#revenue prospects

[colitcomedia]

Carbonxt Group Ltd Unveils New Joint Venture 'NewCarbon' in Investor Presentation

Carbonxt Group Ltd (CG1), a leading provider of advanced carbon products and activated carbon services, has announced an exciting joint venture (JV) called 'NewCarbon'. This transformative project aims to repurpose a Waste Water Treatment facility to manufacture premium activated carbon, primarily targeting PFAS removal in drinking water. In their recent investor presentation, Carbonxt Group Ltd showcased the strategic partnership with Kentucky Carbon Processing, highlighting the company's commitment to sustainability and market expansion.

Importance of NewCarbon JV:

1.1 Repurposing a Waste Water Treatment Facility:

The NewCarbon JV involves the conversion of an existing waste-to-water plant in Kentucky into a state-of-the-art production site for high-quality activated carbon. This innovative approach ensures the utilization of existing infrastructure, reducing capital investment and expediting market entry.

1.2 Meeting the Growing Demand for PFAS Removal:

The joint venture addresses the increasing demand for activated carbon solutions, particularly in the field of PFAS removal in drinking water. With impending regulatory changes imposing stricter standards, the NewCarbon project positions Carbonxt Group Ltd as a leading player in this burgeoning market.

Environmental Consciousness:

Carbonxt Group Ltd's commitment to ecological sustainability is evident in the NewCarbon project. The modified plant will utilize the gas produced during the activated carbon production process to power itself, effectively reducing the facility's carbon footprint. This eco-friendly approach aligns with global efforts to mitigate climate change and promotes a greener future.

Market Opportunities and Financial Implications:

3.1 Regulatory Landscape and Market Demand:

The upcoming regulations by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on PFAS removal in drinking water create significant market opportunities. Activated carbon is recognized as the most effective method for PFAS removal, positioning Carbonxt Group Ltd to meet the growing demand for these solutions.

3.2 Expansion and Market Share:

The NewCarbon project allows Carbonxt Group Ltd to significantly expand its product offering and market trajectory. By entering the PFAS removal market, the company strengthens its position and secures a larger share in the growing powdered activated carbon (PAC) water market.

3.3 Financial Prospects and Returns:

Managing Director Warren Murphy's strategic management has reduced capital investment by approximately USD 3.5 million, making the joint venture economically viable. The payment structure to NewCarbon is linked to project milestones, ensuring a mutually beneficial arrangement. Moreover, the venture's design provides the potential for doubling production capacity, further enhancing future revenue generation.

Managing Director Warren Murphy's Leadership:

Managing Director Warren Murphy brings a wealth of experience and expertise to Carbonxt Group Ltd. His successful track record in the financial industry, along with his global project footprints, highlights his pivotal role in the company's growth and innovation.

Conclusion:

Carbonxt Group Ltd's new joint venture, NewCarbon, marks a significant milestone in the company's expansion and market positioning. By repurposing a Waste Water Treatment facility, the company is well-equipped to meet the increasing demand for activated carbon solutions, particularly in PFAS removal in drinking water. This strategic move, driven by Managing Director Warren Murphy's leadership, demonstrates Carbonxt Group Ltd's commitment to sustainability, innovation, and financial growth. With a focus on market opportunities, environmental consciousness, and sound financial prospects, the NewCarbon JV sets the stage for a promising future for Carbonxt Group Ltd and its investors.

[lunasilvis]

Kinda reaching the point now where I'm thrilled to start my job, meet ppl and earn some nice money! it's been so good having time off - très bien - but I feel like I cannot enjoy it as much as I could when I was a teen. which, I think, is even more so a good challenge to just relax and enjoy it while I can. but i think it's partly the winter (mostly bound to just inside activities) + partly not having an adequate money revenue at the moment to fatten the savings account. I mean, I still earn some from some snack writing jobs, so that's cool, but nowhere as much as I'd like to. telling myself i'll be good by feb!

[insurance-brokers-india]

What are the next steps after obtaining an insurance broker license, and how can you generate potential leads using Mzapp CRM software?

Congratulations on securing your insurance broker license! The journey doesn’t end here; it’s just the beginning of building a successful insurance brokerage. Here’s how you can proceed and leverage Mzapp CRM software to find potential leads:

Steps After Getting Your Insurance Broker License

Understand Your Market: Research your target audience (individuals, businesses, or specific sectors).

Develop a Business Plan: Set goals for client acquisition, revenue, and operational processes.

Build a Network: Partner with insurance providers and attend industry events to establish your presence.

Create an Online Presence: Build a professional website and maintain active profiles on social platforms.

Offer Value-Added Services: Educate customers on policies, claims management, and risk assessments.

Using Mzapp CRM Software to Generate Leads

Lead Capture: Utilize Mzapp’s integrated forms and web tracking tools to capture inquiries from your website or social media.

Automated Follow-Ups: Set up personalized email and SMS follow-ups to nurture leads effectively.

Lead Scoring: Prioritize leads based on their interaction history, ensuring you focus on high-potential prospects.

Data-Driven Campaigns: Use analytics to identify what works and launch targeted campaigns.

Seamless Policy Management: Impress leads by showcasing how smoothly you manage policies and claims through Mzapp.

Why Choose Mzapp CRM?

Mzapp CRM simplifies lead management, streamlines operations, and provides insights into customer behavior, making it easier to convert prospects into loyal clients.

Learn more about how Mzapp can transform your insurance business here.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Red Lobster was killed by private equity, not Endless Shrimp

For the rest of May, my bestselling solarpunk utopian novel THE LOST CAUSE (2023) is available as a $2.99, DRM-free ebook!

A decade ago, a hedge fund had an improbable viral comedy hit: a 294-page slide deck explaining why Olive Garden was going out of business, blaming the failure on too many breadsticks and insufficiently salted pasta-water:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/940944/000092189514002031/ex991dfan14a06297125_091114.pdf

Everyone loved this story. As David Dayen wrote for Salon, it let readers "mock that silly chain restaurant they remember from their childhoods in the suburbs" and laugh at "the silly hedge fund that took the time to write the world’s worst review":

https://www.salon.com/2014/09/17/the_real_olive_garden_scandal_why_greedy_hedge_funders_suddenly_care_so_much_about_breadsticks/

But – as Dayen wrote at the time, the hedge fund that produced that slide deck, Starboard Value, was not motivated by dissatisfaction with bread-sticks. They were "activist investors" (finspeak for "rapacious assholes") with a giant stake in Darden Restaurants, Olive Garden's parent company. They wanted Darden to liquidate all of Olive Garden's real-estate holdings and declare a one-off dividend that would net investors a billion dollars, while literally yanking the floor out from beneath Olive Garden, converting it from owner to tenant, subject to rent-shocks and other nasty surprises.

They wanted to asset-strip the company, in other words ("asset strip" is what they call it in hedge-fund land; the mafia calls it a "bust-out," famous to anyone who watched the twenty-third episode of The Sopranos):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bust_Out

Starboard didn't have enough money to force the sale, but they had recently engineered the CEO's ouster. The giant slide-deck making fun of Olive Garden's food was just a PR campaign to help it sell the bust-out by creating a narrative that they were being activists* to save this badly managed disaster of a restaurant chain.

*assholes

Starboard was bent on eviscerating Darden like a couple of entrail-maddened dogs in an elk carcass:

https://web.archive.org/web/20051220005944/http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~solan/dogsinelk/

They had forced Darden to sell off another of its holdings, Red Lobster, to a hedge-fund called Golden Gate Capital. Golden Gate flogged all of Red Lobster's real estate holdings for $2.1 billion the same day, then pissed it all away on dividends to its shareholders, including Starboard. The new landlords, a Real Estate Investment Trust, proceeded to charge so much for rent on those buildings Red Lobster just flogged that the company's net earnings immediately dropped by half.

Dayen ends his piece with these prophetic words:

Olive Garden and Red Lobster may not be destinations for hipster Internet journalists, and they have seen revenue declines amid stagnant middle-class wages and increased competition. But they are still profitable businesses. Thousands of Americans work there. Why should they be bled dry by predatory investors in the name of “shareholder value”? What of the value of worker productivity instead of the financial engineers?

Flash forward a decade. Today, Dayen is editor-in-chief of The American Prospect, one of the best sources of news about private equity looting in the world. Writing for the Prospect, Luke Goldstein picks up Dayen's story, ten years on:

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-05-22-raiding-red-lobster/

It's not pretty. Ten years of being bled out on rents and flipped from one hedge fund to another has killed Red Lobster. It just shuttered 50 restaurants and declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Ten years hasn't changed much; the same kind of snark that was deployed at the news of Olive Garden's imminent demise is now being hurled at Red Lobster.

Instead of dunking on free bread-sticks, Red Lobster's grave-dancers are jeering at "Endless Shrimp," a promotional deal that works exactly how it sounds like it would work. Endless Shrimp cost the chain $11m.

Which raises a question: why did Red Lobster make this money-losing offer? Are they just good-hearted slobs? Can't they do math?

Or, you know, was it another hedge-fund, bust-out scam?

Here's a hint. The supplier who provided Red Lobster with all that shrimp is Thai Union. Thai Union also owns Red Lobster. They bought the chain from Golden Gate Capital, last seen in 2014, holding a flash-sale on all of Red Lobster's buildings, pocketing billions, and cutting Red Lobster's earnings in half.

Red Lobster rose to success – 700 restaurants nationwide at its peak – by combining no-frills dining with powerful buying power, which it used to force discounts from seafood suppliers. In response, the seafood industry consolidated through a wave of mergers, turning into a cozy cartel that could resist the buyer power of Red Lobster and other major customers.

This was facilitated by conservation efforts that limited the total volume of biomass that fishers were allowed to extract, and allocated quotas to existing companies and individual fishermen. The costs of complying with this "catch management" system were high, punishingly so for small independents, bearably so for large conglomerates.

Competition from overseas fisheries drove consolidation further, as countries in the global south were blocked from implementing their own conservation efforts. US fisheries merged further, seeking economies of scale that would let them compete, largely by shafting fishermen and other suppliers. Today's Alaskan crab fishery is dominated by a four-company cartel; in the Pacific Northwest, most fish goes through a single intermediary, Pacific Seafood.

These dominant actors entered into illegal collusive arrangements with one another to rig their markets and further immiserate their suppliers, who filed antitrust suits accusing the companies of operating a monopsony (a market with a powerful buyer, akin to a monopoly, which is a market with a powerful seller):

https://www.classaction.org/news/pacific-seafood-under-fire-for-allegedly-fixing-prices-paid-to-dungeness-crabbers-in-pacific-northwest

Golden Gate bought Red Lobster in the midst of these fish wars, promising to right its ship. As Goldstein points out, that's the same promise they made when they bought Payless shoes, just before they destroyed the company and flogged it off to Alden Capital, the hedge fund that bought and destroyed dozens of America's most beloved newspapers:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/16/sociopathic-monsters/#all-the-news-thats-fit-to-print

Under Golden Gate's management, Red Lobster saw its staffing levels slashed, so diners endured longer wait times to be seated and served. Then, in 2020, they sold the company to Thai Union, the company's largest supplier (a transaction Goldstein likens to a Walmart buyout of Procter and Gamble).

Thai Union continued to bleed Red Lobster, imposing more cuts and loading it up with more debts financed by yet another private equity giant, Fortress Investment Group. That brings us to today, with Thai Union having moved a gigantic amount of its own product through a failing, debt-loaded subsidiary, even as it lobbies for deregulation of American fisheries, which would let it and its lobbying partners drain American waters of the last of its depleted fish stocks.

Dayen's 2020 must-read book Monopolized describes the way that monopolies proliferate, using the US health care industry as a case-study:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/29/fractal-bullshit/#dayenu

After deregulation allowed the pharma sector to consolidate, it acquired pricing power of hospitals, who found themselves gouged to the edge of bankruptcy on drug prices. Hospitals then merged into regional monopolies, which allowed them to resist pharma pricing power – and gouge health insurance companies, who saw the price of routine care explode. So the insurance companies gobbled each other up, too, leaving most of us with two or fewer choices for health insurance – even as insurance prices skyrocketed, and our benefits shrank.

Today, Americans pay more for worse healthcare, which is delivered by health workers who get paid less and work under worse conditions. That's because, lacking a regulator to consolidate patients' interests, and strong unions to consolidate workers' interests, patients and workers are easy pickings for those consolidated links in the health supply-chain.

That's a pretty good model for understanding what's happened to Red Lobster: monopoly power and monopsony power begat more monopolies and monoposonies in the supply chain. Everything that hasn't consolidated is defenseless: diners, restaurant workers, fishermen, and the environment. We're all fucked.

Decent, no-frills family restaurant are good. Great, even. I'm not the world's greatest fan of chain restaurants, but I'm also comfortably middle-class and not struggling to afford to give my family a nice night out at a place with good food, friendly staff and reasonable prices. These places are easy pickings for looters because the people who patronize them have little power in our society – and because those of us with more power are easily tricked into sneering at these places' failures as a kind of comeuppance that's all that's due to tacky joints that serve the working class.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/23/spineless/#invertebrates

[my-financials]

Apple Inc.: A Growth Story

Historical Growth 1. Revenue Growth: Q1 2022: Apple reported its biggest quarter ever with revenue of nearly $124 billion, up 11% from the previous year . Q3 2023: The company reported revenue of $81.8 billion for the June quarter, surpassing expectations and marking strong results in emerging markets . 2. Product Expansion: iPhone, Mac, and Wearables: These segments had their best-ever…

[seat-safety-switch]

In a lot of foreign countries, they have this neat amusement park ride. It's called "train," and it consists of a bunch of boxes you sit in and it takes you up and down a track. I could ride train all day long, through the incredible views of places that aren't the suburban-bordering-on-industrial wasteland that I live in.

Unfortunately for me, visiting train often requires me to get on an airplane, which is a big cylinder that flies through the sky. Despite being arguably similar to a train, it costs a whole lot more and smells kind of funny the whole time. Just not worth it, which is why I have attempted to get train at home.

Now, my local politicians dislike train. Perhaps you live in a country where your politicians are accountable to you, which is a terrifying prospect if you are a useless child of privilege who wants to spend a couple years of your life making friends with billionaires instead of being asked frightening questions about basic arithmetic. That is not the case here, where politicians are born in some sort of special vat, receive their law degrees, and come up with ideas like "what if school is actually hurting children?" We do not have many points of agreement, mostly because they drive new cars. Sometimes, they make someone else drive their car for them, which is a concept demonstrating just how sick things have become in their pointy little Hapsburg heads.

To them, there is no room for the laugh-a-minute thrill ride that is train. There is nothing amusing about the business of laying down roads that they then poorly maintain, a hyperfixation that occupies approximately ninety-six percent of their emailing-and-yelling time. Personally, I think if they really actually liked driving so much, they would put a couple hairpin turns or at least a nice high-speed chicane on my nineteen-minute drive to the grocery store, but that's a rant for another time. The government was not going to give me a train, so I had to do it for myself.

The best part of a train is that you can put a bunch of cars together, but not all of those cars have to have running and driving engines! With just a handful of purloined U-Haul® trailer hitches and a very heavy right foot, I was soon escorting seven-car public transit through the middle of downtown. Sure, if you look closely, you might argue that a bunch of welded-together Oldsmobile Aleros are not exactly up to the comfort of futuristic European rail, but we're hoping to be able to upgrade to some kind of haggard Japanese minivans in the next couple quarters, once fare revenue increases from the current value of "zero dollars." In my defence, it's not as much fun to play train-driver-guy if you're constantly asking people for money.

[shirecorn]

Ornaments closing, The struggle! (and how much i appreciate everyone)

I will be making a post about the reindeer ornaments closing this week until they open again for the indiegogo in the summer. I make them in batches, so it won't be feasible to keep individual orders trickling in throughout the year.

If you know you want a set but can't buy one now, let me know and I will make sure I have a set made during the last batch, and I will hang onto it as long as you need me to.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScqQudyvlzWw73HGWG77pJRYEFQyisOlaEoY9KnE8idXMPE9Q/viewform

If you can buy a set now, please do!

<https://www.etsy.com/listing/1821374250/reindeer-team-ornaments?>

The revenue will help me find a place to live, and prove to landlords that I have an income. There's also cheaper stuff on my shop like stickers and keychains, and custom commissions of your pet.

Check me out!

Once reindeer season is over, I will be getting to my backlog of commissions, including mermaid and MLP requests, so keep a look out for those.

Right now I'm sitting in a library working on the deluxe sets to hopefully mail them. I'm couchsurfing, so my drawing/work station is in a bit of a kerfuffle, to put it mildly.

If you have money but don't want anything back, you can check out my kofi to put some coins in the horse and make it go.

Ko-fi.com/shirecorn

If you have money and want exclusive behind the scenes look at my process, prospects, and secret projects, please join my discord! Having a consistent monthly income will do wonders for my stability, and might help me get housing.

Hopefully tumblr doesn't decide to delete all these looks like it has been doing to recent posts. If you are able to support me monetarily, thank you so much! If not, just give me comments and attention, as those are the real reason I bother posting my stuff anywhere. If I didn't have to worry about food and bills, I would subsist entirely on attention.

I really appreciate every comment and encouragement! I read e v e r y t h i n g and l adore my followers.

Happy new year!

[drdemonprince]

doctor demon prince im in my 5th year of undergrad suffering from functional freeze and Cant Write Papers disease (subtype where i eventually write it 7 months later and its really good for how rushed it is). ive also been doing unmasking work and trying to make progress w my nervous system and my relationships, i still have a long way to go . im going to graduate eventually (who fucking knows when) but with a pretty shit gpa.

Anyway my question is why the fuck do i keep wanting to get a masters degree when i know this setting sucks real bad for me. i love 2 learn but either dont have a handle on my adhd/autistic workflow yet or simply dont have the combination of traits it takes to succeed in academia. and i have student loans. i probably wont be accepted to any masters programs anyway but i dont know what else to do !!!!!!!!!!! 🙃 seeing as this is the transgender autistic grad student website maybe u or some of ur followers have advice for me..... 🫶 ok thank u byeee

I'm sorry to have to say this, but why do you want to go to graduate school? It will drive you deeply into debt, cause you a huge amount of stress, subject you to a wildly inaccessible environment where student neurodivergences are often unfairly cast as signs of laziness and lack of academic potential, and, in a majority of fields, it doesn't lead to improved career prospects (typically, the equivalent amount of time spent working in your chosen profession will get you just as far, if not farther, than a graduate degree).

I don't recommend graduate school to almost anyone. Graduate school was a stigmatizing, exhausting, abusive, exploitative, traumatizing experience for me that left me profoundly socially isolated and physically sick, and trained me in an increasingly irrelevant and scientifically unsound field that basically does nothing but regurgitate neoliberal truisms back to the elites that already believe in them.

Some of the faults I've just listed don't apply to *every* academic field in the world -- but it does apply to most of them!

I think it's important for people to know that Master's degree programs are, by and large, created as a revenue source for universities. Undergraduate enrollment has hit a wall -- there's only so many more people who can go to college, in a world where college has become increasingly obligatory, college pays off professionally far less than it used to, and in times of low unemployment there's very little reason to go to school -- and so the possibility of growing undergraduate enrollment has become more and more thin. This means universities have been unable to turn growing profits for years. And that's what matters to them -- profits.

Left without the revenue source of more college students' tuitions, universities have turned toward courting repeat customers -- duping college graduates who are unhappy with their post-graduate career prospects by investing in even more school. In most Master's degree programs, there are very high fees, very limited financial aid, and very very limited mentorship (compared to, say PhD programs, where shepherding you through the program is at least an advisor's duty).

I've worked in higher ed administration for years now and I've seen how disposable Master's degree students are taken to be -- they're paying for a pricey credential and they get very little out of it, in the end -- in most programs, and most contexts. When we need to fill a budget gap, we create a new Master's program -- without regard for whether it is necessary, and without ever being able to prove it will aid our graduates in getting jobs, or even that the degree will fill a necessary niche.

You can feel free to write back to me if yours is a field where a master's degree is necessary or yields positive career outcomes for a great many people (social work and athletic training come to mind). But even still, I don't think you should subject yourself to a completely inaccessible environment that you are already struggling in and taking on more debt to do so. You deserve better than that. And 99% of graduate programs will not do right by you.

If you'd like to read more about just how exploitative graduate programs generally are, and why, I recommend Karen Kelsky's book The Professor is In, or her blog of the same name:

[hplonesomeart]

Guys call me crazy but I think the crazy robots would get along swimmingly. The tragic fact that these two don’t have more art interacting is an offense in my rule book and I have come to remedy that. They say you must manifest what you want to see in the world and this is me doing that jskjsksp. I will take initiative! Enjoy a smidgen of Mr. Puzzles and Mettaton art then. Although I think the only reason they initially decided to co-host collaborate together here was the prospect of getting more stars/ratings- because that’s show business babyyyy leverage off of famous people for viewssss/j

Also here is version without the speech/dialogue bubbles! Just two gay bots being fabulous and gossiping or something (platonically. Or you could lean into this being a ship I don’t really care lol). Maybe they’ll exchange some advice about the logistics of incorporating musical numbers in the boardcasts without losing too much revenue on the budget idk. Because if you think about it Mettaton did a musical number in a dress with Frisk and then Mr. Puzzles had his whole Creative Control moment. And both where marvelous performances by the way absolutely slay ✨

My “toxic trait” is supporting the theatrical livelihoods of fictional computers who have committed atrocities, and they both will probably never make an apology video for the attempted murders and trauma inflicting. Wow so girlboss of them :))

[exeggcute]

this is the startup coaster as I'm familiar with it:

(1) three guys named scott snag a few million in seed funding, hire a few engineers to work with them in the abandoned wework they're renting from the ghost of a 15th century land baron.

(2) headcount slowly grows, they release a product that "works" but it's either cheap as hell or free so people are starting to adopt it; adoption is a sign of growth, which in turn yields more funding from eager investors.

(3) scott^3 have enough cash reserves to move into a real office and hire marketing/sales people, product improves a bit. still not even close to being profitable but it's okay because funding continues to pour in!

(4) incremental product improvements, user adoption crescendoes, maybe another funding round. possible hiring frenzy to follow. cue a chorus of scotts, in perfect unison: "our company is valued at almost at a billion dollars! an IPO is just around the corner!"

(5) investor money becomes harder and harder to come by over time; company slows spending.

(6) "well, all we have to do is focus on revenue instead of growth... profitability is within reach." management may or may not make poor decisions that spur original critical employees to jump ship, taking their expertise and guiding philosophy with them.

(7) money continues to hemorrhage with no VC infusions in sight. company makes significant cuts to their workforce, pares back their roadmap.

(8) in the absence of key personnel (and without the necessary cushion to develop new features or offer competitive pricing), the product either stagnates or gets noticeably worse. users revolt and either threaten to leave or actually do.

(9) final death spiral where revenue continues to dry up, which leads to more layoffs, which makes the product worse, which means users continue to churn, which makes revenue dry up even more. any investors cut their losses and move on to their next prospect. scott, scott, and scott either go on the podcast circuit or start over again to get seed funding for a new startup that they can only describe as "the uber of canine saunas"

[oristian]

In the United States, there is a very big, “Well, what about me?” complex that dictates much of how people go about their day, make their decisions, and vote for the next president. The thought process has always been formatted around placing the needs of yourself above those of everyone else. Which, inherently, is not a bad thing; everyone is allowed to be selfish.

It becomes a “bad thing” when the needs of others are being actively suppressed and threatened by the current administration. It becomes a “bad thing” when the candidate in which you endorsed, voted for, and actively support has an agenda written on the basis of hate. It becomes a “bad thing” when the rights of all citizens—including those that had been selfish—are placed in a state of jeopardy.

In the last forty-eight hours, Donald Trump has signed executive orders that pardoned t*rrorists (anyone who engaged and/or actively supported the insurrection on January 6th, you are a t*rrorist), removed the United States from climate treaties and health organizations, removed access to a government-ran website structured around female healthcare and reproductive resources, removed access to an app that helps prospective migrants come into this country legally, removed a bill that lowered the cost of life-saving medication, actively discriminated against the LGBTQ+ community on the inaugural podium, removed a law that prohibited employment discrimination based on race/sex/age/etc., is attempting to remove birthright citizenship, et cetera. The list is as endless as it is terrifying.

All of this for lower gas and grocery prices? Oh, well, actually, that will not be possible given the implementation of the External Revenue Service that seeks to use tariffs for exports/imports. Where do people believe that money will come from to pay those tariffs? Hint: It is not the country being charged the tariff.

When the whole first row at the inauguration seats the billionaires of this country—and the ones running our social media platforms—that is a red flag. When the president of the United States is chummy with some of the most deplorable world leaders known to man, that is a red flag. When the current president has multiple charges against him (and lost in court) which legally classifies him as a r*pist, that is a red flag. When the president willing admits to election fraud at the hands of the man who willingly performed, two times, a N*zi salute on live television during the inauguration, that is a red flag.

A flag red enough to match the hats of those who have the blood of America on their hands.

Is it great again yet?

[racefortheironthrone]

Since SAG AFTRA has also gone on strike, does that mean the negotiations between the WGA and executives went poorly?

This is a great question, because it allows me to do some educating about labor law!

Today's topic: "bad faith" bargaining.

While often honored more in the breach than the observance, U.S labor law requires employers to engage in collective bargaining with unions, once those unions have been recognized as the "exclusive representative" of the workers via card check or union election.

Because Leon Keyserling and Senator Robert Wagner were not idiots and could see it coming that employers would drag out negotiations in order to try to destroy the union through attrition, the Wagner Act of 1935 required employers to not just negotiate with unions, but to negotiate "in good faith" and made it a violation of the law to negotiate in bad faith.

Two major forms of negotiating in bad faith are "dilatory tactics" (deliberately using the procedures of collective bargaining and labor law more generally to delay the process) and "surface bargaining" (where the employer goes through the motions of meeting with the union, but refuses to engage in substantive discussions). This can include stuff like sending representatives who don't have authority to negotiate, refusing to schedule sessions or trying to unilaterally control the timeline, not asking questions or engaging in back-and-forth discussion, refusing to discuss topics that are germane to conditions of employment, and so forth.

These kinds of actions are considered Unfair Labor Practice violations and the NLRB can issue "cease and desist" orders and "affirmative bargaining" orders, as well as some rather creative "special remedies" that get around the Wagner Act's lack of monetary penalties. As that suggests, however, part of the problem is that because the Wagner Act doesn't have significant monetary penalties, a lot of companies will just budget a line item for breaking the law and treat that as the cost of doing business, while using the same dilatory tactics to appeal NLRB decisions through the courts in the hope that they can outlast the union. (This is why one of the most effective labor law reforms that could be passed in a Democratic Congress would be adding compounding daily monetary penalties and streamlining the ULP process in both the NLRB and the courts.)

From what I've read of the negotiations, I think there's a pretty clear cut case that AMPTP engaged in surface bargaining and used dilatory tactics, with the intent to run out the clock and thus provoke a strike in which they believed economic pressure would force the union into surrender, essentially a lock-out without declaring a lock-out.

I think it's backfired on them. A big part of AMPTP's strategy for winning that strike was to divide-and-rule - hence why they came to an agreement with the Director's Guild - by getting through the lean months by filming and releasing shows and movies with already-completed scripts. Now that SAG-AFTRA is on strike, that lifeline of content is immediately cut - which means AMPTP is going to run out of revenue in the near future, which as WGA leaders have pointed out means bad quarterly earnings reports, which means stock prices tank, which means investors and boards of directors get angry and executives become the ones facing the prospect of losing their jobs at the same time that all the compensation they've structured as stock options to avoid taxes loses value.

[darkmaga-returns]

Former President Donald Trump has unveiled a bold plan to eliminate the federal income tax, signaling a dramatic shift in U.S. fiscal policy as part of his 2025 economic agenda.

The plan follows a string of other tax cuts put forward by Trump, including the removal of taxes on car-loan payments, social security benefits and servers’ tips. But a potential elimination of personal income taxes for all Americans goes much further.

The prospect of abolishing the federal income tax carries a sense of bold possibility. It envisions a simpler system, freeing millions from the complexities of annual filings and reshaping how the nation generates revenue.

When podcast host Joe Rogan asked Trump last month whether he was serious about the plan, Trump said, “Yeah, sure, why not?”

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Social media needs (dumpster) fire exits

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/14/fire-exits/#graceful-failure-modes

Of course you should do everything you can to prevent fires – and also, you should build fire exits, because no matter how hard you try, stuff burns. That includes social media sites.

Social media has its own special form of lock-in: we use social media sites to connect with friends, family members, community members, audiences, comrades, customers…people we love, depend on, and care for. Gathering people together is a profoundly powerful activity, because once people are in one place, they can do things: plan demonstrations, raise funds, organize outings, start movements. Social media systems that attract people then attract more people – the more people there are on a service, the more reasons there are to join that service, and once you join the service, you become a reason for other people to join.

Economists call this the "network effect." Services that increase in value as more people use them are said to enjoy "network effects." But network effects are a trap, because services that grow by connecting people get harder and harder to escape.

That's thanks to something called the "collective action problem." You experience the collective action problems all the time, whenever you try and get your friends together to do something. I mean, you love your friends but goddamn are they a pain in the ass: whether it's deciding what board game to play, what movie to see, or where to go for a drink afterwards, hell is truly other people. Specifically, people that you love but who stubbornly insist on not agreeing to do what you want to do.

You join a social media site because of network effects. You stay because of the collective action problem. And if you leave anyway, you will experience "switching costs." Switching costs are all the things you give up when you leave one product or service and join another. If you leave a social media service, you lose contact with all the people you rely on there.

Social media bosses know all this. They play a game where they try to enshittify things right up to the point where the costs they're imposing on you (with ads, boosted content, undermoderation, overmoderation, AI slop, etc) is just a little less than the switching costs you'd have to bear if you left. That's the revenue maximization strategy of social media: make things shittier for you to make things better for the company, but not so shitty that you go.

The more you love and need the people on the site, the harder it is for you to leave, and the shittier the service can make things for you.

How cursed is that?

But digital technology has an answer. Because computers are so marvelously, miraculously flexible, we can create emergency exits between services so when they turn into raging dumpster fires, you can hit the crash-bar and escape to a better service.

For example, in 2006, when Facebook decided to open its doors to the public – not just college kids with .edu addresses – they understood that most people interested in social media already had accounts on Myspace, a service that had sold to master enshittifier Rupert Murdoch the year before. Myspace users were champing at the bit to leave, but they were holding each other hostage.

To resolve this hostage situation, Facebook gave prospective Myspace users a bot that would take their Myspace login and password and impersonate them on Myspace, scraping all the messages their stay-behind friends had posted for them. These would show up in your Facebook inbox, and when you replied to them, the bot would log back into Myspace as you and autopilot those messages into your outbox, so they'd be delivered to your friends there.

No switching costs, in other words: you could use Facebook and still talk to your Myspace friends, without using Myspace. Without switching costs, there was no collective action problem, because you didn't all have to leave at once. You could trickle from Myspace to Facebook in ones and twos, and stay connected to each other.

Of course, that trickle quickly became a flood. Network effects are a double-edged sword: if you're only stuck to a service because of the people there, then if those people go, there's no reason for you to stick around. The anthropologist danah boyd was able to watch this from the inside, watching Myspace's back-end as whole groups departed en masse:

When I started seeing the disappearance of emotionally sticky nodes, I reached out to members of the MySpace team to share my concerns and they told me that their numbers looked fine. Active uniques were high, the amount of time people spent on the site was continuing to grow, and new accounts were being created at a rate faster than accounts were being closed. I shook my head; I didn’t think that was enough. A few months later, the site started to unravel.

https://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2022/12/05/what-if-failure-is-the-plan.html

Social media bosses hate the idea of fire exits. For social media enshittifiers, the dumpster fire is a feature, not a bug. If users can escape the minute you turn up the heat, how will you cook them alive?

Facebook nonconsensually hacked fire exits into Myspace and freed all of Rupert Murdoch's hostages. Fire exits represents a huge opportunity for competitors – or at least they did, until the motley collection of rules we call "IP" was cultivated into a thicket that made doing unto Facebook as Facebook did unto Myspace a felony:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

When Elon Musk set fire to Twitter, people bolted for the exits. The safe harbor they sought out at first was Mastodon, and a wide variety of third party friend-finder services popped up to help Twitter refugees reassemble their networks on Mastodon. All departing Twitter users had to do was put their Mastodon usernames in their bios. The friend-finder services would use the Twitter API to pull the bios of everyone you followed and then automatically follow their Mastodon handles for you. For a couple weeks there, I re-ran a friend-finder service every couple days, discovering dozens and sometimes hundreds of friends in the Fediverse.

Then, Elon Musk shut down the API – bricking up the fire exit. For a time there, Musk even suspended the accounts of Twitter users who mentioned the existence of their Mastodon handles on the platform – the "free speech absolutist" banned millions of his hostages from shouting "fire exit" in a burning theater:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/martineparis/2022/12/17/elon-musk-bans-journalists-on-twitter-as-more-flee-to-mastodon-heres-who-to-follow/

Mastodon is a nonprofit, federated service built on a open standards. Anyone can run a Mastodon server, and the servers all talk to each other. This is like email – you can use your Gmail account to communicate with friends who have Outlook accounts. But when you change email servers, you have to manually email everyone in your contact list to get them to switch over, while Mastodon has an automatic forwarding service that switches everyone you follow, and everyone who follows you, onto a new server. This is more like cellular number-porting, where you can switch from Verizon to T-Mobile and keep your phone number, so your friends don't have to care about which network your phone is on, they just call you and reach you.

This federation with automatic portability is the fire exit of all fire exits. It means that when your server turns into a dumpster fire, you can quit it and go somewhere else and lose none of your social connections – just a couple clicks gets you set up on a server run by someone you trust more or like better than the boss on your old server. And just as with real-world fire exits, you can use this fire exit in non-emergency ways, too – like maybe you just want to hang out on a server that runs faster, or whose users you like more, or that has a cooler name. Click-click-click, and you're in the new place. Change your mind? No problem – click-click-click, and you're back where you started.

This doesn't just protect you from dumpster fires, it's also a flame-retardant, reducing the likelihood of conflagration. A server admin who is going through some kind of enraging event (whomst amongst us etc etc) knows that if they do something stupid and gross to their users, the users can bolt for the exits. That knowledge increases the volume on the quiet voice of sober second thought that keeps us from flying off the handle. And if the admin doesn't listen to that voice? No problem: the fire exit works as an exit – not just as a admin-pacifying measure.

Any public facility should be built with fire exits. Long before fire exits were a legal duty, they were still a widely recognized good idea, and lots of people installed them voluntarily. But after horrorshows like the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire, fire exits became a legal obligation. Today, the EU's Digital Markets Act imposes a requirement on large platforms to stand up interoperable APIs so that users can quit their services and go to a rival without losing contact with the people they leave behind – it's the world's first fire exit regulation for online platforms.

It won't be the last. Existing data protection laws like California's CCPA, which give users a right to demand copies of their data, arguably impose a duty on Mastodon server hosts to give users the data-files they need to hop from one server to the next. This doesn't just apply to the giant companies that are captured by the EU's DMA (which calls them "very large online platforms," or "VLOPS" – hands-down my favorite weird EU bureaucratic coinage of all time). CCPA would capture pretty much any server hosted in California and possibly and server with Californian users.

Which is OK! It's fine to tell small coffee-shops and offices with three desks that they need a fire exit, provided that installing that fire exit doesn't cost so much to install and maintain that it makes it impossible to run a small business or nonprofit or hobby. A duty to hand over your users' data files isn't a crushing compliance burden – after all, the facility for exporting that file comes built into Mastodon, so all a Mastodon server owner has to do to comply is not turn that facility off. What's more, if there's a dispute about whether a Mastodon server operator has provided a user with the file, we can resolve it by simply asking the server operator to send another copy of the file, or, in extreme cases, to provide a regulator with the file so that they can hand it to the user.

This is a great fire exit design. Fire exits aren't a substitute for making buildings less flammable, but they're a necessity, no matter how diligent the building's owner is about fire suppression. People are right to be pissed off about platform content moderation and content moderation at scale is effectively impossible:

https://www.techdirt.com/2019/11/20/masnicks-impossibility-theorem-content-moderation-scale-is-impossible-to-do-well/

The pain of bad content moderation is not evenly distributed. Typically, the people who get it worst are disfavored minorities with little social power and large cadres of organized bad actors who engage in coordinated harassment campaigns. Ironically, these people also rely more on one another for support (because they are disfavored, disadvantaged, and targeted) than the median user, which means they pay higher switching costs when they leave a platform and lose one another. That means that the people who suffer the worst from content moderation failures are also the people whom a platform can afford to fail most egregiously without losing their business.

It's the "Fiddler on the Roof" problem: sure, the villagers of Anatevka get six kinds of shit kicked out of them by cossacks every 15 minutes, but if they leave the shtetl, they'll lose everything they have. Their wealth isn't material. Anatekvans are peasants with little more than the clothes on their back and a storehouse of banging musical numbers. The wealth of Anatevka is social, it's one another. The only thing worse than living in Anatevka is leaving Anatevka, because the collective action problem dictates that once you leave Anatevka, you lose everyone you love:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/29/how-to-leave-dying-social-media-platforms/

Twitter's exodus remains a trickle, albeit one punctuated by the occasional surge when Musk does something particularly odious and the costs of staying come into sharp relief, pushing users to depart. These days, most of these departures are for Bluesky, not Mastodon.

Bluesky, like Mastodon, was conceived of as a federated social service with easy portability between servers that would let users hop from one server to another. The Bluesky codebase and architecture frames out a really ambitious fire-suppression program, with composable, stackable moderation tools and group follow/block lists that make it harder for dumpster fires to break out. I love this stuff: it's innovative in the good sense of "something that makes life better for technology users" (as opposed to the colloquial meaning of "innovative," which is "something that torments locked-in users to make shareholders richer).

But as I said when I opened this essay, "you should do everything you can to prevent fires – and also, you should build fire exits, because no matter how hard to you try, stuff burns."

Bluesky's managers claim they've framed in everything they need to install the fire exits that would let you leave Bluesky and go to a rival server without losing the people you follow and the people who follow you. They've got personal data servers that let you move all your posts. They've got stable, user-controlled identifiers that could maintain connections across federated servers.

But, despite all this, there's no actual fire exits for Bluesky. No Bluesky user has severed all connections with the Bluesky business entity, renounced its terms of service and abandoned their accounts on Bluesky-managed servers without losing their personal connections to the people they left behind.

Those live, ongoing connections to people – not your old posts or your identifiers – impose the highest switching costs for any social media service. Myspace users who were reluctant to leave for the superior lands of Facebook (where, Mark Zuckerberg assured them, they would never face any surveillance – no, really!) were stuck on Rupert Murdoch's sinking ship by their love of one another, not by their old Myspace posts. Giving users who left Myspace the power to continue talking to the users who stayed was what broke the floodgates, leading to the "unraveling" that boyd observed.

Bluesky management has evinced an admirable and (I believe) sincere devotion to their users' wellbeing, and they've amply demonstrated that commitment with capital expenditures on content moderators and tools to allow users to control their own content moderation. They've invested heavily in fire suppression.

But there's still no fire exits on Bluesky. The exits are on the blueprints, they're roughed into the walls, but no one's installed them. Bluesky users' only defense against a dumpster fire is the ongoing goodwill and wisdom of Bluesky management. That's not enough. As I wrote earlier, every social media service where I'm currently locked in by my social connections was founded by someone I knew personally, respected, and liked and respected (and often still like and respect):

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/02/ulysses-pact/#tie-yourself-to-a-federated-mast

I would love to use Bluesky, not least because I am fast approaching the point where the costs of using Twitter will exceed the benefits. I'm pretty sure that an account on Bluesky would substitute well for the residual value that keeps me glued to Twitter. But the fact that Twitter is such a dumpster fire is why I'm not going to join Bluesky until they install those fire exits. I've learned my lesson: you should never, ever, ever join another service unless they've got working fire exits.

[heyheydidjaknow]

I haven’t played this stupid game in 6 months. This is a sequel to Prospects, this time featuring Bailey.

Agreement

The envelope shook in your hand. “This should suffice.”

Bailey took it from you, not bothering to meet your eyes as she slit the top and took the slip inside. Whitney, dressed for the ride ahead— or fight; whatever came first— in his sweats and t-shirt, stood with his back to the door. Despite your assurance, he had insisted on sitting in on this final transaction as if the mountain of cash you had worked yourself ragged to obtain would not be enough to settle the score, as if your being there were not dependent solely on your value as a worker, as if Bailey— who now looked up at you over the check between her fingers and her half-rimmed glasses— would care beyond that if you were gone.

The ground swayed beneath your feet.

Bailey leaned back in her chair, gesturing to Whitney with the check. “This was your idea?”

You could not bring yourself to look back at him, but you could imagine his expression. It was the same as when you had when you had met Briar and Avery a few days before; cool, unflinching, as though you were an item at a pawn shop he was trying to get a good price on. You supposed you were, in a sense. “Yes.”

Bailey nodded slowly, taking in your figure, your stance. You squirmed under her gaze. “And the child’s yours, I take it?”

“Yes.”

She considered as much. “You know,” she mused, “your… what would the word be? Fucktoy?”

He scoffed. “For our purposes, property.”

“Oh, hardly.” She leaned her elbows on the desk, fingers lacing together under her chin. “Not officially at least, not until our terms are settled.”

“What terms are there to settle?” You picked at your cuticles, heart pounding in your throat. “Is that not how much—“

“That’s how much my best earner was worth before.” Her smile was sweet like cough syrup, sharp like whiskey. “I’m a businesswoman you understand; it would hardly make much sense for me to part with my greatest revenue stream for its raw material costs.”

You looked back at Whitney. He kept his eyes trained on the woman in front of you. “And how much would it take for you to part ways with your charge?”

She sighed in mock contemplation. “Oh, I don’t know.” She sucked her teeth. “Another fifty percent ought to do it.”

The words echoed in your ears. You swallowed back panic as you went back to staring at the floor.

“Fifty?” His sneer was audible. “The fuck you take me for?”

“Someone desperate.” She gestured to you. “Someone willing to take when they can get and leave.”

“A bitch, you mean.”

“So long as we’re being frank.”

“You—“

“Do you know how much that child is worth?” You shut your eyes as you felt her own take you in. “Do you know what sort of market you could appeal to with a matching set?”

You heard a rustling of cloth behind you. Whitney’s voice was as cheerful and bright as you had ever heard it. “So long as we’re considering the lives of people that matter,” he smiled, “I’m curious; how much is your life worth?”

There was a pause, a laugh from Bailey. “That bitch,” she sighed. “First that file—“

“This actually isn’t Laundry’s, surprisingly enough.” You heard the clinking of metal parts as he gestured to you. “Friend of a friend who lives in the country; I promised him the deed to this shithole if your position found itself empty.”

Despite yourself, you turned to face him. He held the pistol in his hand with the confidence of a man unfazed by its weight. In the back of your mind, you wondered if he would be tried if he went through with it, whether the cops would come or care or whether they would write it off as the result of one of Bailey’s “ungrateful brats”. You could not for the life of you decide which would be preferable.

“So,” he continued, finger twitching, eyes shining, “I think it best if we tried renegotiating terms.” He gestured to you. “Either you take the money and I take your cash cow off your hands—“ He steadied his aim, “— or I redecorate your office with your insides and you get to find out whether the contents of that envelope are worth shit in hell.”

You cast your gaze back towards her. Bailey looked between the two of you, lips pursed. “You’re more desperate than I thought.” She pushed her glasses up her nose and reached into her shirt pocket. “Let me give you some advice, kid.”

You shut your eyes again at the click of the safety. “Hands where I can see ‘em.”

She pulled out a carton of cigarettes, tapping one out and sticking it between her lips. “He isn’t a better person than I am, you know.” She took a lighter off her desk. “He’s not going to take better care of you than I am, isn’t going to wish you off to some fairy tale land where you’ll never know hardship; if anything, he’s going to fuck you over harder than I do.” She lit it, took a drag, smiled, exhaled.

“You fucking—“

“And you.” She pointed the cigarette at him. “Whitney, yeah? You think your life’s going to get better by being a father?” She leaned her head on her free hand. “I’ve been stuck with this job for thirty years now; the only thing that thing—“ she waved the cigarette in your belly’s general direction, “— is good for is an accessory to the walking ATM it’s stuck in.”

You could hear his voice shake; with what, you could not tell. “So help me God if you say one more thing about my fucking kid—“

“Let me say my piece.” She stood up, taking another drag and blowing it in your face. “If I were you,” she sighed, “I’d see if Harper couldn’t make an exception to get that thing out of you while it’s not breathing. Short of that, I’d ship it here.” She leaned forward, resting her hand on the surface of her desk. “But if I ever find your brat at my doorstep,” she promised, voice lowering, “if I ever see you or that thing here again, I’ll make your time here look like a stay at the Ritz-fucking-Carlton.” She stuck the cigarette back between her teeth, tilting your head up to look her in the eye. The resemblance between her and Whitney was apparent; you wondered if that was just what the eyes of monsters looked like. “I will make your child pay for however much you would have made me twofold, and I will sell their body— whole or piecemeal— to any dumb fuck who asks for what I’m sure will be a pretty young thing like them. Do you understand me?”

You could not breathe.

Her grip on your jaw tightened. “Are you deaf?” She brought you closer, and you whimpered at the sensation. “I asked you a question. Do you understand me or don’t you?”

You shut your eyes as her nails dug into your skin. You dug your own into your palm as you forced yourself to nod.

She kept you there a moment— for what, you did not know— before pressing a kiss to your forehead. Your eyes shot open, and you swallowed back tears— of relief, of sadness, of panic— as she released you, collapsing to your knees and gasping for air. “Good.” She took the check, slipping it into her pocket before sitting back down. “Leave before I change my mind.”

You pulled yourself to your feet, practically tripping over yourself to cling to Whitney. He glanced down at you, letting you bury your face into his shoulder as he took one last look at your former guardian. Wordlessly, he pulled the two of you out into the hallway, past the children gathered by the door, past the garden and Robin and the stairs and the threshold and finally, with a smile of untempered relief and satisfaction, across the street, into the truck parked there, and away from that miserable town, and as you watched the buildings you had come to know as parts of your home flew past, as you watched people you recognized from school rush into the forest and students— like you, you registered vaguely, desperate for money, for purpose, for anything— lean against street corners, you wondered if this would be any better, if this was more desirable, if this was emancipation or a different, crueler kind of ownership.

You mumbled a goodbye to the bus stop as it passed. Only then did the tears really start.