Not necessarily, if they can produce the crops more cheaply. Since each country ideally wants to secure it's own food supply, it's inevitable that many countries will find themselves subsidizing local production that would otherwise disappear in a competitive international market.
Additionally, hostile countries do not need to flood markets sustainably if the goal is simply to hollow out food production in the target country before taking more overtly hostile (i.e. military) actions.
The mass of the earth dictates the acceleration of the individual masses towards the earth. However the acceleration of the earth itself towards the masses are dependent on how much mass is falling towards the earth. When more mass is falling to the earth, the earth accelerates towards the masses faster. So the thought experiment is flawed because with only one 1 kg weight falling towards earth, the gap between the weight closes slower than when there are three 1 kg weights spaced 1 m apart and dropped simultaneously.
If you define fall as the size of the gap. You could also take it as acceleration towards the barycenter, which would be the same. These are indistinguishable for everyday objects so could argue that the word “fall” could be interpreted either way.
That's partly the point though, isn't it? You're not accountable for your performance, you're accountable for the performance of the company. And the performance of the company could be extremely good or extremely bad, very much independently of your contributions.
are these actually lies?
i know tesla stopped accepting bitcoin but it doesn't seem surprising to operate nodes when they did accept it. companies change policies all the time so i wouldn't call this a lie unless they never did it all. is that public information?
"almost all" possessions is pretty vague. perhaps this is false but it's not obvious at face value and wouldn't be malicious. it seems mostly a question of semantics (does renting = owning? do we mean houses and cars or clothes and silverware?). if someone tweets "i'm selling all my shit" are they lying?
break pads never needing to be replaced is obviously not 100% true since some percentage of every part will inevitably break, but if pads without defects outlive the rest of the car, i don't see how you could disagree with this statement. teslas are barely old enough to evaluate this statement and doubly so for cars produced in 2018.
i don't follow this stuff nearly closely enough to know if these are lies and it's not clear to me the information needed to evaluate those tweets is publicly available or even exists. i don't dispute he's made misleading statements and exaggerated but i'm not convinced it's obvious he's lying or that not seeing it means you have blinders on.
it can work if you're offsetting existing short term gains and hold the replacement for >1 year, or if the stock never recovers, in which case you pull forward the deduction
No, he's making a statement saying that his data shows working age people dying at a higher rate. It says nothing about elderly people.
The head of Indianapolis-based insurance company OneAmerica said the death rate is up a stunning 40% from pre-pandemic levels among working-age people.
...
Davison said the increase in deaths (that his company sees) represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying (to account for this increase), but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.
Plus, he actually could say "that elderly people aren't dying at the same rate" in his dataset and be technically correct. The elderly are not part of his dataset, so it's vacuously true.
You are simply reading this wrong. If you want to prove that to yourself, call up this guy and talk to him. He will tell you you're stating something totally obvious and making a very silly distinction. You're agreeing with him violently. Come back in a couple of years and re-read this, you'll realize your interpretation is wrong.
Additionally, hostile countries do not need to flood markets sustainably if the goal is simply to hollow out food production in the target country before taking more overtly hostile (i.e. military) actions.