That's not the same. Those products are clearly branded as Amazon Basics (and are often of equal or better quality). Walmart, on the other hand insists suppliers make brand name products special for Walmart with independent SKUs that may not meet the same quality requirements of the manufacturers other products. If you can't meet their price point, they'll help you find a factory in China that will help you do it, with thinner steel, lower quality components, etc. (https://www.fastcompany.com/54763/man-who-said-no-wal-mart)

It's two things. 1) Someone here mentioned the relative cost. It's cheap right now to burn natural gas. 2) It's not that the risks are unknown, but rather it's a difference between acute risks and long-term risks. Humans are really good at fighting really hard to try to avoid things that are immediately big and very scary. We're terrible at mitigating slowly increasing risks, and probabilities.

I also don't think this change was just to make the batteries last the full day. It was also to address an issue where the device was requesting more power than the degraded batteries could provide and was causing unexpected shutdowns. I know of several people with older iPhones that random turn off. It sounds like this could have been the problem.

Fanboy or no, Apple likes repeat customers, and phones becoming useless garbage doesn't help retention. They didn't slow down their phones to make people buy new phones. They add features that are only available on new phones to do that. Intentionally making old phones not work drives people to other manufacturers. We can safely remove the tinfoil hats for a minute.

I think they don't want this to get traction and wide acceptance. Right now, MoviePass is low-friction, allows you to go to any(?) theater, and no one is the wiser. In a year, when 5 million people are using MoviePass and MP shows up at AMC and says, "You need to give us a discount, or we're going to block your chain." then AMC is in a bad position, because it will be the only chain not supported by MP. Chains don't want to be commoditized because they lose a lot of say over how they run and price their businesses.

That's actually the point. We aren't trying to determine if robots are good or bad in general. It's irrelevant. The researchers are trying to determine if robot assisted surgery is better than non-robot assisted surgery for specific surgeries. This is how doctors determine the best course of action to use in a specific situation, and whether insurance companies will cover extra costs for those particular actions. It looks like 2 particular surgeries show no benefit of robots and that doctors probably shouldn't generally use those robots for those procedures, and insurance companies shouldn't pay anything extra for the use of robots in those procedures. We should hope they're working on studying the efficacy of robotic assistance in more surgical procedures.

And I don't think the authors say we should never use robots and stop developing robots. But it is probably worth questioning using these robots for the surgeries in question, and whether it's valuable for hospitals to buy these robots. It's almost certainly worth making sure insurance companies and medicare don't pay hospitals extra for using these robots in these procedures at this time.

Maybe TicketMaster could implement this using the ridiculous fee they still charge, even though their business is almost entirely overhead free now that they don't need to run physical retail locations.

This isn't good enough for children with rare diseases and childhood cancers that don't allow them to get vaccination. Vaccination isn't just about my kid, it's a social policy designed to protect others as well.

I don't have time to find the studies now, but writing notes is associated with much better content retention than typing notes. So, while a given student may have a stenographers record of the class, they a much less likely to be able to reproduce that on a test.

The labels are in constant contention with Spotify and Pandora over what the per play amount should be. Spotify likely sends them some data on X many users, and Y many plays of label songs, and Z many plays of non-label songs (independents, etc.). If Spotify is justifying their per play amount on the ratio of label vs. non-label plays, and then intentionally inserting owned, $0 songs into popular playlists to get lots of plays, then the labels may feel like something is being pulled over on them. This is fair on the label's part if Spotify is justifying their price based on what price their business model can support. I think it's fair that Spotify can get paid to have music created that people want to listen to, but if they are doing that, they likely need to disclose that to the other people who allow their music to be distributed on Spotify, because those people may decide to pull that music if it's being replaced by Spotify as a direct competitor while Spotify claims they simply can't afford to pay what the labels think their music is worth.

I'm also curious what he thinks Apple can implement with the extra margin that they can't already do on the iPhone? I'm sure they can put fancier, higher resolution screens, maybe a crazy camera, etc. But I don't think people are going to pay a 60-80% increase for a marginally better camera, and I don't think there is a killer new use case that is just waiting for this one expensive technology to be put on the phone.

We have to make some assumptions about your grandmother, but lets say she's a post-war wife and bought her house and car in the late 1950s. Inflation alone says that house is $135k in today's dollars and that car is $27k in today's dollars. Both of those are achievable for a new car, and a starter house in many parts of the country.

I think you're on point with control factors. If they didn't control for income or education they may find that people with higher incomes or more education tend to have children later. Correlation v. causation and all that.

And that same newsroom was really unhappy with editorial decisions to soften the paper's coverage of Trump during the election. The newsroom may be reputable, but what ultimately makes it to the page wasn't. Those who didn't agree were told to go work for another paper. (http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-journal-editor-trump-coverage-fake-news-2017-2)

The main news coverage was also very soft on Trump, often covered critical stories much later than other organizations and both downplayed them and softened language. I was a subscriber, it was pretty glaring.