AndresToro

100% agree, I've contributed for a couple of years now and headlines like this just brighten up my day knowing I've helped.

Whats your logic on hurting the authors more. You can either buy the book or buy the audio book, someone is buying the book and having a separate technology read the book they bought with the fact that not every book has an audio version. So this opens up the possibility that authors without an audio book can still sell their digital copies to people with text-2-speech opening new point of sales to people who buy audio books.

That logic is the same as if you bought the digital book and printed it and the publisher suing you because it hurts their physical sales. If you buy a book it should be a license to print, translate, and text-2-speech, or whatever.

I don't understand the logic that Amazon is doing this for greed or their shareholders. Amazon is the leading company, the number one cost in a business is labor period, they don't have to be early adopters they can be last one in, their business models have nothing to do with service members interacting extensively with customers. So there is no benefit for first one in profile margin sense, they are making less money today then they were yesterday and will continue to do so, from a business standpoint they are working at a disadvantage against any competitors right now.

If they are doing it to look good that means they are doing because they value looking good in terms of ethics, if that is true then they are essentially acting in the right. They could have easily went to $9 or $10 to avoid government penalties.

I don't believe they are this is from a study in 2015 written from Quora post in respects to a UK study.

I should have linked the US Nation Cancer Institute numbers

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html

As you can see from the graph and numbers this is respects to year over year analysis from 1980's, so I differ they are not growing. Worldwide my opinion is the prognosis has been getting more accurate and with pre screenings are ability to detect cancer is better then ever.

Shouldn't cancer rates among humans increase drastically in the 21st century since we shower the entirety of the US in 2G/3G/4G? Cancer statistics year over year show a steady decline of new cases even with population growth increasing, I assume this would be different with the hysteria this paper is claiming.