"OPEC's objective is to stabilize the oil price rather than countering fundamental shifts in demand and supply."

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2022/09/15/OPE...

Yes. Stock based compensation expense Q422 $446M vs. Q421 $297M. (up 50% YoY)

So they're not losing any actual cash. How's their FCF?

FCF is a poor metric to use for RSU/option heavy tech companies.

Stock based comp directly dilutes shareholders, and using FCF hides the profitability hole that SBC creates for many of these companies.

FCF is more relevant for companies where net income adjustments are largely one time or moreso accounting gimmicky (depreciating real estate/assets to show a GAAP loss etc). SBC dilution is very real

This. SNAP has been a publicly traded company for 6 years, one cannot just ignore and hand wave away this expense, especially given how much growth prospects have deteriorated.

I don't care about shareholders here, just their cash burn rate.

Well, they can materialize more cash at any time by issuing shares or raising debt. They're well above a fundamentally based fair value share price.

So not sure why FCF matters from your perspective. They could clearly become net income positive by reducing costs, if it became necessary

Right in the first section: “ Free Cash Flow3 was $78 million in Q4 2022, compared to $161 million in Q4 2021.”

How are "tough on crime" laws regressive? What do you think is the actual problem?

I think they mean that just passing laws that make it punishable by say 30 years in prison to steal a phone would be regressive, since the punishment is in no proportion to the crime.

However, what would actually be nice if, like people here have suggested, is that the police would actually bum off to retrieve stolen phones, bikes, etc and then deliver whatever appropriate penalties to the perpetrators if found.

Doesn’t matter if it’s only a small punishment so long as people get their stuff back and the thieves learn they’ll be sought after.

So basically, we don’t need better laws here, simply enforcement of them.

Since rich people are less likely to steal phones, increasing the punishment for phone theft affects rich people less, which means it's regressive.

(I think using this argument to justify being soft on crime is ridiculous. I'm just pointing out what the argument is.)

> Losing a smartphone today can have a profound impact on people’s lives.

This is the actual problem. Theft is also a problem, but not all that relevant.

"Tough on crime" doesn't really prevent crime when the incentive to commit it is still probably higher than the disincentive no matter how "tough" and getting caught is still unlikely.

A trivial, but more relatable, example of this line of (criminal) reasoning is that people are more likely to enjoy extreme sports vs a high paying "dangerous job" despite working the job being less lethal, less accident prone, and a much greater net positive.

Anyway the regression is adding unnecessary laws.

you have to start from somewhere :) why don't you give me a follow?

You might enjoy this one too: https://github.com/karakanb/devo

What about the environmental impact?

They have Formula-E. Ultimately, it should overtake F1 and replace it.