People who really hate GMOs tend to be at the intersection of being liberal and knowing very little science. Same with a lot of alternative medicine (homeopaty etc).framer wrote: ↑Apr 14, 2021I find it ironic that people who oppose GMOs tend to be more liberal, and otherwise pro-science, while those who generally accept them tend to be more conservative, and more skeptical of science. It's kind of like the playbook has been flipped on this one (keep in mind, scientists have been assuring us for decades that GMOs are perfectly safe for human consumption).
Right, and correct me if I'm wrong as it's been a long time since I last looked into it, but isn't there an argument to be made about GMO resulting in reducing genetic diversity of seeds?framer wrote: ↑Apr 14, 2021scientists have been assuring us for decades that GMOs are perfectly safe for human consumption
Also, GMO is a key part in allowing the crops to be sprayed directly with glyphosate and dicamba, right?
Just so I'm clear on the whole corporate acquisition rebranding business, the company that we currently refer to as "AT&T" is in fact the company that was formerly known as SBC Communications, and before that Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, which was until 1983 a subsidiary of the original AT&T Corporation? Specifically, when SBC became AT&T in 2005, it wasn't a case of the original AT&T acquiring one of its baby bells, but rather one of the baby bells acquiring its former parent company, right? SBC bought the original AT&T, and then renamed itself AT&T. But the AT&T we know today has only existed since 1983. The original AT&T Corporation is now a subsidiary of the AT&T, Inc. (formerly SBC), right?dredger wrote: ↑Apr 13, 2021I think Gary nails it on last two words in his comments. My two cents on ATT, talk about company that has made some real bad acquisitions and truly behind the curve on most of them. Now they find themselves in position of trying to invest just enough 5G but not enough because of their debt load while at some time passing things off with marketing tricks and poor customer service.gary kreie wrote: ↑Apr 13, 2021I was thinking Whitacre also. When he moved SW Bell (now AT&T) to San Antonio, he said,
″This move will put us closer to more of our major growth markets and customers,″ Whitacre said. ″Another consideration is our work with Telmex, the Mexican telephone company. That’s an important market for us, and San Antonio serves as the gateway to Mexico.″
So now that SW Bell is AT&T and a national company, St. Louis is now closer to the center of it's customers than Texas. On the other hand, AT&T stock price performance has been dismal, especially compared to other tech and comm stocks. You have have to wonder if the tower downtown would be empty now even if SW Bell had stayed. Poor management.
I also think ATT would have made the leap to Dallas and or Atlanta even if SW Bell didn't move to San Antonio in first place. In addition, ATT truly went through a office diet and incorporated shared workspace well before Covid so 909 Chestnut most likely be empty at end of day. From business perspective, reducing their real estate footprint it is probably one of their smarter decisions as of late.
I believe Whitaker also did quite a bit of damage to General Motors in the brief period in which he was the CEO of that company as well.
The script has been flipped is how I would phrase it. It all makes perfect sense when you understand that that is all it is, a script. No irony necessary.framer wrote: ↑Apr 14, 2021I find it ironic that people who oppose GMOs tend to be more liberal, and otherwise pro-science, while those who generally accept them tend to be more conservative, and more skeptical of science. It's kind of like the playbook has been flipped on this one (keep in mind, scientists have been assuring us for decades that GMOs are perfectly safe for human consumption).
The reality is that there are equal numbers of people intensely distrustful of authority on both ends of the political spectrum. And there are idealogues across the political spectrum who manipulate that distrust to promote their agenda.
Yikes. There are an awful lot of really sh*tty people in that thread.Trololzilla wrote: ↑Apr 14, 2021Ugh. Lotta gross comments on NextSTL. I've really gotta stop reading them.quincunx wrote: ↑Apr 12, 2021Nextstl - Harland Bartholomew: Destroyer of the Urban Fabric of St. Louis
https://nextstl.com/2021/04/harland-bar ... -st-louis/
- 2,929
That's a bingo.DTGstl314 wrote: ↑Apr 15, 2021Just so I'm clear on the whole corporate acquisition rebranding business, the company that we currently refer to as "AT&T" is in fact the company that was formerly known as SBC Communications, and before that Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, which was until 1983 a subsidiary of the original AT&T Corporation? Specifically, when SBC became AT&T in 2005, it wasn't a case of the original AT&T acquiring one of its baby bells, but rather one of the baby bells acquiring its former parent company, right? SBC bought the original AT&T, and then renamed itself AT&T. But the AT&T we know today has only existed since 1983. The original AT&T Corporation is now a subsidiary of the AT&T, Inc. (formerly SBC), right?dredger wrote: ↑Apr 13, 2021I think Gary nails it on last two words in his comments. My two cents on ATT, talk about company that has made some real bad acquisitions and truly behind the curve on most of them. Now they find themselves in position of trying to invest just enough 5G but not enough because of their debt load while at some time passing things off with marketing tricks and poor customer service.gary kreie wrote: ↑Apr 13, 2021I was thinking Whitacre also. When he moved SW Bell (now AT&T) to San Antonio, he said,
″This move will put us closer to more of our major growth markets and customers,″ Whitacre said. ″Another consideration is our work with Telmex, the Mexican telephone company. That’s an important market for us, and San Antonio serves as the gateway to Mexico.″
So now that SW Bell is AT&T and a national company, St. Louis is now closer to the center of it's customers than Texas. On the other hand, AT&T stock price performance has been dismal, especially compared to other tech and comm stocks. You have have to wonder if the tower downtown would be empty now even if SW Bell had stayed. Poor management.
I also think ATT would have made the leap to Dallas and or Atlanta even if SW Bell didn't move to San Antonio in first place. In addition, ATT truly went through a office diet and incorporated shared workspace well before Covid so 909 Chestnut most likely be empty at end of day. From business perspective, reducing their real estate footprint it is probably one of their smarter decisions as of late.
I believe Whitaker also did quite a bit of damage to General Motors in the brief period in which he was the CEO of that company as well.