Why do you suppose the Federal Reserve didn't mention the distinction you draw between payment in advance and in arrears? The simplest explanation would seem to be that it's because it doesn't matter - either way, the merchant is not required to accept cash because it isn't a loan. Since so many services are performed before payment, it seems strange that the document would not mention this requirement if it exists, don't you think?
They extended credit by performing the service prior to payment.
Do you have a citation for that claim? Since we're talking about a legal issue, there should be either case law or a statute that states that accepting a service before paying for it means taking out a loan.
The majority of FB traffic is consumed through their mobile apps (95% of it), and you can be sure that is not bot type activity.
How can we be sure of that? Automated app interaction is certainly well supported on Android (for testing purposes) and I assume iOS as well. I don't know if it would be worthwhile, but it is certainly feasible.
it is extremely unlikely that the scraping of the site would involve scrolling through a newsfeed so that an ad became visible, began autoplaying and was streamed to a bot.
If the purpose of the bot is to trigger ad views, why would that not happen?
Youâ(TM)re in their debt and they are legally required to accept cash as payment for that debt.
Got a citation for that? Such as a court case, or a statement from a government office?
"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise."
Once you have accepted a service, such as from a hair salon or restaurant, you now owe a debt until it is paid. So they should have to take cash, even though it may upset their business methods.
The Department of Commerce has explained that that phrase does not mean merchants must accept cash. It's using the basic definition of a debt: where a creditor has borrowed money from a debtor. If you walk into your bank with a suitcase full of cash to pay off your car loan, they cannot refuse it. The hair salon can, though I don't know what their options are after you've gotten your mohawk other than letting you have it for free.
At some point you have to accept that lots of naturally-occurring substances can kill you. And stop going on witch hunts against things just because they have a scary name that you don't recognize even though you've been eating, breathing, or rolling around in it all your life.
Just because something is naturally occurring doesn't mean it should be used in a particular way. These scientists are saying this is a dangerous practice that's harmful to human health and should stop. Are you saying it should continue? You seem to be arguing that the scientists are wrong to call for nitrites to be removed from processed meat.
The only way I can see this working is like how we recommend how much fish you should eat because of the different amounts of mercury they contain.
Perhaps a public information campaign can mount enough pressure to change practices. People are more health conscious than ever. After all, this is something the producers can control, unlike mercury in fish.
Their sales start dropping and they simply start increasing prices to keep increasing profits.
That's sometimes referred to as a death spiral. However, so far iPhone sales have just flattened out, not dropped significantly. If they do start tanking, we'll see if Apple can figure out what to do about it.
I would guess that people who are not serious about photography are more interested in having a good camera on their phone, not less. Because that is their only camera.
Normally there is fine print that explains that the image isn't real. Watch any smartphone commercial and you'll see it at the bottom of the screen. Apparently Samsung didn't do that this time.
It doesn't seem like that can continue indefinitely though. Beyond 4K streaming, unless 8K takes off the average user would have to purposely come up with ways to use more bandwidth than that.
Make meat substitutes passable (it doesn't even have to be quite as good as the real thing, though that would be best) and cheaper than meat, and it will take off. With steak being so expensive, and also so bad for the environment, that could be both an attainable goal and a big win. It's got to look appealing too though, since it's not going to be breaded or put in a bun.
Trump is trying to play this like zero sum game in which he wins and everyone else loses.
Some of that could be his real estate background. Land is the ultimate rivalrous good. If I buy that piece of land and develop it, you cannot. I don't think that's the whole story, some of it is just how Trump operates (I win by screwing over everyone else).
The rail system in the US is struggling to accommodate the volume of goods that need to be shipped. We haven't been putting in new rail lines as demand goes up. Therefore rail shipments frequently experience delays, so shipping by truck is the only way to reliably move goods quickly.
Streaming video with mobile data gets very expensive very quickly on Fi. My son left YouTube running one night and accidentally had wifi off, and I think it was 10 or 15 bucks of data. If that's your use case, do not switch to Google Fi, use a provider that gives you a bucket of data every month.
The protesters are voters. And since when is peaceful protest (I didn't read the whole thing but I think if it had turned violent that would have been at the top) a threat to democracy? Letting the government know you disapprove of something they're doing is at the core of democracy.
Cheap clean energy would also help with clean water since desalinization (and maybe purification generally?) is energy intensive. That does still leave the problem of what to do with the brine though. "They'd have enough salt for ages!"
The first amendment does not apply to corporations.
You may wish it to be so, but courts have repeatedly ruled that corporations do in fact have some constitutional rights, including rights under the first amendment.
That risks causing a death spiral. if demand for public transport is inelastic, it works great. Fares go up and ridership stays the same, resulting in more revenue. However if demand is elastic, then raising fares results in fewer riders. If demand is elastic enough, this will actually result in less revenue, not more. Then they have to cut service and raise fares again, thus resulting in even less revenue. If nothing is done, this results in a complete collapse of the system eventually.
I feel like I just rewrote the summary but apparently it was necessary.
Or better yet, a system where "unknown contacts" can only send you 1 or 2 messages per day unless you "Add" them to friends.
I don't have a problem with your overall point, but this particular idea is problematic because it requires the cellular carrier to have continuous access to the list of contacts on your phone. I see no reason to give them access to that information.
Ajit Pai gets more money from the likes of AT&T than from the likes of Twilio, so he sided with the former. It's pure coincidence that that position happens to align with the interests of the public in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you suppose the Federal Reserve didn't mention the distinction you draw between payment in advance and in arrears? The simplest explanation would seem to be that it's because it doesn't matter - either way, the merchant is not required to accept cash because it isn't a loan. Since so many services are performed before payment, it seems strange that the document would not mention this requirement if it exists, don't you think?
They extended credit by performing the service prior to payment.
Do you have a citation for that claim? Since we're talking about a legal issue, there should be either case law or a statute that states that accepting a service before paying for it means taking out a loan.
The majority of FB traffic is consumed through their mobile apps (95% of it), and you can be sure that is not bot type activity.
How can we be sure of that? Automated app interaction is certainly well supported on Android (for testing purposes) and I assume iOS as well. I don't know if it would be worthwhile, but it is certainly feasible.
it is extremely unlikely that the scraping of the site would involve scrolling through a newsfeed so that an ad became visible, began autoplaying and was streamed to a bot.
If the purpose of the bot is to trigger ad views, why would that not happen?
Youâ(TM)re in their debt and they are legally required to accept cash as payment for that debt.
Got a citation for that? Such as a court case, or a statement from a government office?
"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise."
https://www.federalreserve.gov...
Once you have accepted a service, such as from a hair salon or restaurant, you now owe a debt until it is paid. So they should have to take cash, even though it may upset their business methods.
The Department of Commerce has explained that that phrase does not mean merchants must accept cash. It's using the basic definition of a debt: where a creditor has borrowed money from a debtor. If you walk into your bank with a suitcase full of cash to pay off your car loan, they cannot refuse it. The hair salon can, though I don't know what their options are after you've gotten your mohawk other than letting you have it for free.
Although whatever money you have in the bank is also electronically revocable. I'm not sure how long you would last on the money in your wallet.
At some point you have to accept that lots of naturally-occurring substances can kill you. And stop going on witch hunts against things just because they have a scary name that you don't recognize even though you've been eating, breathing, or rolling around in it all your life.
Just because something is naturally occurring doesn't mean it should be used in a particular way. These scientists are saying this is a dangerous practice that's harmful to human health and should stop. Are you saying it should continue? You seem to be arguing that the scientists are wrong to call for nitrites to be removed from processed meat.
The only way I can see this working is like how we recommend how much fish you should eat because of the different amounts of mercury they contain.
Perhaps a public information campaign can mount enough pressure to change practices. People are more health conscious than ever. After all, this is something the producers can control, unlike mercury in fish.
Their sales start dropping and they simply start increasing prices to keep increasing profits.
That's sometimes referred to as a death spiral. However, so far iPhone sales have just flattened out, not dropped significantly. If they do start tanking, we'll see if Apple can figure out what to do about it.
https://www.statista.com/stati...
Interesting!
Waiting for someone to comment "that's not AI", as always happens with any story about AI.
I would guess that people who are not serious about photography are more interested in having a good camera on their phone, not less. Because that is their only camera.
Normally there is fine print that explains that the image isn't real. Watch any smartphone commercial and you'll see it at the bottom of the screen. Apparently Samsung didn't do that this time.
It doesn't seem like that can continue indefinitely though. Beyond 4K streaming, unless 8K takes off the average user would have to purposely come up with ways to use more bandwidth than that.
Make meat substitutes passable (it doesn't even have to be quite as good as the real thing, though that would be best) and cheaper than meat, and it will take off. With steak being so expensive, and also so bad for the environment, that could be both an attainable goal and a big win. It's got to look appealing too though, since it's not going to be breaded or put in a bun.
Perhaps as a way to encourage more people to stop eating meat.
Trump is trying to play this like zero sum game in which he wins and everyone else loses.
Some of that could be his real estate background. Land is the ultimate rivalrous good. If I buy that piece of land and develop it, you cannot. I don't think that's the whole story, some of it is just how Trump operates (I win by screwing over everyone else).
Imminent? They already invaded Ukraine, and annexed a big chunk of it.
The rail system in the US is struggling to accommodate the volume of goods that need to be shipped. We haven't been putting in new rail lines as demand goes up. Therefore rail shipments frequently experience delays, so shipping by truck is the only way to reliably move goods quickly.
Streaming video with mobile data gets very expensive very quickly on Fi. My son left YouTube running one night and accidentally had wifi off, and I think it was 10 or 15 bucks of data. If that's your use case, do not switch to Google Fi, use a provider that gives you a bucket of data every month.
Yes, we made him pay for it.
The protesters are voters. And since when is peaceful protest (I didn't read the whole thing but I think if it had turned violent that would have been at the top) a threat to democracy? Letting the government know you disapprove of something they're doing is at the core of democracy.
Cheap clean energy would also help with clean water since desalinization (and maybe purification generally?) is energy intensive. That does still leave the problem of what to do with the brine though. "They'd have enough salt for ages!"
The first amendment does not apply to corporations.
You may wish it to be so, but courts have repeatedly ruled that corporations do in fact have some constitutional rights, including rights under the first amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
So raise the fares.
That risks causing a death spiral. if demand for public transport is inelastic, it works great. Fares go up and ridership stays the same, resulting in more revenue. However if demand is elastic, then raising fares results in fewer riders. If demand is elastic enough, this will actually result in less revenue, not more. Then they have to cut service and raise fares again, thus resulting in even less revenue. If nothing is done, this results in a complete collapse of the system eventually. I feel like I just rewrote the summary but apparently it was necessary.
Or better yet, a system where "unknown contacts" can only send you 1 or 2 messages per day unless you "Add" them to friends.
I don't have a problem with your overall point, but this particular idea is problematic because it requires the cellular carrier to have continuous access to the list of contacts on your phone. I see no reason to give them access to that information.
Ajit Pai gets more money from the likes of AT&T than from the likes of Twilio, so he sided with the former. It's pure coincidence that that position happens to align with the interests of the public in this case.