ikeboy

74 ms·

721.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Agreed. Recently Amazon stopped showing addresses to sellers for FBA orders. If you don't even know who your customer is, it's hard to argue you are the retailer.
722.
by ikeboy 7y ago
There's a substantial portion of their customer base that would not consider other sites that took longer to ship. I'm not claiming everyone is like that but it's a relevant market.
723.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>Splitting out GMV is important because Amazon isn’t setting the price or choosing the selection for the third party Marketplace Well. In some cases, Amazon will drop a third party's price for them and reimburse the difference - in
724.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>In a sense, whether a given mechanism provides entropy is a matter of “this or that expert said that it does”; impossibility of accurate simulation comes from physics, specifically quantum mechanics, so the entropy pool estimator is bas
725.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Accounting wise, the fact you made a profit on futures is unrelated to your current costs buying in the physical market. Most likely the futures in question aren't being physically settled. Regardless, the economic cost is what determi
726.
by ikeboy 7y ago
This is incorrect. If you have futures, your marginal cost is still $4, since now you're using an additional gallon instead of selling it at market price at $4.
727.
by ikeboy 7y ago
There is absolutely no more reason to keep prices low if you've made a profit independently on futures than if you haven't. Your marginal cost goes up in both cases. If you're optimising profits, you should make the same deci
728.
by ikeboy 7y ago
How am I part of any problem? Are you familiar with the first sale doctrine? My actions were perfectly legal at all times. I did this professionally, had bought hundreds of tp-link routers from legitimate suppliers. It's not like I fou
729.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Note that Belkin is owned by Foxconn. Otherwise, I agree with the dynamics you describe. There's two kinds of brands, the ones that make cheap crap that kinda works and the expensive decent quality ones. On some level, you get what you
730.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Yeah, we got banned after TP-Link falsely claimed we were selling counterfeit routers. The article briefly mentions brands abusing the reporting system, but talk to any sizable reseller and you'll find it's very prevalent. My esti
731.
by ikeboy 7y ago
It doesn't completely solve the problem, no. But the stories of hospitals and other entities paying non-trivial sums in ransom I would expect are mostly professional criminals, not hackers doing it for lulz.
732.
by ikeboy 7y ago
That just sounds punitive. The goal here is to deter ransoms and ultimately reduce the incentive for ransomware, not to be punitive.
733.
by ikeboy 7y ago
I'd make it a crime punishable by prison in proportion to the amount paid, or perhaps require a multiple of the amount paid as a fine. If you need to pay 10X the ransom as a fine, then the ransom criminals can extract goes down by a fa
734.
by ikeboy 7y ago
If someone I loved was in a hospital that might get targeted by ransomware, I'd prefer we adopt the policies that reduce the prevalence of ransomware.
735.
by ikeboy 7y ago
> Sometimes it is the only way to get things back running. I understand its the organization's fault for not having backups. It would destroy some businesses, hospitals, schools if they weren't able to pay the ransom. That does
736.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Set a threshold where payments above that amount are illegal. Even a threshold at say, 25k or above will reduce the incentive to attack individual systems, and payments of that size are difficult to hide if everyone knows they're illeg
737.
by ikeboy 7y ago
We need to make it illegal to pay ransoms. Paying a ransom is like defecting in a prisoner's dilemma: it benefits you at the expense of hurting everyone else who will be stuck in the same situation. Making it illegal just forces everyo
738.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Yes, if for whatever reason nobody values an activity over the fine my formula produces, then any amount in between will be equally efficient: in your example any fine above $500 is equally efficient. But note that nobody ever pays the fine
739.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Most of the policies I'm referencing are a few years old. My reddit post I linked is from around a year ago and talks about all these policies except for the 7 day courtesy period, so I don't know exactly when that went into effec
740.
by ikeboy 7y ago
What's interesting about the two positions you conflate is that they're actually complete opposites. The prevailing narrative on Amazon is that it's overrun by infringement and it's too difficult to file complaints and t
741.
by ikeboy 7y ago
What part of the comment you're replying to do you classify as an opinion, as opposed to a factual claim?
742.
by ikeboy 7y ago
3 unopposed strikes and you're shutdown. >Also, the strikes remain until the disputes are resolved entirely, so even if you dispute everything, you can still be taken offline. Note that per https://support.google.com&#x
743.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>is there any massive online firm that does any of the horrible things its users have documented it doing? The multibillion dollar one I'm currently suing for doing horrible documented things to me (Thimes Solutions Inc vs TP-Link e
744.
by ikeboy 7y ago
This is incorrect. The account will not be banned if you submit counternotices to all complaints. You don't need to sue: as I explained, it's the company alleging infringement that needs to sue to keep the claim going. This is ast
745.
by ikeboy 7y ago
It's possible it worked that way in the past, but it's certainly not the case now. If disputed within five days, all revenue is escrowed until resolution. And content ID claims can be easily disputed and must be turned into a DMCA
746.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Most articles I've seen about the YouTube system are wildly misinformed. Here's the facts: in almost all cases [0], anyone can easily get rid of any abusive claim by simply disputing it, and filing a counternotice if and when it i
747.
by ikeboy 7y ago
No. GDP should always be rising. Markets not necessarily so. 1987 saw a massive market crash with no recession.
748.
by ikeboy 7y ago
You're definitely arguing with various premises of public policy economics. Although you believe monetary fines are appropriate, you also claim to think we can't trade-off sacred values such as avoiding crime against mundane value
749.
by ikeboy 7y ago
You wrote above >The purpose of a speeding ticket is to (a) punish and (b) deter. You've yet to give any justification of "punishment" in this context outside of deterrence, and you've explicitly claimed that punishme
750.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>However, multiple people actually have provided that evidence and explained in great detail why your idea and formula is wrong. This is false. The only comment that actually purported to respond said there's an issue with an error

More ›