wh0knows

I was referencing the article which seems to indicate it’s more than just a buy box issue.

> Today, Amazon tells sellers that if it detects a lower price for their products on any other online store, they will be punished, which is to say, their ability to get their products onto a place on the Amazon website where customers click will go away. The net effect, as Amazon itself wrote, is that "prices will go up."

Amazon isn’t recommending “more expensive” items to consumers, it’s offering different products. It should be recommending the best product for the user at the price it can offer the product at.

The fact that the product exists $1 cheaper on another site does not make it not the best recommendation for the customer’s need. If I search “tablet” are you saying I should be recommended a cheap off brand tablet promoted to me because Amazon has the cheapest price or an iPad even though I can buy an iPad on apple.com for $10 cheaper?

Reddit already made an exception for accessibility focused apps, so your last statement is not accurate.

For your first point, the moderators don’t own the subreddits they moderate, so the users should not have to attempt to recreate a community every time they encounter a power-tripping moderator. The moderators are stewards that are supposed to reflect the desires of the community, not owners who get to control the ability to use that community based on their whims.

> I'm supposed to believe that the cost to Twitter to deliver ad-free and tracking-free text streams is higher than the cost for Netflix/Google to stream unlimited HD video to all of my devices on demand.

The price is not based on the cost to provide the service, it’s based on the current or potential revenue they can bring in via ads. A company won’t switch revenue models if it means a 50% reduction in revenue.

I went through an Air Canada lost baggage fiasco this Christmas.

The bag was lost for 9 days, with zero updates on the tracing report. The last update was in the connecting airport. We managed to find it, sitting placed at the destination airport with a few hundred other bags, tags were 100% fine on our bags and the others. At any point someone could have walked through, scanned the bags, and updated the tracing reports. But nobody did.

This isn’t because the tags were ripped off, it’s because it’s Air Canada’s SOP.

They usually attach a barcode wrapped around a handle AND a sticker placed somewhere else as a backup. The warehouse had thousands of bags, it would be an unprecedented number of bags to have both lost their bag tags, the backup sticker, AND did not have an additional personal tag attached.

Most of the money made by credit card companies is from the transaction fees paid by the merchant. Credit card companies would still be immensely profitable without receiving a cent of interest.

[Edit] This was my understanding but some fact checking on Google proved the majority of income is from interest payments.

While hydrogen might end up "being the future" this prediction has as much substance (perhaps less as there is no scaled up application of the technology) as Musk's claim.

Just want to make the point that the idea of hydrogen still having a lot of potential and is worth investigating is a better claim than making a somewhat baseless assertion that hydrogen is the certain way forward over batteries.

I don't think this is true, because if our civilization collapsed there would be an abundance of resources that we previously harvested at the surface

It is just shocking that you would be on mongoDB and move away from it for horizontal sharding. As some one who has never used mongo that seems like the only reason to use it

It's incorrect to assume that the existence of signature validation would kill this use-case.

Similar to how the existence of HTTPS does not kill the ability to transmit data over HTTP and visit sites with no certificate or a non-trusted certificate.

It could be as simple as a pop-up saying, "this QR code is not validated, continue anyway"?

On Instagram the poster matters, on Reddit the poster does not. This means it's completely different. A random made-up user on Instagram will have no audience, a random made-up user on Reddit will. Additionally, Instagram has an opportunity to form a relationship with the popular users and can control their accounts in specific if it wishes.

I don't think this article is very useful. It doesn't adequately provide an introduction to OCaml code (or adequately explain what a given code snipped is doing) and yet frequently defers to just code to explain a concept. It's an unrealistic expectation to expect an unfamiliar reader to simultaneously infer what a particular code snippet is doing then also go a level deeper and understand the concept that is trying to be presented.

This article is most readable to those who already understand OCaml code, and if you can already read OCaml code you already understand these concepts.

I would say you are in the minority of consumers, most will just chase the lowest price.

Additionally, most people will look at third-party repair shops as a way to get a discount from Apple's prices, not to pay more.

This isn't necessarily true.

If a 10m pop area has a 70-30 split, it's still better to campaign there than a 5m pop area with a 50-50 split. In absolute numbers it's still 3 million supporters versus 2.5 million supporters.

I had heard about him a few times and I avoided listening to it for the same reason, the show lengths were a complete non-starter. But I decided to give it a try and for the topics/guests that I found interesting the show lengths seem actually necessary to dive into the depth and breadth of topics that are covered.

I personally only listen to the episodes where I have an interest in the topics or the guests themselves i.e. the intellectuals, nutritionists, incredible athletes, and scientists. In this way I use the podcast as more of a medium to experience the guests rather than listening for Rogan himself (although I do appreciate his generally progressive views and genuine intellectual curiosity). Even if I tried I can't imagine devoting 3+ hours to a comedian or MMA fighter talking about whatever.

I think the author touches on this in the article, the audiences of the podcast are quite diverse and many are only interested in a subset of the content. The diversity and neutrality of Rogan allows it to act as a neutral medium to be exposed to an in-depth view of a variety of topics and people that you would not have the opportunity to experience otherwise.

It sounds like you're describing a much different biking culture than is the one in the Netherlands. For a minor stop here it will take less than 10 seconds to park a bike. Usually there's bike parking or a stand on the street right in front of the shop, no need to look for anything, nobody wears helmets when biking in the Netherlands, and if you're not parking for a long time you just lock the back wheel by pulling out the key- no chain involved at all. So what this looks like in practice is hopping off your bike right in front of the shop/cafe/bar/restaurant and pulling out the key- that's it.

I would argue yes. Happiness is just a chemical reaction in your brain, whether it's through natural environmental factors or drugs, it's the same reaction. The issue is that we've yet to find a drug that can provide unlimited happiness without side effects that make taking the drug not worth it. If there is no tangible difference in the result what is the point in the distinction between how you got there?

I think you're getting the sentiment mixed up. People aren't sacrificing their own wellbeing in order to increase their company's, but rather, they find the work they do personally sayisfying and rewarding.

For instance, I enjoy my job, I don't dread Mondays. I like my coworkers and the work atmosphere, I enjoy creating tangible value and I find the success of my work projects intrinsically satisfies me. But at the same time, I don't work weekends, I don't work outside my ~40 hours, and I don't sacrifice my wellbeing for my job. So I work hard because of the personal satisfaction, I don't do it to make already rich people even richer. I don't know how it is for others, but personally if I didn't get some level of internal satisfaction and motivation from how I spent the working time of the best years of my life I would be quite depressed.

No, the author is making a sweeping generalization about ALL tech startups in an article published on a news website.

The commenter on a forum is simply asserting that these facts are not true about ALL tech startups, and it's perfectly valid to discredit a generalization about ALL with one anecdote.

Take a look at the FIRE community, or anybody who is interested in a self-funded retirement.

Most people who are the ones renting and investing large amount are not buying single stocks, they are buying broad index funds that encompass the entire market and are rebalanced to keep an even representation.

These broad index funds going to zero is not a very likely scenario outside of total anarchy. It would mean all publicly traded companies becoming worthless and you would be much more worried about acquiring water, shelter, food, and protecting yourself from looters than anything else (in this scenario I would imagine the piece of paper saying your house is yours would not be worth very much either).

Now think of the much more likely scenario of a local real-estate market collapsing, uninsured natural disaster destroying your house, or climate change making your area unliveable, and you can see which proposition is really the riskier one.

If you don't sell your house you don't profit you only pay more in property taxes.

The thing is it doesn't, that's the point. If I want to rent to keep flexibility and invest my money in stocks in order to retire I am at a decided disadvantage than somebody who buys a house and has it appreciate to double its initial value. In the vast majority of countries this appreciation is free from capital gains tax, or the house's value is not taken into account in the wealth tax. So why is the house owner rewarded for saving and putting money in a mortgage and the renter penalised by capital gains/wealth taxes?