$100 billion invested vs $100 million p.a. income. And that is, by Dirty Altman's own words, their "Last Resort". Goodbye and good riddance.
Yea, 100 billion in Treasury Notes at 3.6 would be 36 billion. That's a high hurdle rate and basically zero risk; I'm guessing their hurdle rate is much higher and will be tough to clear.
For sites like Netflix, with ads + subscription price, I need to decide where the value/cost trade off occurs. For some sites, it's cancel and forget about them, others pay at some level.
Unfortunately, ads are here to stay. The days of Archie, Veronica, Lynx are long gone...
It's also possible that Dolby is twisting logic into a pretzel in order to make this claim. It wouldn't be the first far-fetched theory of infringement to go through court.
The first thing I do on installing Linux is nuke NetworkManager and it's ilk.
There's no reason a smart TV MUST have an account with the manufacturer or seller unless they want to enshittify it.
You may want to have accounts with various streaming services or perhaps you just want it to stream video you have on a NAS.
I'm more a freedom type person. If people want to do sex work for a living, why not? So long as it's regulated like every other industry and the workers taxed on the income, what's the problem?
If you just put in the tip there is no income tax.
Apple probably never promised that it would be anonymous to Apple, only that average joe won't get the information.
Apple never promised anonymity, at least not broadly. All they promised is a unique email address that does not expose your real address when used. The official explanation is pretty clear that it is to help you prevent your email from view, not that it protected your identity from being revealed. Frankly, anyone that sends threatening letters to government officials and thinks a provider won't turn over their info is doubling down on stupid.
more free movies & music for the poor I encourage the piracy of movies & music & software, the only people that will bother to pirate that stuff is poor because people with disposable income will just buy it and the poor should not be making the rich richer
I can agree with it. If someone can't afford what I've created and it helps them have a better life, I'm all for it. What does piss me off is where I see people steal my work and make a profit off of it. I'd happily license it for very small fee, but they figure why bother if they can just take it for free? It's not worth going to court over it because the cost likely far outweighs any verdict, and then I'd have to collect.
"Well regulated" is not well defined. It definitely didn't originally mean "government approved"...or at least it didn't mean that to everyone who put their signature to it.
If you want to go back to the times of the founders, many of the colonies and later states had laws regulating ownership, carry and storage of weapons;. some required a regular muster of citizens as well. "Original intent" if you will, might indicate that the 2cd was not intended to prevent any government regulation of weaponry.
Could, in theory. In practice, how do you implement and maintain that given there will be more than one person in the aisle looking at the price tags? Or that if two people see different prices, there are going to be two very angry people yelling at customer service? How will they advertise sales? How will they advertise?
Good points. As always, in theory there is no difference in theory and the real world, in the real world there is.
Right now, it's more of a hypothetical to cause a lot of handwringing, and likely more trouble than it's worth; since in the end I suspect the price difference would be so small that the costs to do it outweigh the benefits. For multiple shoppers they'd probably need to show the lowest, for example, so there would be no advantage to it. Who knows if it will ever happen.
One way to deal with some issues is to get rid of shelf tags and do all pricing in app, but that has its own issues; from people who don't use apps to allowing was price comparisons between shoppers in the aisle.
Personally, I'd rather see them use such data to offer discounts real time in app, since that would give me the ability to decide if I want to use it or not.
And what about Instacart?
That might be easier since they know the customer and buying habits, so targeting would be easier if ordered in app. (I've never used Instacart)
On the other hand, take notice. There's a bunch of ideas being kicked around out there to subject ALL drivers to an automatic intoxication screening, even life-long non-drinkers. Might be worth looking at what could go wrong.
So let's not poison the sea life with mercury from coal and choke the birds on smog.
Nuclear could be a good option if we would actually reprocess the spent fuel.
How would those bad things work? Individual pricing won't work in stores, everyone would just say that the shelf tag said something lower than what the register has. No way to verify. Besides, big stores don't even care. They want to advertise low prices, and you can't change an advertised price.
Surge pricing could change the price based on purchase data, allowing stores to increase prices when they get a demand signal. Using location tracking in store of shoppers, perhaps using the store’s app, would let them change prices when they sense a buyer is nearby and base pricing on purchase history. Let’s say you often buy something every 3 months like clockwork, and you’re at the 3 month point and by the product, they could up the price based on your buying history.
Money cannot buy love, nor even friendship.
