Neither Fed Ex or UPS have claimed they could compete on letter mail. They have expressly stated they could not handle letter mail cheaper or with the same level of service as the USPS. as someone worked in a fedex sorting center! Fed ex and UPS equipment cannot physically handle letter mail. It’s deigned for package handling. Nor can they handle the volume USPS sees. They will not want to invest in completely redesigning how they sort packages to support mail.
Moreover, they rely on the USPS to deliver packages in most areas. UPS and Fed Ex can not deliver profitably in most rural areas. USPS has a ‘monopoly’ because much of their service isn’t commercially viable for private entities.
The USPS should not be a commercial service and isn’t a competitor to commercial package companies.
ITs biggest fuck you wasn't the pension issue. it was barring the post office from offering new services or reviving older services like postal banking. The Post office wanted to expand its services and had a plan to be profitable again by doing so. The PAEA foreclosed revenue generation opportunities while increasing financial liability. Its a spit-roast of shit policy.
Postal inspectors predate most of what we think of as federal law enforcement. They also predate USPS being a semi-private org. they were created in a time when we created small dedicated task forces to handle specific crime, rather than larger sweeping agencies handling all crime in a jurisdiction. The Postal inspectors were created to investigate mail theft and mail fraud since those crimes tended to big too big in operational scope for any locals to address, and the USPS was a federal agency. At the time they were created, they had a clear niche no other agency filled. Now they continue to exist, because no agency will fill that role.
A big reason for that is they have typically stayed on the boring side of the law enforcement descriptor (paper trails, leg work). There is no glory, no headlines. You aren't making a populist political career of the back of mail fraud investigations. The FBI isn't allocating resources to tracking down the guy who busted open the apartment complex mail box. They have terrorists to catch! You need a small, focused team for this. one that isn't looking for headlines.
So I support their existence. But....its clear someone isn't happy with the boring work. And that its definitely a problem.
Signal's encryption was not broken. Cellebrite claimed it broke the encryption.
Cellebrite can, if it cracks the Iphone, access the decrypted messages from the signal app....which is expected behavior. Signal only encrypts messages in transit.
Say I ship a safe with gold. My recipient stores the gold in their home and hasn't locked the safe. If a thief breaks into the home, its not accurate to say they cracked the safe.
Id note that general Web Browser UI design (and application UI Design for that matter) for more than a decade has used the carriage return as a submit. Getting a new line requires use of shift-enter (which in word processors provides a new line without creating a new paragraph bypassing default paragraph spacing settings). Carriage return is not used as form navigation tool in the modern era and hasn't been widely used as such in the PC space since at least Windows XP, but I think it was depreciated even in Win 3.1. Tab is generally the form navigation tool of choice
Moxie, as noted in the article, seems to have done this in response to Cellebrite public claim that it broke Signal's encryption. This was retaliation for Cellebrite's public lies, not a principled stance on cell phone encryption crackers or forensics software generally.
The use of government power is not communist. We both agree the AC is wrong. But his proposal isn't communist. It is authoritarian and just as authoritarianism can describe a government in any economic system, this proposal is not inherently communist and could be seen in any authoritarian regime.
im not sure where your argument about equitable comes from, its not in the article. That said, you mention equitable and seem to conflate it with equal, which is not accurate.
An investment is an asset you purchase, a thing of value, that you expect to derive income from, either because its market value rises and you can resell or it generates income you get a share of.
Loss leaders are not in either category. A loss leader is inventory you sell (or give away) at a loss in the hopes other sales recoup that loss. Rather than expecting the inventory to be more valuable to your customer than when you bought it or earning income by holding on to it, the expected income comes from other products entirely. Loss leaders are not investments, they are advertising, they are expenses.
And yes, all advertising and really most expenses could be considered, in the general vernacular, as investing in future sales, and therefore "investments". Lots of basic business advice will use those terms. But financially, advertising leaves you nothing of value, only the potential for sales in the future. Investments provide things of value, and while that value may become $0 if the investment doesn't play out, it often can be disposed of to recoup some of your investment. Not so with advertising and loss leaders. They function differently.
What was this even responding to? Your comments dont seem to respond to the article, and you aren't threaded so its impossible to know what this is in responce to, though its obviously in responce to something.
There are other ways to get into the market aside from 3rd party exclusive content. Had their storefront had standard functionality at launch and if they required the epic store for first party releases like Fortnite as Valve and EA and Ubisoft have, "The fortnite playerbase alone" could have easily made a huge footprint. A steady diet of sales and freebies could have most of what they already have with much higher goodwill. (its a big reason why GOG and CD Projekt Red is so well defended these days despite their issues as a publisher.)
Also Humble launched a sales platform without exclusives.
I am not betting against musk. I quoted him. Starlink will not be able to compete with traditional broadband, according to Elon musk. My talk of overhype was intended to point out that musk wouldn’t undersell his tech, which I think you’d agree with. I was responding to the comment claiming Starlink would compete with traditional broadband.
Re: One suspicion you left out is Nike prior collusion, ALL PR s
‘Saran’, a distinct individual who serves as an advisory to the almighty God, is not present in Jewish myth or religious practice. ‘Satan’ is an invention of christian translators whose depiction was fleshed out by Artists and writers, including Dante and his Inferno.
Aside from the fact that musk, the man most likely to overhype the product disagrees with you should be the end of it. Why do you think Musk and his engineers are lying?
Starlink and Musk have both stated that even when complete, the current tech cannot and will not be able to compete with broadband on speed in dense residential areas. If you think otherwise you are in disagreement with a guy who over hypes everything he produces.
"The challenge for anything that is space-based is that the size of the cell is gigantic... it's not good for high-density situations," Musk said. "We'll have some small number of customers in LA. But we can't do a lot of customers in LA because the bandwidth per cell is simply not high enough."
The tech seems like it will be more efficient in providing service to isolated, remote, and rural areas.
Video Game companies are run by marketing executives. Every major game has a detailed marketing plan designed to drive hype to a boiling point at the games release, allowing them to maximize sales. An open secret of marketing is that you can over egg the pudding by hyping something too far out from release. (Serenity the movie was a notable victim of this in an attempt to create a low budget viral marketing campaign.)
Video game marketing is so tightly controlled because video games journalism is mostly little more than a mouthpiece for video game companies. They will actively parrot that leaks are lies, and not call it out when a week later the leak was proven absolutely true by the next marketing drop.
Laura K Buzz, games journalist, got a hold of a solid leak on either the Switch or the Wii U, i can't remember which off hand, that reasonably accurately reported the new system specs and design, and was vilified by games media for irresponsible reporting when Nintendo denied it. No one apologized when The intended date for the release of that information hit and she was proven right.
Journalists are captured by an industry (video Games) that has successfully curated a market where journalists won't investigate them or call them out by restricting access to pre-release review copies that are so valued by the journalists to journalists who give positive coverage. This has lead any leak ahead of the approved marketing release to be seen and treated as an attack on games and the industry itself.
No Trump's going F2P MMO Microtransactions. Think 2000's cell phone nickle and diming. X posts per day, par per post after. You can read, but that like or comment will cost you. You can pay for VIP, gives you unlimited posting, but likes are a different service, cause hes borrowing Korean MMO's overlapping VIP subscription model.
Kinda? Rachael Maddow disclosed true statements and then formed opinion based on those true statements. Her defense was that the facts were true and therefore not defamatory, and her conclusions were opinions reasonably reached by the disclosed facts and therefore not defamatory. She knew the reporter worked for Russian State Media (among other facts, this is off the top of my head) and so claiming the reporter was writing Russian State propaganda is a reasonable conclusion.
In this case, Sydney Powell is not claiming an underlying factual basis for her opinions. The reason she is being sued is because her factual claims were false. Sydney is claiming that her factual inaccuracies were in fact rhetorical hyperbole and no one would assume her facts were indeed facts. That's why the lawsuits she filed are important - she made express statements under penalty of perjury that her facts, the basis for the lawsuits, were true.
We have seen this behavior before - Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson have both made similar defenses for content they spewed on their shows. Focusing on tucker, he was sued for defamation by survivors of school shootings. Tucker had claimed they were lying and that those grieving the dead were crisis actors. Tucker argued that the contents of his show is opinion, and no one would believe what he says is factual. Tucker wasn't saying here is the company this parent works for, here is the kid alive and well, its all fake. He presented no facts, only assertions. That is a more dangerous territory. That is why he didn't rely on Maddow's defense that his work was reasonable opinion based on disclosed facts. Rather, he relied on a defense that his bullshit was so insane no one should have believed him.
The differences between the defenses should be clear. but if not:
1) I have evidence that X works for Y, and therefore it was reasonable to hold the opinion that he did Z
2) I lied but my lies are so outrageous no one should believe me and you can't hold me accountable for the rubes who did.
On the post: US Postal Service Is Surveilling Social Media Services Because It Apparently Has Plenty Of Time And Money To Waste
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
Neither Fed Ex or UPS have claimed they could compete on letter mail. They have expressly stated they could not handle letter mail cheaper or with the same level of service as the USPS. as someone worked in a fedex sorting center! Fed ex and UPS equipment cannot physically handle letter mail. It’s deigned for package handling. Nor can they handle the volume USPS sees. They will not want to invest in completely redesigning how they sort packages to support mail.
Moreover, they rely on the USPS to deliver packages in most areas. UPS and Fed Ex can not deliver profitably in most rural areas. USPS has a ‘monopoly’ because much of their service isn’t commercially viable for private entities.
The USPS should not be a commercial service and isn’t a competitor to commercial package companies.
On the post: US Postal Service Is Surveilling Social Media Services Because It Apparently Has Plenty Of Time And Money To Waste
Re: Re:
ITs biggest fuck you wasn't the pension issue. it was barring the post office from offering new services or reviving older services like postal banking. The Post office wanted to expand its services and had a plan to be profitable again by doing so. The PAEA foreclosed revenue generation opportunities while increasing financial liability. Its a spit-roast of shit policy.
On the post: US Postal Service Is Surveilling Social Media Services Because It Apparently Has Plenty Of Time And Money To Waste
Re:
Postal inspectors predate most of what we think of as federal law enforcement. They also predate USPS being a semi-private org. they were created in a time when we created small dedicated task forces to handle specific crime, rather than larger sweeping agencies handling all crime in a jurisdiction. The Postal inspectors were created to investigate mail theft and mail fraud since those crimes tended to big too big in operational scope for any locals to address, and the USPS was a federal agency. At the time they were created, they had a clear niche no other agency filled. Now they continue to exist, because no agency will fill that role.
A big reason for that is they have typically stayed on the boring side of the law enforcement descriptor (paper trails, leg work). There is no glory, no headlines. You aren't making a populist political career of the back of mail fraud investigations. The FBI isn't allocating resources to tracking down the guy who busted open the apartment complex mail box. They have terrorists to catch! You need a small, focused team for this. one that isn't looking for headlines.
So I support their existence. But....its clear someone isn't happy with the boring work. And that its definitely a problem.
On the post: Signal Founder Cracks Cellebrite Phone Hacking Device, Finds It Full Of Vulns
Re: Re: Re:
Signal's encryption was not broken. Cellebrite claimed it broke the encryption.
Cellebrite can, if it cracks the Iphone, access the decrypted messages from the signal app....which is expected behavior. Signal only encrypts messages in transit.
Say I ship a safe with gold. My recipient stores the gold in their home and hasn't locked the safe. If a thief breaks into the home, its not accurate to say they cracked the safe.
On the post: Signal Founder Cracks Cellebrite Phone Hacking Device, Finds It Full Of Vulns
Re: tiny correction?
Id note that general Web Browser UI design (and application UI Design for that matter) for more than a decade has used the carriage return as a submit. Getting a new line requires use of shift-enter (which in word processors provides a new line without creating a new paragraph bypassing default paragraph spacing settings). Carriage return is not used as form navigation tool in the modern era and hasn't been widely used as such in the PC space since at least Windows XP, but I think it was depreciated even in Win 3.1. Tab is generally the form navigation tool of choice
On the post: Signal Founder Cracks Cellebrite Phone Hacking Device, Finds It Full Of Vulns
Re:
Moxie, as noted in the article, seems to have done this in response to Cellebrite public claim that it broke Signal's encryption. This was retaliation for Cellebrite's public lies, not a principled stance on cell phone encryption crackers or forensics software generally.
On the post: The Privacy Paradox: When Big Tech Is Good On Privacy, They're Attacked As Being Bad For Competition
Re:
The use of government power is not communist. We both agree the AC is wrong. But his proposal isn't communist. It is authoritarian and just as authoritarianism can describe a government in any economic system, this proposal is not inherently communist and could be seen in any authoritarian regime.
On the post: Mastercard Lays Down New Rules For Streaming Sites That Require Them To Review Content Before Publication
Re: and just to use my screen name
im not sure where your argument about equitable comes from, its not in the article. That said, you mention equitable and seem to conflate it with equal, which is not accurate.
On the post: Platform Wars Update: Epic Store Losing $330 Million Per Year To Acquire Customers
Re: Re: Re: Loss??
So, lets talk accounting.
An investment is an asset you purchase, a thing of value, that you expect to derive income from, either because its market value rises and you can resell or it generates income you get a share of.
Loss leaders are not in either category. A loss leader is inventory you sell (or give away) at a loss in the hopes other sales recoup that loss. Rather than expecting the inventory to be more valuable to your customer than when you bought it or earning income by holding on to it, the expected income comes from other products entirely. Loss leaders are not investments, they are advertising, they are expenses.
And yes, all advertising and really most expenses could be considered, in the general vernacular, as investing in future sales, and therefore "investments". Lots of basic business advice will use those terms. But financially, advertising leaves you nothing of value, only the potential for sales in the future. Investments provide things of value, and while that value may become $0 if the investment doesn't play out, it often can be disposed of to recoup some of your investment. Not so with advertising and loss leaders. They function differently.
On the post: Platform Wars Update: Epic Store Losing $330 Million Per Year To Acquire Customers
Re:
What was this even responding to? Your comments dont seem to respond to the article, and you aren't threaded so its impossible to know what this is in responce to, though its obviously in responce to something.
There are other ways to get into the market aside from 3rd party exclusive content. Had their storefront had standard functionality at launch and if they required the epic store for first party releases like Fortnite as Valve and EA and Ubisoft have, "The fortnite playerbase alone" could have easily made a huge footprint. A steady diet of sales and freebies could have most of what they already have with much higher goodwill. (its a big reason why GOG and CD Projekt Red is so well defended these days despite their issues as a publisher.)
Also Humble launched a sales platform without exclusives.
On the post: Wall Street Analysts Say Musk's Starlink Poses No Real Threat To Traditional Broadband
Re: Re: Re: Yeah, right
Why do you think Musk is lying about his ability to compete with traditional broadband?
On the post: Wall Street Analysts Say Musk's Starlink Poses No Real Threat To Traditional Broadband
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah, right
I am not betting against musk. I quoted him. Starlink will not be able to compete with traditional broadband, according to Elon musk. My talk of overhype was intended to point out that musk wouldn’t undersell his tech, which I think you’d agree with. I was responding to the comment claiming Starlink would compete with traditional broadband.
On the post: MSCHF Settles Upgraded Shoe Dispute With Nike And Promises (Wink, Wink) To Buy Back Satan Shoes
Re: One suspicion you left out is Nike prior collusion, ALL PR s
‘Saran’, a distinct individual who serves as an advisory to the almighty God, is not present in Jewish myth or religious practice. ‘Satan’ is an invention of christian translators whose depiction was fleshed out by Artists and writers, including Dante and his Inferno.
On the post: Wall Street Analysts Say Musk's Starlink Poses No Real Threat To Traditional Broadband
Re: Re: Re: Yeah, right
Aside from the fact that musk, the man most likely to overhype the product disagrees with you should be the end of it. Why do you think Musk and his engineers are lying?
On the post: Wall Street Analysts Say Musk's Starlink Poses No Real Threat To Traditional Broadband
Re: Re: Yeah, right
Missed the end of my comment: but unless Musk is suddenly underhyping a product, its not going to disrupt broadband generally.
On the post: Wall Street Analysts Say Musk's Starlink Poses No Real Threat To Traditional Broadband
Re: Yeah, right
Starlink and Musk have both stated that even when complete, the current tech cannot and will not be able to compete with broadband on speed in dense residential areas. If you think otherwise you are in disagreement with a guy who over hypes everything he produces.
The tech seems like it will be more efficient in providing service to isolated, remote, and rural areas.
On the post: Activision Once Again Abuses DMCA To Try To Bury Leak Of New 'CoD' Content
Re: I don't get it...
Video Game companies are run by marketing executives. Every major game has a detailed marketing plan designed to drive hype to a boiling point at the games release, allowing them to maximize sales. An open secret of marketing is that you can over egg the pudding by hyping something too far out from release. (Serenity the movie was a notable victim of this in an attempt to create a low budget viral marketing campaign.)
Video game marketing is so tightly controlled because video games journalism is mostly little more than a mouthpiece for video game companies. They will actively parrot that leaks are lies, and not call it out when a week later the leak was proven absolutely true by the next marketing drop.
Laura K Buzz, games journalist, got a hold of a solid leak on either the Switch or the Wii U, i can't remember which off hand, that reasonably accurately reported the new system specs and design, and was vilified by games media for irresponsible reporting when Nintendo denied it. No one apologized when The intended date for the release of that information hit and she was proven right.
Journalists are captured by an industry (video Games) that has successfully curated a market where journalists won't investigate them or call them out by restricting access to pre-release review copies that are so valued by the journalists to journalists who give positive coverage. This has lead any leak ahead of the approved marketing release to be seen and treated as an attack on games and the industry itself.
On the post: If Trump Ever Actually Creates A Social Network Of His Own, You Can Bet It Will Rely On Section 230
Re:
Subscription services are so 2010.
No Trump's going F2P MMO Microtransactions. Think 2000's cell phone nickle and diming. X posts per day, par per post after. You can read, but that like or comment will cost you. You can pay for VIP, gives you unlimited posting, but likes are a different service, cause hes borrowing Korean MMO's overlapping VIP subscription model.
On the post: North Carolina Legislators Push Bill That Would Prevent Cops, Prosecutors From Charging Six-Year-Olds For Picking Flowers
Re:
What the FUCK about this article describes "continued efforts to take control of the human supply chain further and further upstream"?
On the post: Sidney Powell Asks Court To Dismiss Defamation Lawsuit Because She Was Just Engaging In Heated Hyperbole... Even When She Was Filing Lawsuits
Re: haven't we seen this before?
Kinda? Rachael Maddow disclosed true statements and then formed opinion based on those true statements. Her defense was that the facts were true and therefore not defamatory, and her conclusions were opinions reasonably reached by the disclosed facts and therefore not defamatory. She knew the reporter worked for Russian State Media (among other facts, this is off the top of my head) and so claiming the reporter was writing Russian State propaganda is a reasonable conclusion.
In this case, Sydney Powell is not claiming an underlying factual basis for her opinions. The reason she is being sued is because her factual claims were false. Sydney is claiming that her factual inaccuracies were in fact rhetorical hyperbole and no one would assume her facts were indeed facts. That's why the lawsuits she filed are important - she made express statements under penalty of perjury that her facts, the basis for the lawsuits, were true.
We have seen this behavior before - Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson have both made similar defenses for content they spewed on their shows. Focusing on tucker, he was sued for defamation by survivors of school shootings. Tucker had claimed they were lying and that those grieving the dead were crisis actors. Tucker argued that the contents of his show is opinion, and no one would believe what he says is factual. Tucker wasn't saying here is the company this parent works for, here is the kid alive and well, its all fake. He presented no facts, only assertions. That is a more dangerous territory. That is why he didn't rely on Maddow's defense that his work was reasonable opinion based on disclosed facts. Rather, he relied on a defense that his bullshit was so insane no one should have believed him.
The differences between the defenses should be clear. but if not:
1) I have evidence that X works for Y, and therefore it was reasonable to hold the opinion that he did Z
2) I lied but my lies are so outrageous no one should believe me and you can't hold me accountable for the rubes who did.
Next >>