notmyaccount

You just have to use Bing Search. You get MS Bucks.

Your Windows is gonna spontaneously explode killing all of humanity.

Become Trillionaire??!!

I upvoted it for the MS bucks I got.

Counter-counter-counterpoint: That erased 850b in value. It could have been 1700b but Nadella doesn't dance or scream. Just stares angrily.

Start answering questions. You'll automatically learn how to ask questions.

Good Morning Sir,

I hope this letter finds you in good health. Since I've seen that you are offering AMD 3900X at a discount, I'd like to inform you that I am not like those pleebs and would therefore like you to pay in full MSRP. Please let me know where I can send the goats.

I have the honor to be your obedient customer.

N. Pleeb

The All India Online Vendors Association (AIOVA), which represents more than 3,500 online sellers did file a complaint against Flipkart/Amazon with Competition Commission of India (CCI) however, CCI did not find any violation of existing laws in Amazon or Flipkarts trade practices. IANAL but India does have Anti-Dumping and Pro-Competition laws but probably they are not updated for e-commerce. Amazon and Flipkart are able to find loop holes in it to continue their practices. Which is why Govt. imposed the marketplace cannot sell the products laws.

For Food delivery, the Restaurant Association is discussing the matter with Govt. Agencies. This article would be able to explain laws better : http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/808174/Antitrust+Competition/C...

Amazon and Flipkart used its business power in India to buy up thousands of products in bulk, sell them to vendors on their platforms, and then allow those vendors to offer the same products to customers. They also used to offer to cover vendor losses for discounts on its site using their dollar might at a loss to themselves. It was a huge incentive for heavily cost-conscious Indian consumers as an incentive to move from offline marketplace to online marketplace. This was very important in a pre-dominantly cash oriented conservative Indian market where consumers were reluctant to purchase things online due to fear of fraud. In addition to this, they started offering 0% cost financing for 6 months to purchase the products at installments without any interest rate with or without credit cards. However, what it is doing is driving offline markets out of the business as they cannot match the discounts offered by these companies. This is the reason trade association complained to the government and government decided to take this action.

For example, a smartphone that sells at $400 at offline stores would be available for $350 on Amazon/Flipkart. The cost price of device would be $350 for offline stores. You can also use No Cost financing to purchase the product for monthly payment of $58.33 for 6 months (Totaling $350). Amazon/Flipkart would absorb the interest cost. The losses are obvious as neither Amazon India Inc. (opened 2013) nor Flipkart (opened 2007 and the biggest Indian marketplace bought by Walmart in 2018 for $16 Billion) have made a cent of profit in India. Both Flipkart and Amazon had losses around $500 million for FY17-18, a number expected to go up post Walmart's purchase of Flipkart. Also, Amazon Prime is India is available for $15 a year and includes Amazon Prime Video, Amazon Prime Music and 1 Day Free Standard Shipping with no minimum order. In a country where data is basically free (30GB 4G Data with unlimited calls/messages per month for $2), this also adds to pushing people towards Amazon.

On a seperate note, a similar thing is taking place in Indian food delivery market where food delivery companies like Zomato, Swiggy or Ubereats are offering steep continuous discounts of 40-60% forcing delivery restaurants to jump into their ecosystem. The Restaurant association has also approached government with their complaints.

For Example, a Sub that sells for $4 would be delivered for $2 including delivery cost. The delivery companies absorbing rest of the costs.

To prove that he lied on the application form, they would have to legally prove him as a terrorist. The legal process of proving someone is a terrorist would be same. So isn't it pointless?

To prove that they lied on the form, wouldn't they have to legally prove that he is a terrorist and go through the same legal process which you said will be avoided?

It seems pointless.

Totally my bad. I used the wrong word rentable, whereas I meant to write short-term rentals.

For example, if I own a single-family home, my ability to rent it out is restricted by zoning rules. I would have to look up the Certificate of Occupancy and potentially make changes if I intended to rent my place out. It could even mean involving an architect because the building would have to meet the structural requirements for a rooming house. There are lots of redtapes.

Haha. I mean yes I kinda agree with what you said.

I mean declaring a property to be short term rentable is much harder than it ought to be. This is what the hotel association NYC has spent years lobbying for. So something new like AirBnB cannot harm their market.

AirBnb definitely solves a problem and generally at a much cheaper price. We need to update our laws to let it do that in a sustainable manner.

Edit: Corrected rentable to short-term rentable

You have to look at the overall benefit, not just the benefit of the local community. I gave certain examples why the community choice might be due to their own selfish reasons in the reply to comment above yours.

I am not saying that they should go on breaking the laws. The laws are clear. But at certain times, the laws have been deliberately lobbied to create a hindrance for any new players in the market. Like in this case, applying for a permit to rent out apartments should have been much easier than the current cumbersome process is.

Like NY Taxi Medallions. Before Uber, Lyft or other ride-sharing apps, there was only 13,587 yellow cabs in the city of 8.5 million people. Currently, there are an estimated 100,000 cabs in the city which resulted in a drop of medallion prices from $1.4 million in 2014 to just $140,000 now. It was an artificial bubble created by the taxi drivers community (and government) to keep the medallion price inflated. It is easy to see why they were against ride-sharing apps.

Or California housing zones. We all know that California has a housing crisis and one of the potential solution is to have multi-story buildings. For that, we need easy rezoning of residential zones to allow multi-story building redevelopment. However, most of the community members refuse to allow for that since it would bring down the rent and property prices. So the community is not interested in allowing easy development of multi-story buildings.

If all the hotel, taxi, etc. owners group up to create a cartel to keep the status quo and not to disrupt the market, then that is also not exactly good.

The choice of a community does not necessarily mean that it is the right choice.

I hadn't watched it but thanks to this I am gonna watch it now.

I think it's reporter misinterpreting what sources said.

Cause if there was indeed "backdoored motherboard", it'd be very easy to produce the said device and say "Look!".

Exactly they cannot keep inventing the wheel.

Apple processors always blow away the competitors by miles and it takes them the competitors up to a year to catch up. They have amazing cameras, music quality, build, looks, display, security, etc. If they aren't the best, they are in the top 3. And that is all in 1 phone.

I do not personally prefer Apple cause it is not my cup of tea (and I need headphone jack) but they have been coming up with amazing phones year after year, and you can easily skip a year without it affecting your usage.

They cannot reinvent the wheel every time.

Not surprising. I was one of the pirates before streaming services came about. Now I am not.

Or maybe it was because I was younger and had a finite amount of pocket money to spend on an infinite amount of desires.

But streaming has definitely made it lots easier to access music.