As feedback, you made that popup way too clean and easy to close. That’s not how it works in reality. You need to make the background transparent and the X so small it’s technically impossible to hit. Also think about adding an ad and a timer and move the popup slightly after N ms so that the user always hits the ad.
It’s very unlikely that the USD will lose its status particularly to the Yuan. You can do that mental calculation yourself. Would you convert all of your lifesavings from USD to Yuans today or in the next 10 years? The answer is probably “not a chance”. The reason is simple, liquidity and trust. China has no comparable open and independent financial institutions international central banks can trust, nor can they have them without surrendering control over their monetary policy. So as long as there’s no alternative to the USD (BRICS will likely fail), it will continue being the default global currency for reserves, debt and trade.
Economic stability alone is not enough for a currency to be an important store of wealth. China doesn’t have a free floating exchange, it has very strict capital controls and lacks political and legal predictability. You need very specific institutional foundations to have a currency like the USD, which the Chinese political system rejects. The US has an independent legal system. If you have a dispute with the US government you can take it to an independent court. In China, you have no way to sue the CPP. China is a single party socialist republic with all the political authority concentrated at the top, so one high impact event like the sudden dead of Xi Jinping could send its economy into fallout because of political uncertainty. In the US the system is explicitly designed to absorb this type of shocks. So for these and many other reasons the Yuan under the current Chinese political system will never be a serious contender to the USD as global currency, it’s just way too much institutional risk for foreign investors. It’s also very unlikely the CPP will ever pick a Yuan rivaling the USD vs political control over their domestic policy. They can’t have both.
>Would you convert all of your lifesavings from USD to Yuans today or in the next 10 years?
I don't own and dollars and I have no plans to keep dollars now or in 10 years. I own some stock, mostly total world ETFs (traded in EUR, but a significant part of their holdings is obviously American). So does it really matter?
Drugs are regulated with the same care in the US, the problem is you are comparing a drug in Europe with a dietary supplement in the US. You can’t expect to grab a high quality of any dietary supplement from say Walmart. It’s the same in Europe. In the US there are labs making high quality dietary supplements, but you usually don’t find them at retail stores or even Amazon, so it needs a bit of research.
Walmart typically carries a large selection of supplements from the 'Nature Made' brand (yellow label), which tests/certifies most of their products through the independent 'U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP)'.
While that may not help with the arguments over the correct dosage, it at least means you can trust the ingredients and dosage on the label isn't a lie. A random mail order supplement or bulk powder seller on Amazon...not so much.
Fortunately, it's the former. It's a 200+ year old nonprofit founded by a group of physicians in 1820 that developed the modern drug standards that most of the world actually relies on.
Towards the bottom of the page at Delta's careers page you'll note that Delta's headquarters in Atlanta has a Walmart Pharmacy in it. Delta is essentially signalling to its constantly moving employees that you're more likely to find a Walmart near an airport than a CVS or a Walgreens (especially in super-rural America) and that pharmacy is a constant stream of pilots and flight attendants grabbing refills on their way through.
You seem to be beating around some kind of bush by intentionally neglecting to define your definition of "high quality" in this context. Are you saying that 1mg of melatonin from Walmart or Amazon do not actually contain 1mg of melatonin?
If they aren't sold in retail stores or Amazon how are they sold? Private websites?
Amazon requires random sampling confirmation for supplements from independent labs though, so anything officially listed in a supplement category should be reliable.
I work in renewables in the US. The current picture is actually a lot more positive than people believe. But good news are usually boring at not good for click bait, so they aren’t covered by the media. There’s a lot of work on solar energy currently and the forecast is VERY good. We do have some issues like grid connectivity and shifting policies but the market economics are working extremely well. The fact is solar is too cheap and, unlike wind, very easy to deploy, so it doesn’t matter what your political views are, you will eventually support it. Texas for example, the conservative oil and gas hub of the US, is already outpacing California in total capacity additions because 1) they have tons of land and 2) no BS, quick local permits. So if you are a solar builder, you go to Texas not California. And yes, Texas is still pro fossil fuels, but the laws of supply and demand will continue favoring solar so that’s where the money will flow to.
> fact is solar is too cheap and, unlike wind, very easy to deploy, so it doesn’t matter what your political views are, you will eventually support it
this is my point, too
renewables, especially solar, just have gotten very competitive to a point they will gain ground even if not subsidized
and I believe we will see (and in some niches have already seen) this happening for electric cars, too. They are plain simple just better technology which for now is still in the earlier stages.
How much relevance wind will have we have to see, it's less advantages then solar and less easy to deploy. It's pretty good in some very windy northern (i.e. also less solar efficient) places and often iff it's extremely windy it's not extremely sunny and if extremely sunny it's often not extremely windy. This makes them complement each other quite nicely. So I still see a future for it even outside of the more northern regions.
California has only four really good wind sites, and they already have wind farms on them. The real US wind belt is from the Texas panhandle northward to Canada. Look at a wind map of the US.[1]
Grid-scale battery storage just keeps getting installed at an increasing rate.[1]
9.7 gigawatt-hours installed in Q1 2026.[2]
It's not very visible. It's just shipping containers laid out on cement pads. It doesn't take up that much space. It can be placed anywhere there's good access to transmission lines. It's profitable if you can buy cheap solar power in the daytime and sell it at night. It's safe now that it uses lithium-iron phosphate batteries.
88 days to the midterm elections. Trump will still be in office for a while longer, but with less power to make trouble.
I do perfectly believe that there's a lot of progress in renewables and am happy about it. I also think of how much farther we would have come if it wasn't in spite of 40-50 years of obstruction by governments to satisfy coporate entities stuck in the old world.
all the US needs is Australia like pricing and combine it with individual energy independence branding + clean long term financing like mortgage and there is no better place in the world to harness the urban sprawl and single family homes for rooftop solar. This assumes utilities and their business models can be quietly upended which is probably the biggest bottleneck
I don’t think is fair to compare Asian and German cars. I personally dislike Asian designs regardless of how reliable and efficient they are. Subarus are objectively ugly cars and they are not great as daily drivers. Lexus offer a closer driving experience as German cars, meaning you can have both a sporty and family car without the annoyance of a sport ride and noise of a WRX. But is still very Asian looking with the sharp angles, ugly headlights and large grills.
If you are looking for luxury performance and can’t afford a Porsche or Ferrari but don’t want to look on a budget driving an Atlas or a Genesis then you only have BMW, Audi and Benz. The latter usually doesn’t appeal to under 60 except for AMG which is out of budget, so your decision always ends between Audi and BMW. They offer a different driving experience IMO, so if you are a beemer guy ads won’t deter you from buying one.
Yep. On mobile it was basically impossible to read. 2/3 of the page was covered in ads and pop ups. I figure if they don’t care about the readers’ experience then I don’t care to try to read their content.
Why is this out of the gate bad? Note that this is not taking FIFA to private equity, but creating an investors owned subsidiary to run events and commercial operations where the non profit arm will still own 80% of it. With the right protections it could help FIFA make more money and reinvest in the sport, particularly women’s football. FIFA currently makes 40% of what the NHL makes, not the NFL, not NBA. Soccer is by far the most popular sport on the planet, the fact that it makes a lot less money than hockey is insane.
Why is it bad to sell 20% of the biggest tournament in the world to a private company lead by people involved with the most corrupt administration in the history of the US? The model has been working fine for decades, why does it matter that it makes less than american sports?
Ha! Model has been working for American s.. more and more we are seeing signs of a falling empire. Not reading the room - I mean global - temperature is nothing new to the US foreign policy office. They’ve done it for decades, but these days the confidence in leadership has fully eroded trust. Before there may have been closed door jokes made US leaderships expense, now it’s out and in public.
Market Strategists are going to study this one. It’s a potential inflection point. Cant think of any other event or entity as globally galvanizing that football.
The most beloved, most watched sport in the world making less than the American/Canadian hockey league is a commercial failure. Non profits are generally inefficient at running businesses. With the right guardrails a private arm that knows how to run a business could help FIFA make a ton of money. And yes a lot of rich guys will become even richer too, so what?
But FIFA is the governing body of a sport, not a business.
Hearing you say this is like hearing someone say that the United Nations is a commercial failure.
Its purpose is to regulate and administer international football on behalf of its member associations, enforce compliance with its regulations, organise international competitions to relieve the member associations of the hassle, administer anti-doping programmes and related integrity measures (lol), and, through its membership of IFAB, help determine and promote the consistent application of the Laws of the Game worldwide. Its revenues only exist to support those functions.
Is there a need for it to have profit motive? Would the world be better if it decided it should have one? I don't see how the answer could be yes to either question.
The mention of guardrails is a little Onion-esque given the organisation and people in question
The UN is a poor analogy. The UN does not operate a large commercial business like FIFA which exploits the World Cup, Libertadores and other events. The only strong similarity they have is their non profit status. You should have used the IOC as analogy.
> The most beloved, most watched sport in the world making less than the American/Canadian hockey league is a commercial failure.
Fortunately the English top division alone makes a similar amount to NHL (from a quarter of the matches) and the English second tier makes a similar amount to the Super Bowl[1], which is why football's governing body doesn't particularly need lessons on how to commercialize stuff from people in the United States who probably also don't understand football's financial centre of gravity, but will happily buy commercialization rights for a quadrennial tournament if sold to them in a backroom deal at a sufficiently low price...
[1]yes, I know the Super Bowl is only the one game. But if you can compare a 1400 game annual league to a 104 game quadrennial tournament, then I can compare an entire season to a single big game :D)...
FIFA controls the largest event, so it should be the driving force for revenue but it’s not. But even if you add UEFA the whole thing still less profitable than an American professional and barely surpasses hockey. By the way, UEFA crying about this while they are the owners, regulators and revenue distributors is pretty crazy. It seems to me they are more concerned about not being able to hop on the FIFA deal themselves.
Do you not understand that FIFA and UEFA are a small component of the actual revenue of football? They are not all of football. This is not complicated.
You are comparing apple and oranges, it makes no sense.
> Soccer is by far the most popular sport on the planet, the fact that it makes a lot less money than hockey is insane.
Soccer makes much much more money than the NHL, it just doesn't all go to FIFA because the vast majority of matches are not organized by FIFA.
The premier league alone makes more than the NHL and that's just one of the european countries. La ligua, bundesliga also each make close to what the NHL makes with much smaller populations.
The fair comparison to FIFA is the IIHF. They make $35M for the hockey world championships vs 15B for the football world cup, you are slightly off, a rounding error.
> FIFA currently makes 40% of what the NHL makes, not the NFL, not NBA.
FIFA holds one significant money-making tournament for a month every 4 years (all due respect to the Women's World Cup in terms of prestige, but its revenue is a small fraction of the Men's World Cup). The NHL runs 6 months a year annually.
Closer to 10 months actually - Oct (Sept if you include the pre-season) through June.
But just to add on for comparison, the NHL has 1312 regular season games. Plus 4 rounds of best-of-7 playoff series with 16 teams making the playoffs. Let's say an average of 5.75 games per round, that's 86 playoff games bringing us to ~1400 games per year.
Over 4 years, that's 5600 games. The FIFA World Cup had 104 games this year. It's actually pretty impressive that the WC can even make 40% while hosting < 2% of the games that the NHL has. Or put another way, 1 WC game is equivalent to 54 NHL games - 2/3 of one team's full regular season.
That’s part of their poor commercial vision. Even the World Cup brings less revenue than one season of the NBA. Doesn’t even make sense to compare it with the NFL.
Again, it doesn't last as long as one season of the NBA or play as many games.
A single NBA season has over 1200 games - over 12 times as many games as the most recent World Cup (104). And that was already the largest-ever WC. Does the NBA have 12x the revenue of the WC?
> Even the World Cup brings less revenue than one season of the NBA
This isn't even true btw. The 2026 WC made $15b and the 2025-26 NBA season made $14.3 billion. [1][2]
Most of the WC's participating teams represent places poorer than the places NBA teams hail from.
You can't run the World Cup like the NBA. That's not how the sport works.
The Qatar World Cup tournament was obviously such a thing. The place had the money to build all the stadiums, but has never qualified legitimately and is a tiny country. Thousands of people died building those stadiums in Qatar.
Plus there is advertising all over the players' clothing, the pitch, the pitchside hoardings etc. There is high rent advertising in every break. Even more so since theze silly hydration breaks.
I mean, of course you're right about all of that. (The Qatar world cup was more for 'sportswashing' than extracting profit, although FIFA itself still made plenty of money. And, the hydration breaks will hopefully be a thing of a the past, because it was so obvious what they were really for. But I'm not betting on that.)
It just sucks that everything good and sacred in the world (soccer and everything else) is being squeezed and shittified for profit. So if FIFA is prevented from converting from a non-profit with the nominal purpose of being a steward of the game for its own stake into a fully explicit for-profit capitalistic enterprise, then I'll take the victory. Even if the current system is far from perfect.
Football has had a major profiteering issue since at least the 1970s. The clubs always had to support themselves, but since then you have advertising everywhere, footballers in moronic adverts themselves, broadcasting rights, players being paid (and being worth) obscene amounts of money...
In recent years, there has been a clear movement away from the physical fanbase towards merchandise and broadcasting. It often feels like clubs are embarrassed by the people who turn up at games (sometimes with good reason to be fair since some of the fan behaviour and chants are indefensible).
don't be naive. Never in the history of humanity did corrupt billionaire pedophiles do anything help the sport/fans/women/..... They want a piece to get the foot in the door. 10 years from now, we wont even recognise football anymore.
I don't care what american billionaires make with nhl/nfl/..., hands fucking off of football.
Association football is more marketable than certain North American sports. For a start, the jerseys are covered in sponsors, even the shorts, socks and shoes. American football and basketball, for whatever reason, haven't done that yet.
It looks like this world cup may have introduced shirt sponsorship to US and Canadian sports. Soon their shirts will resemble Formula One drivers'. In return, association football will keep hydration breaks etc.
reply