smachiz

It doesn't help that I think most women would prefer (or perhaps think most men would prefer) that their bra says 32DD instead of 40A. Especially since lots of people get sized when they're in their teens and don't adjust until it becomes really problematic.

I think that was true long before robo calling was a big thing.

Since texting and even back from the AIM/IRC generation - when I was in college 20 years ago, with T9, people were already primarily were texting not calling.

Isn't that basically what they did? I think the FCC authorized the disconnection of a handful of service providers, and has been aggressively sending notices to others.

https://www.engadget.com/robocall-company-may-receive-the-la...

Are you referring to STIR/SHAKEN that is a requirement and has been/is being rolled out?

I'm not sure how much was commercial benefit vs lazyness/no incentive to solve the issue directly - the telcos aren't making a lot of money on inbound calling. It's just a problem that didn't impact them directly - only their customers.

kill the pig

https://krisp.ai might work for you?

Generally, for tax purposes, it's the address of the customer for cloud services. If they give you a NL address, you tax according to Dutch law. If they give you a DE address, you tax according to German laws, regardless of where services are actually provisioned.

It would not be that difficult to pay EU taxes based on % of revenue attributed to each country. I.e. if you made $1B, and 70% of your revenue came from The Netherlands, and 30% came from Germany, you'd pay Dutch taxes on $700M and German taxes on $300M.

This was, in my experience, not true. Ask most Tesla owners as well.

The heavier car + much better acceleration created more tire wear than any improvements to traction control from faster power response (though I'm not sure intrinsically why that would reduce wear - ICE cars can apply brakes to a slipping tire just as well as an EV, and instant torque doesn't feel like it would do anything positive for tire wear).

Fitting lower rolling resistance tires on ICE cars would provide any of the same benefits that EVs receive.

It does have a robust 3rd party app marketplace... with fees.

Amazon could sell books if they wanted to, they would just have to pay Apple.

I don't think anyone would make that decision; the bar for good enough is pretty low, and if you won't get any incremental revenue (no one is selling or advertising on the various parameters of audio quality), why would you spend that money?

I mean that's literally yield maximization - you don't need to capture all the demand for a given good or service. You just need to capture the right mix of it. I would broadly say that I don't think anyone who goes to a typical Arena concert is making their buying decision on the audio quality.

The bar for good enough is pretty low.

Interesting that you mention the kindle - wouldn't it also be nice to be able to buy Apple Books on your Kindle hardware? You also can't do that. You can root some Kindles and install other software, but is more or less like jailbreaking an iPhone.

The issue I have with people going after Apple is that _everyone_ does this more or less.

Broadly, I have the fewest complaints about the restrictions in Apple's ecosystem as a user.

What are the variable "fixed" costs? And when are they incurred?

This is about revenue maximization, not user enjoyment maximization or fairness maximization.

Ultimately I don't think most artists actually want revenue maximization - they're probably far more interested in fairness maximization in ensuring their fan base of all economic strata get to see them live.

I mean... a little disingenuous. AMZN was a $10-20B publicly traded company at that time. When is it a startup vs a product offering of an established company?

That's only true if they're not in a rapid growth phase.

There are other ways to make money from stocks - and stock appreciation is likely a bigger driver to the average investor (and most pro investors).

Your guess is as good as mine, but I would assume yes for any revenue they generate.

From the presentation: "Microsoft Cloud includes Azure and other cloud services, Office 365 Commercial, the commercial portion of LinkedIn, Dynamics 365, and other cloud properties."

That was a direct quote from the release:

> “This quarter Microsoft Cloud revenue was $25.7 billion, up 24% (up 31% in constant currency) year-over-year. We continue to see healthy demand across our commercial businesses including another quarter of solid bookings as we deliver compelling value for customers,” said Amy Hood, executive vice president and chief financial officer of Microsoft.

From the presentation: "Microsoft Cloud includes Azure and other cloud services, Office 365 Commercial, the commercial portion of LinkedIn, Dynamics 365, and other cloud properties."

No need to be hostile (and right and wrong simultaneously).

I'm not sure that's true... 99% of dwellings in, say, NYC are Condos, Coops or Rentals - and all buildings have management agents (or acting as your own as an individual for a building) on file with the NYC Department of Buildings.

Requiring a letter explicitly allowing a listing from the managing agent on record prior to publishing the listing wouldn't be particularly onerous. Of course their listings would drop dramatically since most aren't by the book, but feature not a bug?

Why does it have to be a third party? Can't it just be someone on the board who lives in the building?

Couldn't you just throw some security cams up at the entrances and just track coming and going and total stay time? You'd only have to review footage after a reasonable suspicion.

There's a lot of 2.5G copper stuff on the market now - lots being driven by 6E access points.

I assume there's no reason that you can't use a 2.5G copper SFP module to connect to this also?

It might surprise you to know that in fact kitchen utensils and what they're made out of is regulated in the USA - and I assume most other industrialized countries.

https://www.compliancegate.com/plastic-kitchen-products-regu...

The issue is decentralization != no regulation, and lots of crypto folks seem to think that they should build systems that cannot be regulated and expect that to be compatible with modern society.

That’s not forgery. That’s inflation.

You only get a net positive income for producing gold if the price is higher than the cost of production.

Gold is not, and has never been, immune to forgery. Science has made it harder, but still happens all the time. See: gold plating, gold alloys, etc.

Except that we have regulations for banks and brokerages for how they must operate, what sort of cash reserves they have, and how they must conduct audits. And they pay into an insurance program (FDIC/SIPC) to return money to depositors if they collapse.

nginx or other reverse proxy running SSL - don't open ports directly to any of the apps.

You should also run fail2ban on everything.

The one common thread is that neither Lyft nor Uber drivers have any idea how they get paid, or why they got paid $X instead of $Y even though the customer said they're paying $ZZ for the ride.

My anecdotal experience recently is that Uber is much better at communicating a lot of hand wavy reasons why it's not them that are impacting their net pay $random_government_entity taking all your money. Or I've just gotten some especially out there drivers recently.

How do you validate that they own the bank accounts if you don't know who the user is?

The point of KYC is to make money laundering harder (and other transactions that the various governments want to track/police). To that extent, yes, they need to be able to show a regulator who was making those transactions.

The actual funding source/bank behind them won't see any detail beyond "privacy.com".

Any card issuer (or virtual card issuer) has to do this.

> Who gets to defines the risk?

Free market insurance actuaries.

>Does it matter if a place gets a powerful earthquake every 5 years or 20 years?

Yes, of course.

>The entire premise of the suggestion is simply nonsense.

No, just needs more science and economics math on what makes sense and are reasonable lines to draw.

> More people are killed in high crime areas than in storm prone areas, and they are killed daily.

Do you have stats that back this up on a per capita basis?

> Do we tell people they can't live there, either?

If you can ascertain that the above is true per capita and that the federal government is footing the bill through social security survivorship benefits, maybe. The objection is not that people can't live and where they want - it's that they expect someone else to subsidize it.

Life insurance takes into account where you live. In non-FEMA flood insurance areas, flood insurance is significantly more expensive.

>If you don't take any risk then you are not really living.

The issue is they aren't taking risks - they're socializing their risks onto people who don't live in flood zones.

If they were actually taking the risk of having to rebuild, we wouldn't be having this conversation.