This ruling is the exact opposite of the recent proposal from Hawaii.
That ruling is predicated on the state having control over corporations and how they behave. This ruling in Delaware is affirming a clear path for corporations to have control over the state (county, city etc).
With this ruling, it affirms a corporations ability to form air tight rule over municipal governments and operate them as they see fit. Once a corporation manufactures a majority vote in this municipality, they can then amend any rules they see fit, install their own executive leadership and have removed any corporate control over it.
In the thin sense these are both jurisdictions controlling how corporations behave, but one cedes complete control to corporations and the other vastly limits a corporation's ability to exert political control.
>This ruling is the exact opposite of the recent proposal from Hawaii.
Understood, but state-control of corporate charters (in both cases) is the underlying enabler.
>In the thin sense these are both jurisdictions controlling how corporations behave, but one cedes complete control to corporations and the other vastly limits a corporation's ability to exert political control.
My original claim is that states ought'a have Tenth Amendment Rights – no? – what they do with it also ought'a be up to their homerulings.
----
Personally, I support Hawaii's newfound corporate speech limitation.
> Personally, I support Hawaii's newfound corporate speech limitation.
Couldn't agree more!
My point is that it is the same underlying power, but one is using the power to maintain and grow powers over corps, the other using the same power to cede it.
If it costs you $1B and five years to build out new supply and you think demand will not sustain for more than three years, it does not make sense to expand supply.
Instead you will maintain your margins currently and await demand to decrease back to your current supply.
This is pretty common and as others have pointed out is even more common in markets where competition is slow and lead times are long.
Ammunition is a great example over the last decade or so as political turnover caused relatively short lived demand spikes and manufacturers didn't expand supply because they knew once political winds shift, demand would decrease.
Typically a strong account team builds processes with other teams (compliance, engineering, etc) that enshrines and insulates important accounts from accidents like this.
In this case, I'd expect major accounts (and maybe Railway isn't above this level?) to be in a protected tier that is immune from automated suspensions like this.
If suspicious traffic occurs that _would_ trigger a suspension like that, the account team would be paged. Because this may mean your important account was compromised, shipped a bug, has been hit by something and you should immediately start working _with_ them to figure it out.
Fairly basic for a company with any customer management motion at all.
Their pension is funded by tax dollars, this doesn't change the incentive structure.
You'd need to have it either impact their pension payments in a way that cannot be backfilled or more directly force the police officers themselves to carry liability insurance (far better).
Of course tax dollars pay their salaries as well, but if an officer became uninsurable then it weeds them out eventually.
Right, but taking from their pension directly reduces their payout when they retire. Not sure what you mean by "cannot be backfilled"; the budget is the budget, and the tax dollars only go where the (non-police) elected officials say.
All in implementation I suppose, but typically pensions _must_ be fulfilled as they are a legal contract with the employees of the state.
If you take money out of a pension (typically illegal) or otherwise forgo payments, limit payouts etc, you must backfill those at a later date.
They're also treated very seriously by most state law, they're usually senior debt that takes precedence over pretty much any other debt a city/county owes. Really hard to get out from under.
For those wondering why this isn't using the Pixelbook brand, the Reddit post sheds more light.
A Googlebook is something "above" a Chromebook (maybe the AI featureset imposes hardware demands that Chromebooks can't service) but is still made by third parties. I suppose they're keeping Pixelbook for first-party devices.
The most interesting part to me is the "Create your own widget". I'm really interested to see bespoke UI become a first class citizen. Why _can't_ I just ask Gemini to build a widget that serves the data I want how I want it?
Building "small" UI is for the birds, just expose the API and the basics and let users tell the AI what UI they want.
Yes, they could have done a chromebook or pixelbook variant. No sane reason for a third brand that dilutes the other two aside from internal google politics/promotions and to show shareholders.
This does nothing for the customer and you can see a brand called Apple which has been successful with the Air, pro and neo under one brand.
I view it more through the lens of serving the right content to the right audience. Markdown is great for agents (and some humans), it is not great for many humans. And it _certainly_ isn't acceptable to some humans that have the job title "designer" ;)
If you want to take the stance that those designers (and people who don't want to consume plain text web) are wrong, sure I guess. But I prefer to take the stance that people and agents should receive content in their desired format.
Iranian drones have done nothing to prevent the US and Israel dropping gravity bombs en-mass over their capital right now. JDAMs and unguided munitions are still far cheaper for the explosion size than any drone today. That's not the situation in the Ukraine war on either side.
The US has used one-way "drones" since the 80s or earlier. The entire Gulf War in the early 90s featured a ton of tomahawk cruise missiles. The only real change is that the new shaheeds are way cheaper, slower, and smaller, but can be spammed in larger numbers.
I disagree. Iranian drones have taken out a lot of US sensing capabilities in the theater, from ground-based radars to AWACS planes, in addition to some logistical support like refueling tankers.
That has made US overflight of Iranian territory uch riskier than was expected at the beginning of the conflict, and it's notable that the US has continued to rely heavily on stand-off munitions.
That ruling is predicated on the state having control over corporations and how they behave. This ruling in Delaware is affirming a clear path for corporations to have control over the state (county, city etc).
With this ruling, it affirms a corporations ability to form air tight rule over municipal governments and operate them as they see fit. Once a corporation manufactures a majority vote in this municipality, they can then amend any rules they see fit, install their own executive leadership and have removed any corporate control over it.
In the thin sense these are both jurisdictions controlling how corporations behave, but one cedes complete control to corporations and the other vastly limits a corporation's ability to exert political control.
reply