge said that the other bidder should’ve been given an opportunity to improve its bid.

You’ve said that the $7 million valuation wasn’t based on anything. It’s a straightforward formula for determining the value when to reduce the claims of the creditors who wanted to credit bid.

You’ve said that the $7 million valuation was made up based on estimates of future cash flows. Future payments have nothing to do with the bid, and weren’t used in the formula to calculate the value at $7 million. That value is how much this bid brings to the estate immediately.

Even future payments were a percentage of profits and but not guaranteed.

That’s not part of the bid. The bid only had two components: a cash portion and a commitment to reduce claims by certain creditors. For non-participating creditors, it’s the exact same equivalent as a $7 million cash payment to the estate.

Future promises were made to families to incentivize them to reduce their claims (and therefore bring more money to the estate), but that’s not part of the bid itself.

I think you’re struggling to understand what’s happening here because you’re so anchored on your initial incorrect perceptions.

There was some future payments promised

It’s not future payments promised. Just a division of who to split the proceeds with. And so for the typical creditor who didn’t credit bid, The Onion’s bid was worth the equivalent of a $7 million cash bid, and therefore was more valuable than the Jones affiliates’ $3.5 million cash bid.

It’s just math. The Onion bid was higher, and the judge said that the losing bid should’ve been given an opportunity to improve the bid to get a chance to win, and maybe raise even more money.

The value of the Onion’s bid was $7 million ($1.75 million in cash, $5.25 million in credit), when you include the credit bids from the families. That’s where you’re getting tripped up in trying to understand what the court was ruling.

They are not telling the onion to offer more money, they are giving the one with the highest bid the chance to make it even bigger.

No, the Jones-affiliated bidder had a smaller bid, but should’ve been given the opportunity to try to outbid the then-highest bid from the Onion.

Basically the judge said that the trustee, as auctioneer, should’ve gotten the two bidders into a bidding war to maximize the price.

I’ve been following this closely.

The normal way bankruptcy auctions go is basically some version of this:

1. Everyone who wants to bid has to sign an NDA about the assets.
2. Everyone who signs the NDA can perform their due diligence, look at financial statements and other confidential information about the assets in the auction, to figuratively kick the tires. If there’s actual physical property involved, bidders are generally allowed to physically inspect it (if it’s a tractor, for example, you can bring a mechanic to help sort out the tractor’s condition).
3. Before the deadline, every bidder submits a secret bid to the trustee.
4. The trustee evaluates the bids, looks to see which is best, and decides whether the top bids are close enough to hold a live public auction or allow topping bids for the bidders to say “hey you’re only $1 million short from the current top bid, you want to throw more money at this?,” and going around and around until the trustee is sure they’ve gotten the best and final bid from everyone.

The judge is upset that the trustee didn’t really do step 4, which in the bankruptcy process is designed to squeeze out the highest possible price for the sale. The losing bidder says they submitted a lower bid than their absolute top “best and final” they would have, because they thought they’d have an opportunity to improve the bid in a step that never happened.

So they’re going back to do it again. Presumably the trustee will propose a new auction process that explicitly puts out well defined rules on how creditors (like the Sandy Hook families) can credit bid with credit against their own claims, instead of actual cash. They’ll need to calculate exactly how much each dollar of credit bid brings to the non-participating creditors (like Sandy Hook families who don’t want to credit bid), and make sure that for each creditor who isn’t credit bidding gets the most money out of the sale.

I don’t think it’s over. The judge specifically said that he believes the trustee tried to do the right thing, but ultimately didn’t follow a process that was designed to raise the most money.

there was a $10k bounty,

$60k. $10k from NYPD and $50k from the FBI.

Yes it does. It’s only offered on an irregular basis, so for the people that would only go to McDonald’s for the McRib, and no other item, would need to be notified when it’s available.

Which business leaders were killed on the way to securing a 5-day workweek? Those gains were achieved through direct action affecting business bottom lines: strikes, sabotage, and direct action on the streets, not secret targeting of soft targets.

Put another way: there were two attempted assassinations of Donald Trump in the past year. Do you think that will change his political actions to be more popular?

Do you think that United Healthcare’s next CEO will suddenly forgo profits? What about hospital administrators, pharma CEOs, or any of the other tens of thousands profiting off of this fucked up system? Do you think that a mass assassination campaign will actually happen in large enough volume to change any behavior at all?

You’d take the 2nd choice and hire bodyguards. Sure, you might. But not everybody would.

No, the question isn’t whether everyone would. It’s whether anyone would. And the answer is obviously yes.

So now the position is filled. Did the healthcare system change?

My argument is that no, you can’t kill your way to reform on this one. There will always be another CEO to step into that place.

And the ratio of dead would-be assassins to CEOs would also pile more bodies on.

This is ludicrous. A person faced with unpopular decisions that might send assassins after him is going to make himself harder to assassinate, not less hated.

There’s a difference once they start considering their own lifes on the line.

They won’t. Anyone who has a semblance of belief that their decisions in the job might actually cause their own death just won’t do the job. Instead, it becomes a filter for choosing even more narcissistic/sociopathic people in the role.

And once they’ve internalized the idea that any decision made by any one employee of the company, including their predecessor CEOs, can put them in danger, it’s pretty attenuated from the actual decisions that they themselves make.

It’s a dice roll on a group of people, which isn’t enough to influence the individuals in that group.

We all know that the death of a CEO is a blip in the actual day to day operations in the company. The teams and departments will continue operating as before, and the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren’t going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.

After all, if they’re already doing cost/benefit analysis with human lives, what’s another life of a colleague, versus an insurance beneficiary?

They’ll just beef up personal security, put the cost of that security into their operating expenses, and then try to recover their costs through the business (including through stinginess on coverage decisions or policies).