Well, I'm a little scared of them using the store to force the UE4 engine down people's throat. If big enough, it'd be a clever way to get 5% of Steam, etc. sales too.
And as one can see from the video streaming market, no one comes in with lower prices
Seems like a stupid statement, because the article we are responding to is about someone coming in with lower prices. And my comment was about that company. So, clearly, it does happen
There is also a huge difference between cloud services (B2B) and video streaming (B2C). This feels more analogous to cloud services, because while it is fracturing the userbase, the ultimate customer is the developer. They're the ones paying the fee. So, I hope this does very well, and leads someone to do the same in cloud hosting.
This one only charge 12% for third-party developers. The others charge 30%. This is a huge motion. I only hope Steam, Apple, etc. follow them down to 12%, and Epic doesn't drift up to 30% after they get some market share.
Market fragmentation is bad cause you need multiple clients. It's great because this is the first store to move away from Apple's 30% cut. Apple, Google, Amazon, Steam, Microsofts various stores... It's like how MS Azure, AWS and Google all have the same storage costs (and have for a while as storage has gotten cheaper.) It takes a new entrant to decide to offer lower prices to steal people for that whole "competition/free market" thing to move in an oligopoly.
The "dark" side of the moon is the one that's tidally locked to point away from the earth. It gets the same amount of direct sunlight (although less total light, because it doesn't get reflected earth light.) It has more small craters because it gets hit more often (although the earth doesn't shield it that much) by meteorites.
TL;DR dark meaning unknown or mysterious, not dim.
No way they'll succeed. The secret moon base on the far side of the moon will blow up that spacecraft before it gets close. Gotta make it look like an accident though!
Bezos has never done things to be "a huge windfall for Amazon shareholders". He's been running the whole company at almost zero retained profit, dumping cash into expansion at every opportunity. He's never really cared about shareholders like that. Why would he suddenly change now?
Investing in Amazon is like investing in a startup. You know all the cash is going to grow, and you hope it becomes super-profitable later. Which is kinda cool that he's been able to maintain that for decades.
Bang is an alternate name for the exclamation mark, depending on how it is used. Similar to how # could be a "pound sign" a "number sign" or "hashtag". Typically a bang is used in a word. For instance, to represent a tongue cluck sound used in some languages. On DDG, it's used to precede a short description that tells how to search. !g (pronounced "bang g") searches google, !w searches wikipedia, etc.
Some buyer realtors now offer to split the commission with you. Since the commission is baked into the price of the house already (paid by the seller), it amounts to a 1.5% decrease. Even if you could get a selling realtor to return your calls (which tehy tend not to do cause it's a cabal), they're not going to split the commission with you.
Now, you're right that you're not going to want to let your realtor do the negotiating. They may offer advise and arguments however, and I would consider them.
So, you don't understand probabilities. Because you listed a bunch of "potential side effects". But if those happen 1 in a billion times, and they solve a real problem (fix a condition that makes your life miserable, or just cuts your risk of heart attack in half) it's more than worth it. By focusing solely on possibilities, and not probabilities, you're making your life worse.
You also have no idea how the drug crisis started. People didn't start with heroin. Most times, they got addicted to oxy or something else prescribed, then moved to street drugs when their doctor wouldn't refill their prescription or because heroin is 1/10th the price.
intellectual property theft, non-tariff barriers and cyber theft
I agree all those are issues. But this doesn't solve any of them. All Trump got was the agreement to talk about those issues. Which Clinton got, W. got and Obama got. Nothing came out of those talks then, and nothing has come out of Trump's policies either.
TL;DR this isn't a solution. Call me when he actually solves a problem.
The problem with Fentanyl isn't Fentanyl pills... it's Fentanyl spiked heroin/whatever. Cause that lets them cut the underlying drug more. So, you have heroin of unknown quality and it's too strong.
Part of it is the various tolerances, but a bigger problem is the difficultly measuring (as you point out) and evenly mixing the Fentanyl into the drug. Also, it's so damn potent that trying to clean up drugs left behind by addicts, even with gloves, can aerosolize enough to kill people. Like cops or bereaved parents.
A big part of the solution is Fentanyl testing kits for illegal drugs, to prove they are pure.
No, you were being snide about the unemployment rate, and using that as an argument. And when I pointed out the flaws in that one number, you shifted the goalpost.
So what makes you think that these tariffs increased unemployment?
You mean other than basic economics?
12 billion activated by Trump in emergency "you lost your job due to government action" fund.
All the stories of manufacturers shutting down/slowing down due to steel tariffs (e.g. GM just laid of 15,000 workers)
No expansion of domestic steel workers to counteract it
Right, but they bought less US agricultural products in response to the tariff. So, we're back to zero on agriculture as opposed to being in the negative.
China agrees to make Fentanyl a controlled substance.
Fentanyl was already a controlled substance. in China. In fact, it's just straight up illegal in China. It's legal in the US with a prescription. So they agreed to... not change their laws?
China agrees to negotiate on forced technology transfer.
Ooh, they agreed to discuss things. I mean, yes that's progress. But they did the same discuss the exact same issue under Clinton, W. and Obama. It's what comes out of those talks that matters. And so far we've seen nothing (from any president from Clinton on).
Yeah, China won on everything, for just a 90 day stay, didn't they?
Yeah. So far China's given up nothing other than holding off on their retaliation to our tariffs. In return, they made Trump blink. I'd call that winning.
Oh for fucks sake, the damage is done. How many jobs were lost already because of this bullshit tradewar.
Unemployment rate doesn't seem affected... so I'd say - none?
I mean, the percent of the civilization population employed is still less than the two decades between 1987 and 2008. So, is the unemployment rate really that low, are are the chronically unemployed just no longer counted as in the labor force. Hint, you have to go back to the mid-1970's to get a population with less participation in the labor force...
The question is weather he made even stupider decisions because he thought tech would save him. And the answer to that is, yes people do.
Indeed. As safety features increase, especially in vehicles, people tend to increase risky behavior to match. Airbags and crumple zones made people drive faster, etc.
So,Trump failed. When it was obvious China was going to call his ultimatum bluff, he extended the deadline 30 days. Cause otherwise it would be obvious he failed. But China understands face-saving non-things. So they agreed to stop boycotting our agricultural products... which only existed because of Trump's policies. So, we've gained nothing.
Those were the Jordanian Husseins. Totally different family with the same name (see also: Barrak Hussein Obama is unrelated to either family). And all that came out of that relationship was a peace arrangement between Jordan and Israel
they were in bed with bin laden as well
Back then,BinLaden was an ally. Hell, Reagan shipped him a ton of weapons.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm a little scared of them using the store to force the UE4 engine down people's throat. If big enough, it'd be a clever way to get 5% of Steam, etc. sales too.
Seems like a stupid statement, because the article we are responding to is about someone coming in with lower prices. And my comment was about that company. So, clearly, it does happen
There is also a huge difference between cloud services (B2B) and video streaming (B2C). This feels more analogous to cloud services, because while it is fracturing the userbase, the ultimate customer is the developer. They're the ones paying the fee. So, I hope this does very well, and leads someone to do the same in cloud hosting.
This one only charge 12% for third-party developers. The others charge 30%. This is a huge motion. I only hope Steam, Apple, etc. follow them down to 12%, and Epic doesn't drift up to 30% after they get some market share.
Market fragmentation is bad cause you need multiple clients. It's great because this is the first store to move away from Apple's 30% cut. Apple, Google, Amazon, Steam, Microsofts various stores... It's like how MS Azure, AWS and Google all have the same storage costs (and have for a while as storage has gotten cheaper.) It takes a new entrant to decide to offer lower prices to steal people for that whole "competition/free market" thing to move in an oligopoly.
The "dark" side of the moon is the one that's tidally locked to point away from the earth. It gets the same amount of direct sunlight (although less total light, because it doesn't get reflected earth light.) It has more small craters because it gets hit more often (although the earth doesn't shield it that much) by meteorites.
TL;DR dark meaning unknown or mysterious, not dim.
No way they'll succeed. The secret moon base on the far side of the moon will blow up that spacecraft before it gets close. Gotta make it look like an accident though!
We're in a world where that's the standard MO. Google does it with its ad business. Startups do it with VC funding. Etc.
I mean, Amazon does it to as larger extent, but that's it.
FB is far worse, being allowed to buy up its competitors in the social networking space.
Bezos has never done things to be "a huge windfall for Amazon shareholders". He's been running the whole company at almost zero retained profit, dumping cash into expansion at every opportunity. He's never really cared about shareholders like that. Why would he suddenly change now?
Investing in Amazon is like investing in a startup. You know all the cash is going to grow, and you hope it becomes super-profitable later. Which is kinda cool that he's been able to maintain that for decades.
They are going to discontinue satellite TV in 15 or 20 years. By then, we should be an all fiber nation. Hopefully.
Bang is an alternate name for the exclamation mark, depending on how it is used. Similar to how # could be a "pound sign" a "number sign" or "hashtag". Typically a bang is used in a word. For instance, to represent a tongue cluck sound used in some languages. On DDG, it's used to precede a short description that tells how to search. !g (pronounced "bang g") searches google, !w searches wikipedia, etc.
Suddenly, ~1900 of the least known piracy sites have a huge uptick in visitors. No such thing as bad publicity.
AT&T/DirectTV''s satellites should be live for another two decades. They just don't plan on extending EOL.
That's a lot of notice.
Who uses the channel up/channel down buttons to flip channels?
Some buyer realtors now offer to split the commission with you. Since the commission is baked into the price of the house already (paid by the seller), it amounts to a 1.5% decrease. Even if you could get a selling realtor to return your calls (which tehy tend not to do cause it's a cabal), they're not going to split the commission with you.
Now, you're right that you're not going to want to let your realtor do the negotiating. They may offer advise and arguments however, and I would consider them.
So, you don't understand probabilities. Because you listed a bunch of "potential side effects". But if those happen 1 in a billion times, and they solve a real problem (fix a condition that makes your life miserable, or just cuts your risk of heart attack in half) it's more than worth it. By focusing solely on possibilities, and not probabilities, you're making your life worse.
You also have no idea how the drug crisis started. People didn't start with heroin. Most times, they got addicted to oxy or something else prescribed, then moved to street drugs when their doctor wouldn't refill their prescription or because heroin is 1/10th the price.
I agree all those are issues. But this doesn't solve any of them. All Trump got was the agreement to talk about those issues. Which Clinton got, W. got and Obama got. Nothing came out of those talks then, and nothing has come out of Trump's policies either.
TL;DR this isn't a solution. Call me when he actually solves a problem.
The problem with Fentanyl isn't Fentanyl pills... it's Fentanyl spiked heroin/whatever. Cause that lets them cut the underlying drug more. So, you have heroin of unknown quality and it's too strong.
Part of it is the various tolerances, but a bigger problem is the difficultly measuring (as you point out) and evenly mixing the Fentanyl into the drug. Also, it's so damn potent that trying to clean up drugs left behind by addicts, even with gloves, can aerosolize enough to kill people. Like cops or bereaved parents.
A big part of the solution is Fentanyl testing kits for illegal drugs, to prove they are pure.
No, you were being snide about the unemployment rate, and using that as an argument. And when I pointed out the flaws in that one number, you shifted the goalpost.
You mean other than basic economics?
Your turn, how have they increased jobs?
Right, but they bought less US agricultural products in response to the tariff. So, we're back to zero on agriculture as opposed to being in the negative.
Fentanyl was already a controlled substance. in China. In fact, it's just straight up illegal in China. It's legal in the US with a prescription. So they agreed to... not change their laws?
Ooh, they agreed to discuss things. I mean, yes that's progress. But they did the same discuss the exact same issue under Clinton, W. and Obama. It's what comes out of those talks that matters. And so far we've seen nothing (from any president from Clinton on).
Yeah. So far China's given up nothing other than holding off on their retaliation to our tariffs. In return, they made Trump blink. I'd call that winning.
China backed down from what? All they committed to was pausing their retaliatory tariffs.
I mean, the percent of the civilization population employed is still less than the two decades between 1987 and 2008. So, is the unemployment rate really that low, are are the chronically unemployed just no longer counted as in the labor force. Hint, you have to go back to the mid-1970's to get a population with less participation in the labor force...
Indeed. As safety features increase, especially in vehicles, people tend to increase risky behavior to match. Airbags and crumple zones made people drive faster, etc.
So,Trump failed. When it was obvious China was going to call his ultimatum bluff, he extended the deadline 30 days. Cause otherwise it would be obvious he failed. But China understands face-saving non-things. So they agreed to stop boycotting our agricultural products... which only existed because of Trump's policies. So, we've gained nothing.
Yeah, 2019 won't be the year of Linux, because it's not growing anywhere. Sure, it's used in a lot of places, but there's nothing new about 2019.
Those were the Jordanian Husseins. Totally different family with the same name (see also: Barrak Hussein Obama is unrelated to either family). And all that came out of that relationship was a peace arrangement between Jordan and Israel
Back then,BinLaden was an ally. Hell, Reagan shipped him a ton of weapons.