borski

43 ms·

751.
by borski 3y ago
Fair enough. I don’t disagree they saw it as a way to make some money. I took your comment to imply that as a result of charging, their goal in fighting Apple was to “get back to charging $2/mo” which is a pretty surface-level statemen
752.
by borski 3y ago
They stopped charging almost immediately, as soon as the iMessage functionality was broken, and never started again. This is a strawman.
753.
by borski 3y ago
I think it’s interesting to equate Ukraine and Palestine, given that there are massive differences between the two. For one thing, Ukraine hadn’t spent the last few decades shooting dozens or hundreds of rocket into Russia every day. Putin’
754.
by borski 3y ago
Which side killed more has rarely been a good proxy for which side was right.
755.
by borski 3y ago
> So this is going to seem very one sided, but if you look prior to Oct 7, you can't have peace where one side controls everything, has all the resources, and uses them to keep the other population "occupied". That is alwa
756.
by borski 3y ago
You’re right. I stand corrected. There was discussion about it internally but I forgot that iMessage didn’t make it out as “open” by the end.
757.
by borski 3y ago
I was alive and recall the reporting at the time? I don’t have the energy to find sources right now but my memory, while not perfect, is pretty certain this isn’t the Mandela effect. I also worked at Apple in 2008, and recall the discussion
758.
by borski 3y ago
RCS existed as a concept, but was extremely flawed and underfunded. Carriers had zero interest in changing from SMS at the time. Apple tried, and gave up, instead choosing to build iMessage. You may recall that when it was announced, it was
759.
by borski 3y ago
Because then SMS would never progress, and we’d all be stuck with 140 characters under the hood along with optional subjects and zero security. There was no push for RCS until iMessage came along.
760.
by borski 3y ago
American Tobacco Co - in 1890 and, through acquisitions and mergers, came to control virtually the entire American tobacco industry with around 150 factories. The U.S. Court of Appeals eventually deemed it in violation of the Sherman Antitr
761.
by borski 3y ago
Pure free markets also lead to monopolies, as we’ve seen countless times in American history before various markets got regulated.
762.
by borski 3y ago
Oh, it you! Hi Jordan I miss you let’s hang out sometime :)
763.
by borski 3y ago
The US government did not invent insurance. If a company wanted to compete with an existing insurance company but do it differently, they can already do that; direct primary care offerings exist right now. Healthcare, when coupled with a pr
764.
by borski 3y ago
Most of these companies are public, and you do not have to be rich to own shares. Also, tons of rich people do not own healthcare insurer interests. Tbh, they generally don't perform exceptionally well. "Rich people," as a gr
765.
by borski 3y ago
> Reminder of the orthopedic surgeon whose recommendation for surgery was denied from insurance citing an insurance-paid doctor who is lifetime banned from doing surgery for installing a hip in backwards Source? I believe you, I just rea
766.
by borski 3y ago
The status quo doesn’t benefit people with money. That they don’t get a significant benefit from Medicare doesn’t mean that shitty insurance somehow benefits them more.
767.
by borski 3y ago
If they incentivize every insurance company the same way, and in the same amount, it is still a free market. The playing field is still level.
768.
by borski 3y ago
Yes, it’s the last part. Medicare has set prices it will pay [0], period, and Medicare is not prone to denying procedures that a physician thinks is necessary. This is a public socialized good. MA plans negotiate with providers, similar to
769.
by borski 3y ago
For what it’s worth, the vast majority of founders, at least in the valley, are not like this. Elsewhere, I cannot speak. In the valley they exist, but aren’t a majority. Most founders value their people extremely well, because they want to
770.
by borski 3y ago
A few thousand years of regular stabilization and destabilization would like a few words with you, lol
771.
by borski 3y ago
That's nice, and I'd believe that, if my buddy who ordered one had gotten even a single response to his six emails about it thus far.
772.
by borski 3y ago
Diners is accepted everywhere Discover is. It's smaller than AmEx, probably, but it's all over Korea, for example.
773.
by borski 3y ago
People lose cash too.
774.
by borski 3y ago
Not true.
775.
by borski 3y ago
Being a "company that builds cars" and being a "car company" are different things. Tesla is a sales and R&D company, which happens to occasionally produce cars worth buying.
776.
by borski 3y ago
No; early adopters need a product to adopt. This is grift.
777.
by borski 3y ago
Not only that, but they can enforce nearly 50-50 weight distribution (the Lucid Air is something like 49.5/50.5) and the torque doesn't all come from a single spot in the car, then having to be distributed. With the Lucid, each ax
778.
by borski 3y ago
Your argument has no merit. I have already stated “Aside from a small investment through a YCombinator fund (sama was formerly its president), he doesn't have any equity in the company.” Until you have some kind of proof he’s lying, I’
779.
by borski 3y ago
He opted against financial stake in the company, "citing his concern regarding the use of profit as an incentive in AI development," according to the WSJ. Rather than trying to assume it's some corporate conspiracy, I'm
780.
by borski 3y ago
Hard to believe or not, them’s the facts. He does not own any stock, and does not have any issues options or anything like that.

More ›