> Amazon’s operating income in 2024 improved 86% YoY, from $36.9B (an operating margin of 6.4%) to $68.6B (an operating margin of 10.8%). Free Cash Flow, adjusted for equipment finance leases improved from $35.5B in 2023 to $36.2B.
Can someone help me understand these numbers. Their operating income improved (increased?) by 86% but margin only ~4%?
Does that mean most of the improved (increased?) operating income was put towards capital outflow?
I use both quite often. The apostrophe from a young age and the em-dash from my locally hosted alternative to grammarly which auto-corrects for me - making it easy to use as it doesn’t exist on my keyboard as a built-in. If it existed on my keyboard, I would use it by default.
(Noticeably absent is the em-dash in this message because my grammarly alternative is a chrome extension and I’m currently responding from my mobile device that does not have it.)
I think you meant to use an "en-dash" there -- between "me" and "making".
This whole thing is frustrating because I know all of these language models were trained on reddit and I was an early and frequent commenter. So a lot of my style is also the bot's style.
> Should I be allowed to push for policy changes in a city I am not a resident of?
Yes. Because this country has the first amendment. It is a matter of law that you can and may (within the law).
If you (and I am not saying you do) not agree with people being able to push for such changes (via speech as it is defined and interpreted by our court via the first amendment), then please state your reasons for disagreeing rather than posing a loaded question.
There is also a whole country of places to live in for those who don’t want to embrace change when their neighborhoods feel a societal pressure to do so. They can live in whatever style of neighborhood they want to live in (or create) anywhere in the country. Change is a constant (whether it be good or bad; obviously subjective adjectives).
These folks who have uprooted themselves from their existing homes to make a better life have as much right to live wherever they want to (considering a country and or society with freedom of movement; e.g. USA) as those who currently occupy the space.
I’m not saying your position is incorrect. I’m saying your argument is flawed.
The argument is not so much flawed as it is morally reprehensible. The phrase ‘Maintaining the character of the neighborhood” is historically a racist dog whistle used by Whites wanting to keep out Blacks. For background of the historical intent of zoning practices, see “The Color of Law”:
You can also read more the 1920’s SCOTUS case ‘Euclid vs Ambler’ where the justices agreed that apartment dwellers were essentially a public nuisance and thus apartments could be regulated.
Nowadays it’s not so much skin color, but rather social class or the ‘wrong’ sort of minority that people want to keep out. Whatever the reason, the type of restrictive zoning the OP is advocating for has major repercussions for equality by restricting access to well paying jobs and other amenities like hospitals and schools.
Gosh I forget the name of the airfield at the moment but by any chance was it near the Clearlake suburb of Houston (Hobby perhaps?)
I used that airfield to get to Bush international several times back in the day. It was strange flying from one airfield to another in the same city to connect to my regularly scheduled flight.
One is implemented with the will of the people (in a functioning democracy) and the other is not.
Equating the two and then correlating that to dog whistle terms like “genetic extermination” which has no scientific basis (except in terms of pest control) is disingeuous.
I assure you that there is nothing disingenuous in my comment, and not everything is a "dog whistle". A dog whistle for what, if you mind?
No people has ever willed to be colonised (and that was the proposal in the comment I replied to). Immigration is a different matter. The people in history who welcomed being colonised were very sorry for it afterwards.
Genetic extermination is the same as genocide, and it has happened countless times, it is happening right now, and it will continue to happen as long as humans are faulty beings.
You have yet to explain why genetic extermination (whatever you mean by that) is undesirable.
Naming a natural evolutionary occurrence (and I mean genetic mixing, not colonization) a pejorative doesn’t make it so.
There is plenty of genetic mixing happening in the world in the last single generation without any colonization. Go back in time far enough and you can draw a line from any major event to a calamity that came after it. It’s quite easy to see through your veiled prejudice for inter-racial breeding.
> I'm saying that when people start proposing and planning colonisation of a foreign country, genetic extermination usually follows.
And I don't disagree with you.
What I'm objecting to is your hyperbole; on further thought I don't care much for your throwing around of this "genetic extermination" term either.
"Extermination" implies a third party is involved and has a hand on the gas valve. A more appropriate euphemism would be "genetic extinction."
Genocide is explicitly defined as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." The immigrants are not arriving onshore and butchering the natives.
Words have meaning and this one does not invite ambiguity. A genetic clique disappearing because of cross-breeding is not goddamn Genocide. It's just Nature.
And again, I'd argue they're doing it to themselves. They just handed the title of Miss Japan to a Ukie. Now this. Nobody's making them sell out to foreigners. They could just as easily halve their pointlessly-bureaucratic workweek and subsidize childcare.
> Genocide is explicitly defined as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." The immigrants are not arriving onshore and butchering the natives.
No, but when immigrant/coloniser diaspora becomes large enough in numbers they rise up against the natives and start displacing them, most often violently. As seen almost always throughout history, or in the news tonight.
> It's just Nature.
Nature is nature, and human policy is separate from that. Displacing enormous amounts of people to "fix" some imaginary GDP number is as far from nature as can be, unless we argue that war and genocide is a natural behaviour among human beings. Which unfortunately I think we can. Then again if it's "just nature", then why do people here argue for organising mass migration to Japan. Let nature have it's course then?
As for the rest of your comment, you are arguing automatically based on what you have imagined that I wrote, even though I tried to clarify to you. I don't know how I can get my point through, so you can understand that I connected organised foreign colonisation / mass migration to Japan with genocide. Because one usually follows the other.
Even an outright military invasion can be less of a threat to a nation, since some conquerors only want to extract resources and tributes without taking over the land by putting their own population there.
Gah! I don't want to change my default search engine on all my machines temporarily and then have to change them back once the outage is resolved. Because I know that due to inertia, I won't do it until Google results start bothering me again (that won't be long - hah!).
I type searches in my URL bar across multiple machine and mobile devices dozens of times an hour during "heads down" times.
May I suggest (if browser extension apis allow this) for the extension to fall back to google (or whatever was configured before kagi) if a response from Kagi is not received in some timeout seconds.
Can someone help me understand these numbers. Their operating income improved (increased?) by 86% but margin only ~4%?
Does that mean most of the improved (increased?) operating income was put towards capital outflow?