avanderveen

In my experience at Maxis (2021-2024), EA 202X was quite a nice place to work

They might be willing to offer 1.4x. If you tell them you want at least 1.2x, they're probably not doing 1.4x. If you ask them what the range is and they tell you a range, you can at least ask them for the top of the range or more. Worst case they just say they can't do X but can do Y, and then you have more info to negotiate with. Way better than not knowing and leaving money on the table.

The last AMD chipset that supported Intel CPUs[1] was around the time of this fine.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_690_chipset_series

To me it feels like the original fine may have influenced by that. It would have discouraged Intel from offering these rebates to OEMs, giving AMD a chance to slowly get back into laptops. At the time Intel's mobile CPUs were far superior, but the same could not be said for their integrated GPUs, but IIRC the rebates required that OEMs go full Intel (CPU, GPU, chipset, and WiFi).

There were many people over many studies that were responsible for mRNA vaccines and you don't hear them agreeing. Robert Malone had a small contribution early on. He's probably stirring controversy for publicity's sake.

We still need there to be suitable alternatives, so there needs to be some regulation at least, to encourage competition and/or to prevent companies from reaching a point where there are no longer alternatives.

There's three independent issues here affecting users and developers:

1. People are tracked in ways they don't understand without their knowledge or consent.

2. Apple requires that in-app purchases go through the App Store.

3. Apple does not allow 3rd-party app stores.

These can all be independently tackled and it would be a shame to gate solutions for one problem on solving the others first or at the same time. For now, apps can change their business models to ensure profits. Later, when the other issues are taken care of, they can take advantage of that as well.

> non-productive for society

Why? I feel like a lot of people want to do things that are productive for society, that we have too little of right now. Things like producing art of all forms, building things, increasing their level of communication with those around them, participating in community events and activities, etc. Sure, these things aren't economically productive, but they're still productive for society, which is the gap that I'd like to see filled, whether by UBI or other forms of providing more security for the general population.

This is a problem because companies can use this ID to correlate private user data, without anyone's knowledge or consent.

There are companies that specialise in sharing user information. Some of them work by only sharing data with companies that first share data with them (an exchange).

If you got this Google ID, and you had a few other pieces of information about the user, you could share that data with an exchange, indicating that the Google ID is a unique identifier. Then, the exchange would check if it has a matching profile, add the information you provided to that profile, and then return all of the information they have for that profile to you.

So, let's say you're an online retailer, and you have Google IDs for your customers. You probably have some useful and sensitive customer information, like names, emails, addresses, and purchase histories. In order to better target your ads, you could participate in one of these exchanges, so that you can use the information you receive to suggest products that are as relevant as possible to each customer.

To participate, you send all this sensitive information, along with a Google ID, and receive similar information from other retailers, online services, video games, banks, credit card providers, insurers, mortgage brokers, service providers, and more! And now you know what sort of vehicles your customers drive, how much they make, whether they're married, how many kids they have, which websites they browse, etc. So useful! And not only do you get all these juicy private details, but you've also shared your customers sensitive purchase history with anyone else who is connected to the exchange.

I feel like I'm not understanding your comment.

Is it that you don't want IRS employees sitting around doing nothing?

Because if this resulted in losing $34B in revenue, it doesn't like they were sitting around doing nothing.

My gut instinct is that the mob might be a (potentially significant) factor here. I could be wrong, but this is their bread an butter after all: bribe politician to get large-scale infrastructure project and then artificially inflate costs (false purchase orders, buying materials from companies they operate in amounts that are far in excess or what's required and not actually shipping them, etc.) so that they can siphon away tax dollars.

All this talk of regulating Google, Facebook, Twitter. What about Visa and Mastercard? How is acceptable for so much power to rest in the hands of such a small number of companies?

Changing the UX for URLs in a browser that has overwhelming market share is going to change how people think about and assess the identity of websites they visit.

Over time, it could make other browsers feel less familiar, old fashioned, and maybe even shady for most people.

It may end up improving security for some (we'll see), but it may also improve the security of Chrome's market share (whether that's the motivation behind the move or not).

Semi-unrelated but, plenty of corporations see these fallacies as the best (and sometimes only) tools. In large markets money, political connections, and entrenched position are king.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism for details on political abuses, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry for examples of these fallacies.

There's no such thing as open market as long as there is also government and regulation (not that government or regulation are bad or anything).

But you're right, they're not the only tools. They're just (unfortunately) the strongest ones for those than can wield them.

Because HN readers aren't idiots. We know that it is good and right for sales tax to be charged on sales. And, that the sale occurring on the internet does not make it an essentially different thing than any other purchase of a good or service. I think that, for HN readers, is very important: the internet is a different marketplace, not a different reality, and to treat it differently in some aspects can lead to legal problems and credibility issues down the road.

In terms of the nightmare that is implementation, that is another story.