Awarded themselves shitloads of stock, then sold a quarter of their shares each as soon as humanly possible. That money is not being invested in the company, it’s going straight in these individual’s pockets.
Awarded themselves shitloads of stock, then sold a quarter of their shares each as soon as humanly possible. That money is not being invested in the company, it’s going straight in these individual’s pockets.
Share prices don’t only fall if the company liquidated stock. They will also fall from something like a mass sell-off because lower and lower prices will be commanded to sell large volumes of stock.
You know, like the one in the article that talks about the 25% drop in share value.
Won’t somebody think of the poor shareholders.
When I treat myself, it’s to a takeaway meal that’s like $20. Reddit has “never made a profit”™. Siphoning $16mil out of it on day one is obscene.
If he gets $223M a year for being a detriment to society, I should be getting at least $446M for being relatively neutral.
Making money by destroying/burying digital media. What a backwards world we live in…
This practice feels like something that should be illegal. Effectively it is destroying art that hundreds or thousands of people worked hard to make, for the sake of fiddling the books of the owning company that commissioned it.
If you “write it off” to be worth zero, it should either become freely available abandonware, or can be claimed as the intellectual property of those that worked on it. Otherwise it is evident that there is some value to be had and therefore tax fraud to claim it has none.
This is such a great sentence I hereby like and subscribe to your comments.
I would say it’s a safe guess they are not, as it’s pretty obvious they were asking you because you said “animals have no rights”. Which implies that you are okay with it and you also decided not to refute it.
I’m not convinced you even believe anything you type though, as your comments all scream “troll child”.
Probably the dumbest boast I’ve read all day.
Why do you think peace talks equal surrender? How do you think literally all other wars came to an end?
True. I always read conscription and think “sent to the frontlines”, but there’s a lot of logistics and support that goes into an army.
True, but the entire sustainable grid shouldn’t be solar. There’s wind, hydroelectric and geothermal which don’t turn off at night and even nuclear is preferable to burning fossil fuels.
I never understood this argument for “we need coal to run the power at night” like batteries have never existed. Do you still light gas lamps at night, or would you use an electric torch?
It doesn’t feel like a great idea to conscript those with mental health issues heavily impacted by stress.
I get the idea that it’s freeing children from having to follow their parental oppression, but it would be nice to see some honest statistics on how many kids this actually is.
I would be inclined to think the more rabid fundamentalist types would simply seek a move to a school which allows their kid to wear it. Thereby not really reducing fundamentalism as is the supposed goal, instead segregating and entrenching it.
And it’s not even a niqab of hijab we are talking about here, its just a type of traditional dress.
I don’t think there’s a law against MAGA hats.
The law has already been in place for many years and this item is just now being banned, as if they suddenly realised now that it’s symbolic. Don’t act like it should be obvious what items are included and what is not, as that is the whole point of this being news.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for a French perspective on the specifics.
It’s not really obvious, which is why I had to ask. The article focuses on a piece of clothing which isn’t really religiously significant being banned, so I wouldn’t say it’s obvious what falls under the law.
It’s funny that the French are romanticised as a revolutionary people, always ready to stand up to the man and fight for the people.
They’ve probably just been shit on by their own government more that most other nations, so they’ve reached that tipping point of revolution more than anyone else.
Fair enough, you didn’t say you condone it. But your comment does read with much more support than I would offer. And asking me which charities I’d donate to… ha! I don’t see why that’s relevant. Maybe I would do the same, but I don’t already have an $800,000/yr base salary.
More relevant: this windfall would be 250yrs income for me. And on that income I already do donate to charity (albeit probably about 2% of my earnings). If this chump followed my percentage they would be donating 6 whole years worth of my salary on this windfall (plus 1/3 of my salary per year).
The point is “treating yoself” to $12mil after tax is absolutely obscene whatever way you look at it. Not to mention still sitting on 3x more than that.