It's easy to say this but much much harder to do in practice. Discovery is an incredibly difficult problem in the digital age!

It's simple. They subsidize the rides so that we continue to take them. It's incredibly hard to hold onto market share, since anyone can burn $$ to attract customers.

In London, as an example, Uber had become semi-dominant. But now there's Bolt, Ola, Free Now, not to mention older ones like AddLee and the famous black cabs. Without subsidising Uber rides, I'm not taking them. When I'm getting 50% discounts, it's not the driver giving me a freebie, it's Uber burning investor money to attract me.

The weirdest part of the whole process is that it is the company that is paying the $8-12 Billion that's being called the monopoly, as opposed to the company that's demanding $8-12 Billion to put them as the default search engine. With the exact same evidence and chain of thought, doesn't this actually mean Apple is the one with the market power here?

I don't remember Microsoft paying HP billions to choose IE as its browser - it was shoved down their throat, like a good little monopoly should.

All masks, or just gimp masks?

Leaving aside the fact that there aren't very many kings in other western nations either, I think the argument is that now any treaty, strategy or alliance would be torn up just because the previous administration happened to be the ones who did it. This means a lack of continuity is to be expected, and becoming more common, rather than something that happens as an exception. And this means, naturally, that nobody would be incentivised to do a deal or treaty because it comes with a short term expiration date attached.

The summary didn't say value will be created necessarily, just that it'll be a windfall for shareholders, which speaks more to equity market sentiment. Which is different unless you believe in efficient market theory.

Not to say you're wrong btw, this is clearly i-banker thought process.

Completely agree with the sentiment here, though it fails the reality test. Which is probably why Obama won with it. However he got demonized by a large majority on the right on pretty much every issue, which tried to paint his Reaganite ideas as "far left". FWIW Hillary tried the same approach and failed (I know I know, people hated here for something evil she had done).

Also may I point to the current president, and a large number of Senators, who played the exact opposite strategy, of constantly repeating the other side is "by definition evil/stupid", and won handily.

If you don't understand why software development and taxi industry should be any different, I think we might be talking in different languages altogether.

That's fair enough as a standard. When the FBI, DoD, NSA, House and Senate committees, agree on the need for an investigation into voter fraud, we should absolutely do that as well. I'd insist on it.

You don't do a national investigation to prove supposed guilt with no evidence. Otherwise we'd spend all our time investigating fake voting, leprechauns and unicorn serial killers.

Citation Needed

What does one thing have to do with the other? You saying you'll never support anything Zuckerberg says until his earnings are same as mean salary in US? By that measure we have very few people who's ideas are even worth listening to.

If at first you don't succeed, try and try again?

I see what you're going for, but presumably the people entering the US as refugees are the people who are *running away* from the torturers who are being bombed.

Fair enough on the points based system. It's pretty screwed up in its implementation in UK at least (don't know about Oz/ Canada), but still pretty sensible insofar as transparency is concerned.

The investor visa and employee visa usually don't get awarded to your own startup. FWIW the CEOs I know who're here to run their startups are either on L-1 or E-1.