Sounds like now is the time to buy a taxi medallion. They are cheap because of Uber, will spike in price once it finally dies.
There's still Lyft, and the fundamental idea will eventually put an end to traditional high-priced cabs. Uber is in a race to get to self-driving cars. If they can survive until then they will suddenly become very profitable. In the mean time their strategy is to acquire marketshare without concern for the cost.
You're ignoring the idea that maybe they need to put two humans in there not for technological reasons, but rather in order to get permission to do so and get people to actually be willing to ride in them. Clearly self-driving is getting close, so calling it "a joke" is just wishful thinking. The real joke is the enormous number of humans crashing into each other in two-ton metal boxes.
I don't see how that relates to what I wrote and the context of the thread. I have no position in $TSLA. I have no opinion and no idea if the company is going to succeed or fail.
And we will define "toxic" as anything that doesn't support authoritarian technocracy.
Who is "we"? If you run a website you can use this tool to make it easier to remove posts you don't like. That's up to you. If people don't like it your site will suffer, but that's all it is. It's not some government control, and it's not something you can't already do on your own.
I read an article three weeks ago that said that 38% of Tesla stock was shorted, with a due date a couple of weeks from then. I then read another mainstream financial media was reporting that Tesla was expected to hit zero by the middle of the summer, and you should sell your stock right now!
$TSLA typically had a very large short interest. During the recent quarter that interest, while still not small, has dropped sharply, meaning shorts were capitulating and buying stock/options to cover their short position. That has been a significant part of the reason for the surge in the stock's price.
When stocks have a large short interest, "dire warning" articles like the one you read are often an indication that some short wants to get out at a better price, and is hoping such an article will give them a few dollars of dip in the price. Journalists always need something to write about, and so it's easy to feed them juicy tidbits that will get the clicks.
You seem to be saying "We don't have them today, therefore it won't be soon." I'm not sure that's a valid argument. Or maybe you're banking on the TWO DRIVERS thing. Do you think it would be sooner if they had only one driver? Or maybe having TWO DRIVERS is what it took to get somebody to allow them to do it? Either way, I don't see how they are a joke.
You started screaming fraud, now you're simply saying there's no need. One of the biggest problems of starting an online poker room is the lack of players. No matter how good everything else is, if it's hard to find the game a player wants he won't play there. That inevitably leads to a small handful of giants. This type of bot would allow competition to flourish. Ultimately, that's good for the player. The very person you said would be harmed.
You're ignoring the "play well enough to break even" part. And why would they have to do it in secret? Card rooms have always employed paid shills to fill empty seats to keep games going or to start a new one. It's not secret. I worked as one for a time, and the players knew it. I also won money, but the bots don't have to, and the card room would have preferred that I didn't win. (most shills don't win. They hope to break even and live off the salary.)
They don't have to cheat. It's very important that a poker site offers a wide variety of games and bet sizes, and have a large number of active tables. Being able to plug in bots, with skill levels tuned to the game, would be very lucrative even if the bots are set to play only well enough to break even.
For that matter, I also hate X times bigger. To my mind X times bigger is X + 1 times as big.
Yes. The proper way to phrase that type of comparison is with "as big", "as fast", etc. Using bigger or faster leads to ambiguity at best.
If 300% as big were "3 times bigger" then something of equal size must be "1 times bigger," which is retarded.
That's how it got into Apple, but it continued to be promoted by Apple mainly in the interest of developer lock-in.
Or maybe the people developing the tools were the same people who did it at Next, and so it was the expedient thing to do? Apple was nearly broke that the time. They were in no position to "lock in" anyone.
Of course Apple, like any large large business, would prefer that their customers were locked in. But this is not an example nor evidence of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Parent has issues with humor detection.
There's still Lyft, and the fundamental idea will eventually put an end to traditional high-priced cabs. Uber is in a race to get to self-driving cars. If they can survive until then they will suddenly become very profitable. In the mean time their strategy is to acquire marketshare without concern for the cost.
Good thinking. No point taking chances when you know the regular insurers will never screw you over.
Your comment makes no sense in the context of the conversation. If anything it's the reverse.
And as for you, please stop trying to dilute the term fascist.
Q.E.D.
You're ignoring the idea that maybe they need to put two humans in there not for technological reasons, but rather in order to get permission to do so and get people to actually be willing to ride in them. Clearly self-driving is getting close, so calling it "a joke" is just wishful thinking. The real joke is the enormous number of humans crashing into each other in two-ton metal boxes.
I don't see how that relates to what I wrote and the context of the thread. I have no position in $TSLA. I have no opinion and no idea if the company is going to succeed or fail.
Who is "we"? If you run a website you can use this tool to make it easier to remove posts you don't like. That's up to you. If people don't like it your site will suffer, but that's all it is. It's not some government control, and it's not something you can't already do on your own.
Because olive oil is so cheap and does not impart a flavor.
$TSLA typically had a very large short interest. During the recent quarter that interest, while still not small, has dropped sharply, meaning shorts were capitulating and buying stock/options to cover their short position. That has been a significant part of the reason for the surge in the stock's price.
When stocks have a large short interest, "dire warning" articles like the one you read are often an indication that some short wants to get out at a better price, and is hoping such an article will give them a few dollars of dip in the price. Journalists always need something to write about, and so it's easy to feed them juicy tidbits that will get the clicks.
You seem to be saying "We don't have them today, therefore it won't be soon." I'm not sure that's a valid argument. Or maybe you're banking on the TWO DRIVERS thing. Do you think it would be sooner if they had only one driver? Or maybe having TWO DRIVERS is what it took to get somebody to allow them to do it? Either way, I don't see how they are a joke.
Non publicly traded corporations have shareholders too. Perhaps you mean the publicly traded ones tend to focus too much on share price?
You started screaming fraud, now you're simply saying there's no need. One of the biggest problems of starting an online poker room is the lack of players. No matter how good everything else is, if it's hard to find the game a player wants he won't play there. That inevitably leads to a small handful of giants. This type of bot would allow competition to flourish. Ultimately, that's good for the player. The very person you said would be harmed.
What does that have to do with it? You seem to be bent on being contrarian no matter how far we get from the original point.
Not if they say that's what they're doing. They can even publish the bots' results showing that they are not making money, but merely filling tables.
You wouldn't, would you? Wouldn't you just say "as big"? There's no such fix for the "bigger" idiom.
You're ignoring the "play well enough to break even" part. And why would they have to do it in secret? Card rooms have always employed paid shills to fill empty seats to keep games going or to start a new one. It's not secret. I worked as one for a time, and the players knew it. I also won money, but the bots don't have to, and the card room would have preferred that I didn't win. (most shills don't win. They hope to break even and live off the salary.)
They don't have to cheat. It's very important that a poker site offers a wide variety of games and bet sizes, and have a large number of active tables. Being able to plug in bots, with skill levels tuned to the game, would be very lucrative even if the bots are set to play only well enough to break even.
Yes. The proper way to phrase that type of comparison is with "as big", "as fast", etc. Using bigger or faster leads to ambiguity at best.
If 300% as big were "3 times bigger" then something of equal size must be "1 times bigger," which is retarded.
What's the point of doing a test rollout if they can't later decide it isn't feasible?
Good for you. You saw through his little scheme.
I suspect the casinos also would not have complained if Ivey had lost.
Now you're being philosophical, as by that measure every choice you ever make is "rigged."
Or maybe the people developing the tools were the same people who did it at Next, and so it was the expedient thing to do? Apple was nearly broke that the time. They were in no position to "lock in" anyone.
Of course Apple, like any large large business, would prefer that their customers were locked in. But this is not an example nor evidence of it.