zaphod

But you gotta love the next paragraph:

Two episodes before we shot Hugh’s death [scene], they called me in. They were kind of cagey about it. They said, “Listen, this is Star Trek. Nobody really dies.”

🖖

Nope. Unless the lockup is waived or modified by the board, Trump cannot "lend, offer, pledge, hypothecate, encumber, donate, assign, sell, contract to sell … or otherwise transfer or dispose of" his shares (this language is well-tested boilerplate for any lockup agreement). In case it's not clear, that covers using them to get a leveraged loan.

Far more likely is the board simply waives the lockup which frees him to do whatever he wants, in which case my bet is he just sells off some or all of his stake 'cuz who gives a shit if one of his cult members catches the falling knife.

The board can vote to waive it. That's... how boards work. They could vote to waive Junior's and Nunes' lockups, too, if they wanted to. The only recourse shareholders would have is a lawsuit.

Edit: And if you don't want to believe me, maybe you'll believe a professional financial writer:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-19/banks-can-get-emissions-off-the-books

Also, Trump’s shares are subject to a lockup agreement, so he’s not allowed to “lend, offer, pledge, hypothecate, encumber, donate, assign, sell, contract to sell … or otherwise transfer or dispose of” his shares for six months, which presumably covers using them as collateral for a loan (or appeals bond). But the agreement is between Trump and DWAC, and DWAC could just waive it. It is not best practices or anything, as a capital markets matter, to waive the lockup an hour after the merger, but I think it is possible. Ordinarily you don’t do it because shareholders will be mad about additional shares flooding the market, but (1) if he just pledges his shares to a bank, they won’t flood the market, and (2) the shareholders are presumably Trump fans and will be happy to help him fund his legal bills. Probably the stock would go up if they gave him a limited waiver for this.

Edit 2: This, by the way, is why folks are so critical of the Tesla board and why Elon's recent pay package was rescinded by a judge, who determined the board did not act in the best interests of the shareholders by approving that package; rather, they concluded the board was too close to, and too beholden to, Elon to be able to effectively negotiate that package.

Boards are basically the last line of defense when it comes to things like pay packages and so forth, but that doesn't stop shenanigans from happening, hence shareholder lawsuits, which are basically the final recourse for shareholders to hold boards to account.

People keep saying trump wasn't prevented from selling for 6 months, and I have no idea why.

So, yes, he's currently subject to a lockup agreement. But, the board can always waive that agreement, and given the board is made up of Trump acolytes, there's no reason to take it too seriously (yes, if they did that, it could be subject to a shareholder lawsuit if a sale resulted in a plunge in the share price, based on the claim that the board was failing in its fiduciary duty, but by the time any such trial made its way through the courts, it probably wouldn't matter).

Same here (well, different model--26k and 87W--but same strategy). Even just as a backup in case of unexpected travel hiccups, a large (airline approved) PD-capable battery back is very handy to have. I never worry about finding an outlet in an aircraft or airport, and I've spent my fair share of time stranded in transit.

My Momentum 4s have 60 hours of battery life...

Didn't actually read the whole piece did ya? Just stopped at the first paragraph and then reacted?

It's fine, at this point I'm sure you'll go find something else to pick apart to protect your ego, meanwhile allowing the point to escape you entirely.

I just hope if/when you get scammed, the people around you are less of a dick about it.

It can happen to anyone:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/05/cyber-dunning-kruger/

Cory Doctorow didn't just fall off the back of a turnip truck. If it can happen to him, odds are it can happen to you.

when taxes have increased dramatically since then too

No they haven't:

https://policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/have-taxes-changed-all-much-over-past-half-century

In 1961, families paid 33.5% of their income on taxes, but by 1969 they were paying 39% and in 1974 they paid 43.4% of their income. So, if you compare the 2009 effective family tax rate to 1961, you will find a 25% increase, but you will only report a 7% increase since 1969 and an actual decrease since 1974.

(Note this analysis is circa 2010, but things haven't changed substantially since then aside from the post COVID inflation spike that's still subsiding).

But enjoy the alternate reality brought to you by your "friends" at the Fraser Institute™️.

But spending cuts in the 1980s and 1990s, along with a move to put more responsibility for economic and social well-being on the shoulders of individuals, caused low-income Canadians to fall further behind, the report says.

So neoliberalism. Neoliberalism happened.

Who could've guessed.

They're not.

History has proven over and over again that systemic change doesn't happen through voluntary individual action unless government creates incentives or nudges to drive that action.

Admonishing people to eat less (or no) meat won't solve the problem of antibiotic resistance any more than asking them to pollute less fixed global warming.

If anything, asking individuals to sacrifice to solve a problem caused by industry will just harden people against action as it directs blame in exactly the wrong direction.