sconosciuto

About

Username
sconosciuto
Joined
Visits
78
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
2,210
Badges
2
Posts
393

Reactions

936Like79Dislike51Informative

  • China tariff war worries and more: What to expect from Apple's Q2 2025 earnings

    sconosciutosconosciuto
    Apple has spent quite a few years - ~15? - diversifying away from iPhone as its chief revenue driver. I would hope, for instance, investors strongly consider the still-growing Services component of their revenue stream, this is relatively tariff-proof in the near-term and even somewhat beyond. Investors will definitely compare the effect of the tariffs regime on Apple vs its competitors as well as the broader tech sector; my semi-educated hunch is that Apple will look much better prepared to endure the chaos of whatever tariff policies Dumbass Donnie the Quicker Fucker Upper decides to pursue on any given day.

    Tariffs won't last indefinitely, they especially won't survive after the conclusion of the 2nd Trump regime... provided it ends as scheduled in January 2029. Apple increasingly seems like they will weather this storm just fine for several reasons, including Tim Apple's relationship with Mango Mussolini.

    Pleasing the King in order to keep one's business model viable seems the opposite of "draining the swamp" and "free market capitalism" but such are the times in which we live.
    ronn

  • China tariff war worries and more: What to expect from Apple's Q2 2025 earnings

    sconosciutosconosciuto
    MassiveAttack said:
    Apple will tank -10% AH today. 
    well you should short it then, sounds like you're pretty certain about this. Go all in, let us know how that works out.
    delreyjonesronnwilliamlondon

  • Trump has not raised big tech China tariffs to 245 percent

    sconosciutosconosciuto
    The "ignore" function is a beautiful thing.
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra

  • US launches semiconductor probe to explain away tariff exemptions

    sconosciutosconosciuto
    mfryd said:
    The Trump administration tries to claim everything is an emergency or national security related. But they never like to provide any evidence of either claim. 
    The Trump administration asserts various "emergencies" as a justification for violating the law and the US Constitution.   It is normal for the population to look the other way at these sorts of things when they like the direction the administration is taking. A big issue i that by looking the other way when you like what's happening, you lose the ability to do anything if you don't like the direction the government is taking.


    The only thing that's new is the magnitude of what's going on.  Previous administrations have never violated the law in such an egregious fashion on so many controversial issues.  But then, this is what America wanted.  After all we did elect a convicted felon. 


    A good example of previous violations is the US highway system.  The US Constitution envisions a lean and mean federal government.  The Constitution enumerates the few things the Federal government is responsible for, and explicitly reserves everything else to the states.  There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Feds the responsibility or authority to create a national highway system.   At one point the government tried to justify it as being for national defense, but that's no longer applicable.  The US military can deploy via air to anywhere in the world.  Trying to do a domestic deployment by road would only slow things down.  We don't have roads to Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., yet we were able to wage war there.

    Now, I am not suggesting that it's a bad idea to have a national highway system.  Personally, I think it's a good thing.  My point is that it is contrary to the Constitution, but the majority of Americans are in favor of it, so we tend to look the other way.  
    Someone needs to re-read the Commerce Clause. The Founding Fathers, contrary to the ahistorical assertions of conservatives, envisioned the Constitution as a living document rather than being frozen in amber as if the US would perpetually be the nation of farmers and shopkeepers that it was three centuries ago.

    After re-reading the CC, I suggest you familiarize yourself with what it was like to travel by motorized vehicles for long, interstate travel before the advent of the freeway system.

    The Roman Empire as history knows it would not have existed without a comprehensive road system, read up on that as well. A comprehensive system of roads connecting the entirety of its interior would indeed be critical to defense of US territory in the event of invasion. That such a crisis is extraordinarily unlikely today*, 70 some years after the inception of the interstate highway system, does not change that simple fact.


    *on the other hand... the US spearheaded a push to go to war against a sovereign nation in order to depose the despotic dictator of a sovereign nation that the former alleged was an imminently dangerous peril to international peace,  and obtained UN blessing for it...
    thtwatto_cobra

  • Meta leans on iMessage being more popular than Facebook Messenger for antitrust defense

    sconosciutosconosciuto
    If one considers X and Bluesky to be social media then I suppose Meta is not a monopoly.

    But. They own FB, IG, WA. I suppose X ranks in there somewhere as one of the top social media applications, so Meta owns three of the four top social media apps. How is that not a monopoly or damned near one?

    I know things don't work this way and yet... if Apple is considered to have a grip on mobile OS so dominant that it can be considered a monopoly by some influential regulatory bodies (a very laughable proposition), how is Meta's overwhelming dominance in the SM space *not* a monopoly?
    ForumPostwilliamlondonwatto_cobra