The crews, the aircraft, and other equipment are all fixed costs that get paid whether they're sitting alongside at the pier, or in an active search.
While this is true, if there is enough stupidity out there, we will need more rescue teams.
But even if it would lead to slightly higher costs, a situation where people are afraid to call for help would be much worse.
That is not at all obvious. My guess is that most people never even considered value for price, because all they had to think about was "should I pay and go through all the hassle of registration, or skip the hassle and pay nothing?".
Now people will have to consider this. Some will say yes and some will say no. How many are still unclear.
No doubt there are many markets where a few big companies do implicit collusion, but I don't see that happening in the restaurant market. There are just too many options. It's not like the only options are McD and BK. There are so many restaurants to choose from, and many of them are not chains either.
Fast food restaurants have a captive audience and they know it
Even if this was true, there are still often many options to choose from.
But it also seems quite likely that they have a huge number of subscribers remaining from the days when they were "the one service with everything"
It's going to be hard to keep all of them with only original content.
Most people want a couple of new shows, but also a good archive of past hit shows. Especially the classic sitcoms.
They have had the archive of other companies shows, but it is getting smaller, and that diminishes their value for many people.
I'm not free resources for your government's inability to provide basic services for the citizens.
Who says you are doing it for free? Isn't the whole point that you buy electricity when it's cheap, and sell it when it's expensive?
Obviously the revenue needs to offset the costs of the wear in the battery, or nobody would do it.
Yes, that was the exact point the grandparent comment was making, that your first comment argued against.
How much did you pay?
Not all costs are directly monetary.
"Time is money". If you spend a lot of time using it, it's likely going to take a lot of time to move it to another service. That is a direct hit to your productivity, so even if you have not sent any money directly to google, you have for sure paid for it!
Not to mention all the paid services google offer. Especially to businesses.
How much of those donations came from a few very rich people?
Total donations at twitter was only $228k. 98.7% went to democrats. But the total is so low that one, or a few, rich donors could have contributed more than 90% of that.
It's not surprising that they lean heavily democrat. But money spent is not necessarily a fair representation of the share of employees with those opinions.
For most people, I don't think 2x90 minutes was ever an acceptable commute.
As a users you only care if you can visit the website.
As a user, it is absolutely crucial that multiple websites are not down at the same time.
If Slashdot and Reddit are down at the same, I might have to start working.
And if Stack Overflow is down at the same time, that option is gone too...
Then vote with your wallet, and buy something that IS for sale!
What I miss more than anything is friends playing me their latest favourite album when I visit them.
This is probably at least partly because you got older. That is very much a youth phenomenon, and maybe for some hardcore music fans.
And today you don't have to wait until you go over to them. They send you a Spotify link, and you check it out at home.
More & more, people are just treating music like it's the radio rather than albums that they want to listen to closely over & over in order to hear more detail, depth & feeling in it
I'm not sure people ever wanted that. Back in the dark ages before streaming, you had no choice. You could afford maybe one album per month if you were really into music, and casual listeners bought even fewer albums. You had to listen over and over to the same few records. And since you could not prepare playlists you had to manually skip the crappy songs on the album, so you were forced to know them too.
Their underpaying of artists is a disgrace
They pay around 2/3 of their revenue to rights holders. Their model needs some changes, but I think raising prices is necessary if the artists should get more money. It's not just Spotify hoarding all the money.
I assure you , very little of your $9 is actually going to the artists.
They pay around 2/3 of their revenue to rights holders. There are definitely some things that needs to be fixed, but it is not like they take all the money themselves and give nothing to artist.
The situation you claim to fix is not a burst but congestion
Correct. The problem is that you want big buffers to handle the bursts. If you just throw out the buffers you lose the benefit that they provide.
The goal of AQM is to restore this property by selectively throttling traffic so that some traffic doesn't see congestion at all while other traffic is slowed down below the advertised bandwidth
If it gets slowed down significantly below advertised bandwidth, then it has been poorly implemented.
The point is that AQM doesn't "fix" congestion.
Correct, it hides the problems caused by congestion. Your "solution" tries to fix the congestion problem by making the burst problem worse.
For senders to slow down, their packets need to be dropped, not buffered
Not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
With ECN you can slow down the sender before you need to drop packets.
the reason why TCP doesn't start full blast but takes some time to reach the full capacity of the connection
And everyone agrees that this sucks. With proper ECN and big buffers you could go full blast quicker.
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne
