> Maybe they did this to keep the contract with a symbolic value;
Tax reasons? Keep it on the book and write the loss off against other profit over coming years? No clue how it would work in practice but it sounds taxy.
posting it on HN had the opposite effect for me. if the headline was "tesla cancelled contract to buy batteries" i would not have cared. the things that still confuses me is that this is caused by tesla no longer needing these batteries, but the headline to me reads like it is caused by the partner and tesla is somehow negatively affected by that.
Not that I agree with the post you are replying to - I think having announcements in a few of the best-known languages is very reasonable to deal with tourists - but the fair expression/announcement would be something simpler like "Airport carts 1, 2 and 3. so-and-so-place carts 4 through 8". A tourist could make do with "aiport", "cart" and basic numbers in their vocabulary. If I recall, I was able to get to the correct train(s) in Italy with no more Italian than "treno", the name of the city, and "linea gialla" or something.
You can't just learn a few words and expect to follow a train announcement, particularly when it's not obvious from context (anything other than announcing the next station).
All I can think of reading this is how many versions - and how enriched with genius local detail - of the Illiad, Gilgamesh, etc there must have been when they were strictly oral traditions
any international trades happening in non-US dollar is an "acceleration" of dedollarizatiom, given that currently all trade is dollarized.
Original:
I don't known if I understand the spirit of the question. There are no metrics or tracking of how "dollarized" the international economy is because virtually all trade is done in dollars and there has been no risk of this changing for the past ?65? years
My original prediction for 2026 (not 2025, mind you) made in 2024 was based on a few factors, if I recall correctly, 1) the Russia-Ucraine war and related sanctions; 2) the open discussion in BRICS about trade in direct currencies; and 3) the then-promised isolatonist policies of Trump's second mandate.
What we've seen in 2025 makes all of those stronger I guess.
1) I don't know the status of the Russia-Ucraine war; all I know is it is a glaring sign of the end of Pax Americana (as is the Israel-Palestine genocide/war, by the way, which the US would -not- have allowed given the strong internal opposition and negative popularity among the American public). So sanctions of Russia notwistanding, that status quo, which strongly related to dollar as reserve currency, is either agonizing or dead.
2) Trump and the US attempted a very strong response to the (first ever?) trades in local currency between Brazil and China, mostly in the form of targeted tariffs (all discourse about Bolsonaro and whatever being the motivation for tariffing Brazilian imports being, in my opinion, political smoke and mirrors). I don't think it worked. I think BRICS might press on this. If the mercosur/EU trade deal goes through it will also be a strong force towards trade in Euros/Reais/Pesos directly I believe.
3) I don't think I need to clarify; tariffs and other issues brought on by the current US government were severely negative to the placement of the US as a preferred trade partner. This is to beyond economic choice; active anti-american sentiment are at all times high in countries like Canada, Denmark, and Mexico, all historically aligned with the US. This may not seem that relevant but come election cycles in those and other countries we might see platforms/candidates that openly propose to "secede" from the US hegemony international order. If that happens, removing US military bases is a first go. Alternatives to the US "petrodollar" a close second.
I'm not through the article but reached that point - I believe the author may be alluding to ICE and fear of persecution rather than changes to H1B or other visas.
I may be incorrect but that was my impression in part because no one, in my experience, takes seriously the premise that H1B is a "brainy immigrant" visa
> Or: Good Will Hunting. The entire movie feels like it could’ve been skipped if literally any emotionally intelligent person said to Matt Damon’s character: “I feel like you have a tremendous amount of intellectual potential that you’re wasting here — why are you getting in fights rather than trying to do something interesting?”
This person did not watch Good Will Hunting. I'm not a fan of the film, I just know for a fact several characters do this at several times. That is, y'know, the plot.
I haven't read further enough to discern whether this is AI slop, but it doesn't look promising.
In fact, the entire movie's point is that simply HEARING others tell you those things doesn't do anything! The inner journey of the character getting to a place where he believes it himself -- or rather believes himself to be worthy of a greater path -- is THE crucial part.
So the example is exactly opposite the author's intent.
That said, I liked the article and agree with its point. In fact, I'd guess that effective leaders all have learned techniques and ability to remain calm/comfortable in having these blunt conversations that cut to the chase (but still value and hear people).
Ultimately I think it’s not really about going to far in one way or the other. I tend to be very blunt in my dealings with people to a fault. I wouldn’t say I’m mean, but like, in order for blunt truths to be effective I think they have to be somewhat rare, so I’m trying to adapt to be more strategic in my bluntness, but most of the time, let things go and maybe subtly steer rather than just calling things out all the time.
FWIW I don’t get the “AI slop” spidey-sense when reading this, despite the liberal use of em dashes. I thought it was well written and makes some interesting points.
Even if it's not, it's still total garbage. It reads like the Critical Drinker screaming "if only these people put their emotions and flaws to one side and behaved like completely rational beings with perfect information!"
My go-to example for this is Turing. The genius of our field, and apparently duped into credulity about telepathy (probably based on faulty/fraudulent results by people at then-respected institutions)
To be fair, tons of scientists and technical people believed at that time that telepathy might be real. For example if you go back and read science fiction from the 40s, 50s, even 60s, there is a ton of telepathy and mental powers. This reflects both the authors’ efforts to predict future scientific advancement, and their audience’s willingness to believe it.
No it represents the editor's (John W. Campbell) passions - he would suggest using those ideas to authours and was more likely to accept stories with those ideas.
He had an overwhelming presence in SF until the New Wave of the 1960s
It’s more accurate to say that Campbell became a huge presence in science fiction by publishing the stories he did. Their popular success reflected a desire in the culture to read what was being published. Larry Niven is one example of an author who did not go through Campbell but yet had many mental powers in his stories and found huge success.
Many universities had depts to study “parapsychology.” The end of that era is the basis for the opening of Ghostbusters. I’m using popular media as shorthand for how wide-spread these ideas were, but military and intelligence operations seriously studied this stuff too, and in many countries, not just the U.S.
This is the way science goes; people can only work with what is known at the time. Newton was doing alchemy while inventing the basis for modern physics. It’s tempting to look back and condemn people by the standards of what we know today, which is based on additional evidence and theory developed over decades or centuries since. But I think it inhibits understanding of how such knowledge is created over time.
It really isn't. BYD is progressively becoming ubiquitous here (large South America city)
reply