asdfaoeu

I think the general argument is that the stores are not competitive and providing a low value service (having scams and subscription traps) while collecting a large amount of proceeds from developers.

I'm sure they will still sell but they may be harder to sell if Nike is blocking sales. In addition we don't really know the full value of the settlement. Potentially Nike will get some cut of the profit of the shoes not returned.

Would they not just be able to transport more feed? (At least for most)

Also, for some businesses it may just not make sense as the cost of stockpiling is more than the occasional loss of productivity.

But there are private actors stockpiling them? The article notes they had 1m TEU in storage.

In addition, there's only one case too where it changes back to the original and that's a minor In, in change.

Edit: The only example of clickbait here is OP's title.

There are usually listing requirements that require that the public owns a large portion of the shares in the case of the NASDAQ it seems to be 10%. If the company hasn't already sold these shares they would have to sell them on day 1.

Maybe those other companies are just rolling the price into the cost of the goods? I looked here at a competitor and they were both charging AUD$69 for the delivery of a sofa.

He literally just said they wouldn't hesitate to kick you out on the street if they had to

That document is not saying they are "worth" less than in America but that they are undervalued which I imagine a lot of them would agree with.

Is that all states? That just sounds like VAT

Just to add as well the point of a company isn't to survive forever but rather make a return on the investment. For a lot of these retailers it's somewhat inevitable e-commerce will take a large portion of their marketshare. The best move might just be to extract profit while they remain above water.

According to some leaked info SpaceX is paying $2400 per terminal.

From some rudimenatary googling it's based on the value of the goods. So unless your cargo is expensive you wouldn't pay nearly as much. Unless there were expenditures there's no way you would be out more than its worth. Also because if this they'd likely load extremely valuable cargo in positions were it's not likely to be lost or jettisoned.

Tbf if you that was the case you probably aren't the type of person to install a voice activated microphone from them either.

Salaries are based on market rates not "cost of living". If you want your employer to pay a higher salary either move to another city where they would pay more or find another company. There's not much else you can do that would convince your company otherwise.

Electron seems to have support in recent beta releases.

That uses hardware virtualization which is very much dependent on the architecture. Running an x86 docker image on a M1 would take a significant performance penalty.

IKEAs around here will give you any spare bolts, screws etc.

Sounds like they should increase taxes in California to encourage businesses to move to other states.

> How could Apple even try to tax this?

Have their own advertising platform which they take a 30% cut and ban any app that uses a competing platform the same way they do with IAP.

That would be fine if only the founders were shareholders but there are also other shareholders.

Well 10 minutes is way less than 3 hours.

Not GP but from memory this was the same incident: https://www.wired.com/2011/02/bing-copies-google/

It's worthwhile noting that the courts have been holding media companies responsible for the comments on their pages which I imagine at least some part of the motivation for this.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/media-companies-liable-f...

I've never heard of any jurisdiction where unconditional refunds are required. A lot do require refunds if the product is faulty but that's different.

Countries protect their domestic companies all the time.

Except for the vertical scaling all of that can be done with asgs/elbs.

47 upvotes, no comments. I'm guessing no one understands this.

Your case is more clear cut because that is a glitch in the website. It seems that in this case Doordash is offering a promotion. Calling that fraud would be like calling taking advantage of reward points fraud.