asldkfjasfd7

Lot's of comments below are uptight about the definition of "barter". Which is a very vaguely defined word: trade of goods/services without the use of money.

Old school accounting in many parts of the world did not rely on financial transactions. Central authorities preferred "proper" financial instruments, but for the commoner, bartering was a regular activity.

Knicks on clay tablets tracked debt, sure, but the repayment may not have been via money. 2 pelts to Bill now for a bushel of grain in return next month type agreements are all over history.

It's hard to determine how much activity like this there was, and a lot of the history focused on official financial systems because, well, it's easy to find data on.

It depends on some definitions, but I've read that's not the case. Jericho region is said to have been exclusively barter based until ~7,500 BC

And it depends on what you mean by "depended on". The central authorities of the day maybe preferred to rely on financial tools, but the people themselves performed a non-insignificant amount of commerce using barter.

"2 knicks on this clay tablet reminds me that I gave Tom two bushels of wheat, and Tom will return to me 2 pelts," contrived example to make the point aside, such scenarios as I understand it, were (and are) pretty common.

It depends on what context you're looking from. Bankers might say it's a ridiculous, outdated notion, and sell the idea it's never really existed. Poor people might say yeah well, it's all we really have.

Agreed about build quality. Our small office ordered a couple models in 2014-ish, to evaluate them.

Lifted the LCD to find it had some much flex, it felt like tagboard. Plastic housings were incredibly flimsy feeling. Those 10" netbooks that were popular for a while never felt as cheap.

We kept them as emergency backups and used one as a server, tucked in the server closet for a bit, but otherwise stuck with Dell.

Who knows, maybe the aluminum one will remove those problems.

In her blog post she claims she took and shared many screenshots, among other items, with Uber management of messaging she received. There is proof. Will it come out in public forums? Why would it?

The odds of a lawsuit from one side or the other seems high, at least right now. Why air that all publicly? Doing so can and has undermined cases for both sides in the past.

Besides that, does our justice system now use Twitter to try and convict? Are trials by public opinion what matter now? When did that change?

What exactly is stopping Uber from defending themselves? They have a lot of money, top-notch PR folks, and I suspect top-notch legal representation. If they could easily disprove this, would they not have done so already?