Oooooh I like this kind of retail sales news:
July 2024 was the 60th consecutive month of more than one million background checks for gun sales at retail.
Now that’s my idea of a Five-Year Plan.
Oooooh I like this kind of retail sales news:
July 2024 was the 60th consecutive month of more than one million background checks for gun sales at retail.
Now that’s my idea of a Five-Year Plan.
Let’s say that many years ago your company stopped producing a popular car model in the line-up. Now time has passed, and you want to reintroduce it, using the model’s old name in the hope of using its storied cachet to attract buyers.
Nothing wrong with that in principle, of course, but there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. Here’s the right way:
The original 1969 Dodge Charger Hemi R/T, a roaring, powerful and dangerous muscle car pushing 375hp:
The relaunched 2010s Dodge Charger (SRT Hellcat), a still-more powerful, even-more dangerous roaring monster pushing a jillion (okay, 700+hp):
The styling may have changed,the engineering improved, but the essence of the beast remained the same.
Now let’s look at the (oh-so very) wrong way to relaunch a brand. From Ford U.K.:
The original 1969 to mid-70s Ford Capri, a sporty, spirited and sexy little two-door number:
The 2025 proposed Ford Capri, a blocky, all-electric (!!!!) SUV (????):
…which retains absolutely nothing of the spirit of the original, and isn’t worthy of even carrying the name.
Someone From Marketing needs to get summoned into a windowless, soundproofed room for a four-hour ball-kicking. (And yes, I’m quite aware that a woke model like this may well have emanated from a womb-bearer, or someone with pretensions thereto. Or a committee — same thing, really.)
And no, I’m not taking bets that this abhorrent abortion of a vehicle is going to fail, abjectly and miserably.
Here’s a tale of how to screw up a franchise, perhaps the greatest franchise of them all:
Back in 2021, the bottom began dropping out of Disney stock, which had been worth around $175 a share before Disney decided to hyper-politicize its movies and TV shows. Disney specifically targeted little kids for grooming with gay-themed propaganda aimed at sexualizing them and encouraging them to question their gender.
Additionally, Disney destroyed some of its most beloved and profitable Golden Geese franchises—Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars, Willow, Indiana Jones, etc.—by turning them into left-wing propaganda videos obsessed with sexuality, race, and gender.
And the result?
In April the stock rallied to $123 per share, up from $91 per share at the beginning of the year. In Early May, Disney stock reached as high as $116. But all this year’s gains are now gone. Currently, the stock sits at just $90 per share.
It will probably sink still lower — perhaps as low as $70.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of wokist, child-grooming assholes. No corporation is too big to fail, and I hope this one perishes utterly.
…just take a little bite of this apple (from my Inbox):
As any fule kno, I’m NOT in the target market (so to speak) for one of these puppies, but sheesh… it sure is tempting.
Doc Russia had the best comment when I showed it to my buddies on WhatsApp:
It’s a good thing that by the time I get my guns out of hock, this sale will be over. And I don’t need yet another caliber in Ye Olde Ammoe Locquere anyway. (Keep talking, Kim…)
I remember having a discussion with one of my executive buddies a while back, talking about this whole business of shoving IT up into the “Cloud” and away from in-house (local) processing. My buddy, (who is still very active in business) stated that he would never, ever do that because of control concerns; I went even further and said that were I the CEO of a corporation and an executive even suggested such an action to me, I’d fire him on the turn.
Here’s the reason for my intransigence, and it’s a topic I’ve banged on about before: the allure of “convenience” without caring about (or intentionally disregarding) the risk of vulnerability. Here’s an example in a microcosm.
Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s we still did a lot of paper printing, as email communication of large files and documents was beyond the ability of most systems to accomplish large-scale dissemination. At the same time, though, systems were changing from stand-alone processing into networked systems, and the most obvious of these was in the area of shared printers (as opposed to each workstation having its own printer).
Of course, IT was all over the networked printing principle because, as one clueless IT person told me, “we only have to maintain and service one printer as opposed to dealing with several, so it’s more productive” — confusing, as I pointed out to him, their convenience with the user’s needs.
What, I asked him, was the point of sharing a single device when there’s a traffic jam of users waiting around the printer for their job to clear the queue? How productive was that, in the corporate sense, when one service technician would save time while half a dozen other workers were doing nothing? And even worse, of course, was the prospect of the printer failing altogether (for whatever reason), causing everybody to sit on their hands while the machine was being fixed or having its ink cartridge replaced; how productive was that scenario?
As I was beating my head against a corporate brick wall, I did what I normally do in such circumstances: I declared unilateral independence. I bought myself one of those HP500 inkjet printers (and black-ink cartridges) out of my own pocket and remained outside the system altogether, to the consternation of IT. (My boss, bless him, told them to go and fuck themselves — those exact words — when they asked him to strong-arm me into compliance.)
Then over the following six months I monitored the network printer activity and catalogued all the times it went down, then calculated the net cost to departmental productivity, and presented my findings to Management at our next inter-departmental meeting. (Basically, if the five largest users of the printers in our department had each had their own HP500, the department would have saved literally thousands of dollars in lost productivity. In fact, it would have been a zero-sum decision to equip each of those users with their own laser printer, never mind a cheapie HP500, and left “casual” printing — memos, etc. — on the network.)
I won the battle and lost the war, because IT took its revenge on me from then on by slow-walking all my projects — and I did a lot of those — through the system, using the “limited resources” argument because, I admit, my projects were resource intensive.
It did not help matters when personal computers came along. Of course, I was the first one to get one (out of my own pocket, again), enabling me to do a huge amount of developmental work independently of IT. The head of IT came into my office and asked me to give him a demonstration of my PC. I agreed to do it, but only after inviting my boss to sit in. Then I ran one of my routines on the PC and we sat for about ten minutes waiting for it to process. Of course, the IT guy sneered at the pace of the process, saying that the mainframe could have done the same job in seconds.
I then pointed out to my boss that the last time I had submitted an identical job through IT, I’d eventually got the output some three days later. (And yes, I had the documentation to substantiate it.)
My boss, bless him again, asked me if I could set up a PC for him because he too was sick of waiting for his jobs to get back to him.
A week later, Management received a proposal from IT to set up dumb terminals in all our offices so that we users would not have to become our own computer programmers. It was accepted by all the department managers except mine, who had in the interim found room in the budget to buy PCs for all the account executives, and tasked me with developing and delivering the necessary training. (I outsourced it to a buddy’s training company because I had things called “clients” who had greater need of my time.)
Anyway, I told you all that so I could talk about this.
You see, apart from any talk of productivity and convenience, the dirty little downside to Cloud-based single-source processing is that having a single source also means that there is an enormous risk when any bad actor or even incompetent actor (such as in the above case) gets to access the whole show. Single source also means incredibly-dangerous universal failure scenarios.
Ask the airlines, banks and hospitals affected by the above. And incidentally, state vehicle inspections in our area of north Texas were also affected in that their inspection equipment failed to operate — and the operators didn’t bother coming into work because why should they? And even when the systems did start working again, there was still a delay while the operators came back from their absence — machines and systems working: nobody to operate them.
As I discovered two days ago when I took my car in to be inspected, at two different locations hereabouts.
Now scroll back up and re-read the first paragraph of this post.
It appears that the brand-new Brit Foreign Secretary doesn’t have too high an opinion of our next President:
Britain’s newly installed top diplomat [David Lammy] has refused to back down from his past comments branding Donald Trump as a “neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath”.
Considering that he’s part of the Labour (a.k.a. Socialist) Party, that’s unsurprising.
What will be surprising (to him) is how Trump responds to this kind of non-diplomatic speech.
Because Trump is an Anglophile, he’s unlikely to expel the Brit Ambassador and freeze out the Labour Government — which is what I would do in similar circumstances — and to be frank, he’s heard worse from our own local Socialists.
Anyway, the real power in Britishland is not in the Labour government, but amongst the financiers in the City.
Kinda like the bond traders in Manhattan, really.
But understanding reality has never been a strong suit on the Left. Just wait and see, for example, what happens when they re-nationalize Britain’s railways.
(Can you spell “C-A-T-A-S-T-R-O-P-H-I-C F-A-I-L-U-R-E”, children?)
And the Izzies, of course, know exactly what side their bread is buttered on:
“Israelis and the prime minister remember very, very well the incredible support which President Trump, while he was in office, gave to this country,” said Israeli government spokesman David Mencer.
After the foreign policy failures of FJBiden’s administration, I suspect that more than a few countries feel the same way as Israel, and not like Britain.