inkaudio

This is for stock sales which they did not restrict. Robinhood stopped the purchase of stock which does not require a collateral because the money is coming directly from the users cash balance. Don’t believe whatever they say, RH action was specifically to stop the short squeeze.

If the pandemic continues for another 9 months probably if not things are going to get worse, because people are going to go out a lot more when the pandemic is over and order delivery’s much less.

This is a regulatory response to Silicon Valley’s implementation of predatory pricing.

Let me explain:

Predatory pricing is defined as “the pricing of goods or services at such a low level that other suppliers cannot compete and are forced to leave the market.”

For silicon valley startups like Doordash and Grubhub this is accomplished by acquiring customers at a significant loss in ways that may often seem idiotic.

example: Doordash and Pizza Arbitrage https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23216852

The End game is to be the dominant food ordering platform in any given town where you get to dictate rates like 25%.

Since predatory pricing is illegal, this response is justified. However, it would be better if regulators enforce predatory pricing rules to begin with, which they rarely ever do.

for more info on predatory pricing rules in America see: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

Yes, and the author is misinformed to think that Peloton can lose the customers who take their online classes to Apple free options. People take classes for the inspiration and guidance from the teachers. Before Apple there were plenty of free options so this isn’t new, fitness is and will continue to be a very competitive market.

There are number of tech companies directly competing in this space:

https://standard.ai/

https://grabango.com/

https://www.getzippin.com/

https://www.v7labs.com/retail

https://www.getzippin.com/

There are competitive options, if you’re in retail you do not have to give Amazon all your “retail data” or use their tech.

Uber limits the amount of rides you can deny, i.e. you deny 5 rides in 30min they log you off the platform after awhile you get penalized. They want high acceptance rate.

That speed limit is not enforced enough to make it impactful

Climate change is a red herring, air pollution is a clear and present danger. India and China have ignored this in the past and now they are making some efforts to correct course because people are dying from it.

They focus on the team because that’s the how startups raise money these days, investors figure they could always pivot to something else. Obviously this can be problematic especially when the founder(s) is good at raising money, see Wework

That is a hypothetical used to promote a narrative, all the test & observations presented show all mutations must be present for specialization. The Monarch only feeds on milkweed, but somehow it survived the A119s phase feeding on milkweed plant (CG-containing plant)without the needed 111& 122 mutation?

In an hypothetical adaptive walk. A119S does NOT provide sufficient CG-insensitivity so an insect with just A119S will die specializing in CG. The are other mutations needed for survival.

Moreover u left out: “A119S is a common substitution among taxa that do not specialize on CG-containing hostplants“

Natural selection is undefeated. Therefore the need for immediate substitutions to sites 111 & 122 in order to specialize on “CG-containing hostplants“

An adaptive walk has to show adaptation in the environment. If all the mutations occur outside the natural environment, without natural selection, it is not an adaptive walk.

These are sequential, it could not have naturally.

Not two, but three mutations. The first & second induced mutations gives the fruit fly immunity to the poison but the mutations are also lethal, which means the fly could not survive long enough for the third needed mutation to occur in an adaptive walk. The third mutation is like a stabilizer of the first & second mutation, it does not give immunity. In the test all three mutations are needed simultaneously for the fly to have the immunity and survive, that is not an adaptive walk, that is incredible engineering. So essentially you can engineer a monarch butterfly, but an adaptive walk is impossible in this case. (Writing on the go, may edit later)

When you charge far less than the actual cost of service you're going to get demand that does not reflect the actual market, hence not true "true" supply and demand. If I was selling dollar bills for 50 cents I would sell a lot of dollars bills. We've seen this before it's called Groupon. A key difference between Uber and Groupon is there are more drivers to con then there are businesses. Uber is losing billions dollars subsidizing rides, that is not a legitimate market. This is a farce to sell a growth story to raise capital and allow early investors to make huge gains, again see Groupon.

Uber was saying drivers could make 90k a year back in 2014 see: https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-drivers-salary-90000-20...

Which lead to this https://www.vox.com/2017/2/28/14766964/video-uber-travis-kal...

Uber drivers are fighting the wrong fight in this case. They should focus on fighting for a minimum wage that accounts for expenses. Uber's edge is not their technology, their edge is the ability to burn billion dollars a quarter subsidizing rides. Uber is masking customer demand and this sort of behavior is anticompetitive and should not be allowed in an industry as critical as transportation.

Case in point, when Uber/Lyft was forced to pay their drivers a minimum wage that accounted for expenses, Uber and Lyft stopped accepting new drivers in New York City. They were force to act according to true supply and demand.

Link: https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/29/18522885/uber-lyft-not-ac...

Slack has some customers that are willing to pay, there are millions of people who use Slack for free, Slack needs to find a cost effective way to cover those expenses. Slack service is not remotely unique, their competitors both large and small are profitable ie Basecamp/Microsoft/Google

This was the path all viable social networks were heading, than Facebook bought those willing to sell, Instagram & WhatsApp. So no, the problem is Facebook, in particular Facebook method of operation. Things would have been better if Instagram & WhatsApp did not sell to them or it was blocked by regulators. These companies would be serious competitors that operated differently.

Stop repeating this, it is wrong. Uber copied Lyft, Uber was initially another high end black car/limo service, the whole history was documented on TechCrunch articles, here is one to start: https://techcrunch.com/2012/05/22/zimrides-lyft-is-going-to-...

Jesus Christ never claimed to be God but the Son of God, one single verse was taken completely out of context, but if you're familiar with his teaching it clearly emphasised his subordination to God.

Bible book of John chapter 14 verse 28 latter part: the father is greater than I am

The vast majority of mainstream Christian is corrupt. This is important to note cause much debate about the merits of Christianity are based on teachings & behavior that are not Christian

why not put resources/effort towards gimmebar instead of a new svpply ?

Are you guys pursuing Real Estate and Restaurant Industries[1] ? Both industries continue to produce some of the worst websites.

[1]http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/08/...

The elephant in the room that nobody is talking about here is they gave away too much. They could have adjusted their freemium model. Why not contact people using a lot of resources ? Let them know the best way to keep the services up at the current clip is for them to start paying.

Faith has and should always means trust in someone or something based on some form of evidence. It is the con men that sells irrational belief as faith. Irrational belief is extremely dangerous. We have hundreds of years of futile wars fought in the name of religion, many conflict today are "faith" based. Reason is the only way we can decided if something is right or wrong, irrational belief as law can only create chaos and/or despotism.

Have you not read textbook that explained specialized traits as reaction to the environment ? How could that be possible when these traits are needed immediately. You miss the point, why don't we have thousands of animals with the ability to hibernate that don't need them ? Of course traits don't have to evolve rapidly if you already have them or don't need them. But why would you already have the ability to hibernate efficiently if you don't need it ? Why would a bird of prey evolve the ability to hunt from the skies at relative high speed before it can fly ? I'm sorry I read the books there are no legitimate answers. Like said I love science and technology.

The reason I ask about the how long flight took to evolve was because it was argued that evolution does not take thousands of years, and that's not true.

I've read the books that's why I see the paradox. I'm not playing games, if there are factual answers I would not be asking questions here. If an animal could survive for thousands of years without hibernating there would be no reason for it. It could even prove disastrous making the animal easy prey.

Moreover the dynamics of traveling underwater and flying in air are different. Features that are great for flight are not so great for traversing underwater for an extended period of time. There are animals that can glide today, but even there ability to glide has to evolve, and during that evolutionary process an evolving glider is a disadvantage. It is not neutral, it slows the animal down. If you are going to debate with conviction your answer should not be "I don't really know".

Yes, biology is far finished so let's not pretend like it is.

I did not say there is no variation in population. Animals that survive have the ability to survive before environmental pressures. Why ? Yes there are variations among animals, and those that have the trait for survival, survive. The argument is how do these variations that survive get these important trait ? Especially when these traits are specialized to the environment. How do they evolve these specialized traits in time ?

Of course not every species would find a way to adapt. The issue is species have to be equipped to survive. How they get there ? Survival isn't passive but active. How do you survive a change in season with no time to adapt. For example animals that can hibernate must have that ability before it is required. But why would it evolved that ability in the first place ? Why is it that the animals that can hibernate are the ones that can't survive without it ?

No strawman here, how long did it take for birds to evolve ability to fly ? A few days ?

I believe in physics. Do you believe we understand everything about physics ? we don't. For example gravity, there still much to learn about the force behind gravity.

Yes, those best equipped ! But how do you get it equipped ? That's the issue. Yes, not everything survives. But those that survive have all the specialized equipment needed to survive because ?

Don't underestimate natural selection. Animals need essential traits to survive at birth. Now consider that most animals are specialized to their environment, how did they get to that point ? What did an Eagle do before it eyes became specialized for air to ground hunting ? How did it survive before it can fly ? How did these animals survive is these environment during their evolution ? That's the paradox, natural selection works too well for evolution by gradual mutation to work.

That is what I said. That is my point.