What is that, former Math teachers?

What are you talking about? Did you get distracted halfway through typing that and lose your thought? What do you mean "Randomly charge customers pass through"?

I hate to point this out to you but poor people, by definition, don't have money - they are poor. And the poor don't pay taxes (at least not in America) - the lower 47% of income tax filers (and as a reminder, more than half of Americans don't even file income taxes) either pay zero net income taxes or collect a refund in excess of any monies withheld from their paycheck. A person with no debt and $1,000 in their bank account has a greater net worth than something like 20% of all Americans COMBINED.

In NYC the top 2% of earners pay 48% of all collected city income taxes, yet only take in 20% of all the income in the state... Please, for everyone's sake, when you want to complain about the rich not paying "their fair share" have the decency to explain what your definition of "fair share" and explain why one person's "fair share" is different from someone else's "fair share".

Only 12 out of 25 CEO even plan to apply for tariff refunds? Why would a CEO choose not to seek reimbursement for tariffs they paid previously?

That doesn't sound right.

As for the "none intend to lower prices in response" comment, why would they?

First off, half the CEOs aren't even planning on requesting the tariff refunds, so why would they lower prices? As for the other half of the CEOs, let's understand what we are talking about:

a) Tariffs were only charged for a defined period, a fraction of a year, if you will,
b) Tariffs were charged at a fraction of the imported value of a good - not retail or "market" price

So let's say I was subject to a tariff for, say, 6 months (half a year), and I was assessed a 20% tariff on my imported goods, and the imported items had a 100% markup between import value and consumer price - that would mean if I were to fold the refund back into lowering prices, it would mean a 5% drop for the consumer for one year of sales, that's it. (The math looks like this - 6 months of 20% tariff equals one year of 10% tariff, and since that 10% is before the 100% markup in price, the customer only sees a 5% savings.) That short-term 5% savings will quickly be eaten up by inflation, and then when prices bounce back to market levels, the customer will feel taken advantage of, complaining about over-sized price increases.

It's easier to just absorb the windfall, let the stock value nudge up a little, and maybe put off the next price increase for, say, another quarter.

They can double their market cap by issuing new stock that reflects the increased value of GameStop & eBay. In effect, eBay's current share holders collectively will still hold shares equal to about half the sale price of eBay.

The Fine Summary says the offer of $56BN is half cash, half stock - that means $28BN is stock in the company they just sold.

So then we need to find $28BN in cash - as TFS mentions, TD Bank has guaranteed a $20BN loan, so that leaves $8BN that needs to be found - GameStop apparently has about $9BN in cash and cash equivalent.

So there you go, that's how GameStop can buy eBay.

Amazing - this story went from using soundwaves to put out wildfires ("Former NASA Engineers Create Ingenious Way To Save Homes From Wildfires Using Noise" ) to Experts are skeptical?

WTF, pick a side Slashdot - is Sonic fire suppression a practical solution to a problem or not?

Wait, I'm confused, I thought CO2 was bad (a so-called 'Greenhouse Gas'), are you really saying we need MORE CO2 for plants?

Please expand on your answer, thank you.

Maybe we could first focus on getting everyone access to clean, safe, drinking water?

Just a thought.

From the FACE act:

FTFY

If you want to claim it is somehow "not uncommon" (AKA "common") for right-wingers to harass Muslims at places of worship you really need to cite AT LEAST one specific instance, not a vague reference to an urban legend story with ZERO specifics...

As a reminder, they put on costumes (to hide their identity), assaulted the security guards, trespassed, likely did some damage, and likely interfered/interrupted some sort of religious service going on somewhere inside the building.

I don't think the Muslims in a mosque would be as compliant as you want them to be - I can't see them being very accepting of costumed individuals running into the building as some kind of "tik-tok" challenge...

Interfering with a persons religious services is a serious crime, see the FACE act.

What, exactly, are the 'cool kids' trying to draw attention to?

Go take a real good look at the FACE act - you know, the one that puts praying grandmothers standing outside abortion clinics in jail. It also applies to people interfering with a person in a religious service - it's what Don Lemon and a few others were charged with violating when they staged a protest inside a church.

The Feds can and should crack down on these 'pranksters' - it wouldn't be too hard to simply lick the doors behind them and keep them in the building till police arrive.

So all they need to do is simply replace every structure in California with concrete domes or eavesless steel buildings?

Wow, that shouldn't be a problem - thanks for such a simple answer! /smh

OK, so it can put out a burning bush or stove-top fire, but how, exactly will this be deployed in the case of another Palisades fire? As a reminder, in the Palisades fire it was abandoned before it was fully out (no one stayed behind to make sure the wildfire was out), then, hours later, acres were burning - a couple guys with fancy backpack sound machines aren't going to stop it, any more than a couple guys with garden hoses. (PS, water availability was also a factor in Palisades, no matter what 2028 Presidential candidate and part-time international knee-pad salesman) Gavin Newsom says...

Why would a bird fly thru a burning tree?