ikeboy

99 ms·

781.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Which is great. Wages are sticky, making it difficult to reduce nominal wages. Inflation helps prevent layoffs by allowing for some real reduction in wages in a weak economy without having to reduce nominal wages. Getting rid of this mechan
782.
by ikeboy 7y ago
It's indistinguishable but there's a way to put in both passwords while using the outer container so it prevents overwriting the inner one.
783.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>On a related note, the disinterested interest thing is why I've never met a talented professional. By that, I mean the classic suit-and-tie professionals. Lawyers, doctors, accountants, bankers. I've met plenty of competent on
784.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Compare to Amazon's at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20190716/109793/HHRG... My guess is for questions asking for a specific number and that wasn't given, the details were submit
785.
by ikeboy 7y ago
It's possible they gave different answers privately and requested for exact numbers not to be released publicly. Seems likely based on reading Amazon's reply to the same committee, which also didn't give specific numbers to s
786.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>You're assuming the winning probability p does not decrease as the odds Y goes up. This is a silly assumption. No, the only assumption required is that the probability decreases much slower than the odds goes up. Which is self-evid
787.
by ikeboy 7y ago
I figured out the issue. You're assuming you can bet any fraction you want, while Pascal's mugging requires a specific bet, take it or leave it. Maximizing log wealth will require taking such bets at less than 100% of your current
788.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Yes, maximizing the log implies you shouldn't bet everything. But you should still bet 99.99%, if the odds are a googol to 1.
789.
by ikeboy 7y ago
The link says it's trying to maximize log wealth. If it's not actually doing that, then sure, it can limit loss. What exactly is being optimized?
790.
by ikeboy 7y ago
How are you getting those numbers? If you're trying to maximize log wealth, someone promising an insane amount of wealth for a trivial investment is a positive value for log wealth. The amount may need to be slightly more insane than i
791.
by ikeboy 7y ago
The problem with things like this is it's hard to disable on a case-by-case basis. I enabled something similar in a VPN and found that certain redirecting tracking links from emails were blocked. Ok great, they don't know that I
792.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>We've reintroduced infinities; so now our rationalist must accept that there are infinitely many situations with the same properties as the Mugging (positive expected value, Almost Sure to lose the stake). Yes, in the presence of i
793.
by ikeboy 7y ago
You need to maximize expected utility. In order to avoid this, you need utility to be bounded: there must be some multiple of your current utility that's impossible to ever have regardless of what happens.
794.
by ikeboy 7y ago
A bond requirement after a certain amount of sales isn't a bad idea, but the threshold should be significantly higher, maybe over 50k or 100k in sales in a year. A better idea may be to enforce the insurance requirement. This de facto
795.
by ikeboy 7y ago
They do. Have you ever tried to sign up for an account?
796.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>How much would I have to pay you to borrow your passport to set up a seller account? My passport would be useless, because I was banned from Amazon after dozens of frivolous complaints by a competitor, who I'm currently suing. I&#x
797.
by ikeboy 7y ago
I've certainly talked to many US sellers who openly admit to running multiple accounts. Many feel that it's just not responsible to only run a single account if you're doing significant volume, even 100% legitimately.
798.
by ikeboy 7y ago
What exactly is the proposed solution? Amazon already requires ID verification to open new accounts, and will ban accounts that they can link to old banned accounts.
799.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>It's been discussed to death Where? >overseas sellers simply have a massive advantage in starting new seller accounts on Amazon. Why would it be any easier for an overseas seller to start a new account after being banned? Amazon
800.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>Caught selling garbage (product marked new actually used, totaly fake junk) enough times -> gone from marketplace and hard to get back in. This is what they have now. Many sellers get suspended over used sold as new and inauthentic c
801.
by ikeboy 7y ago
If you strongly need 100% guarantee of authenticity instead of 99.9%, then yes, go ahead and pay more to buy directly from the company. Of course, many companies add returns back to inventory, and some customers commit return fraud. I assum
802.
by ikeboy 7y ago
You can still buy Nike from Amazon just like you could have done before Nike started selling to Amazon. There's lots of sellers who buy from Nike outlet stores and resell it on Amazon.
803.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>The judge thought this was abusive. Where are you seeing that in the decision? If they thought it was abusive, they'd throw it out. Requiring a bond to be posted is not the same as finding it to be abusive.
804.
by ikeboy 7y ago
1. For the third time, the business model is licensing images. 2. "The precedent is only relevant because the defendant will incur $100k in legal fees to defend against likely damages of $1k, that he'd/she'd already agre
805.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Rejecting a rule 68 offer doesn't imply the offer was reasonable. Statutory damages mean that licensing fees are not necessarily the basis for damages. Also, it's up the client to accept any offer, not the lawyer.
806.
by ikeboy 7y ago
If he felt it was frivolous, he would dismiss it. There's nothing wrong with filing large numbers of cases, per se. See also https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2018/04/12/what-is-a-copyrig...
807.
by ikeboy 7y ago
So your belief is the lawyers in a case need to have significant non-legal business in order to not be trolling?
808.
by ikeboy 7y ago
They're not requiring it. They just suppress the buybox if they see a cheaper offer, regardless of who's selling it.
809.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Copyright infringement is a tort, and statutory damages are provided for precisely because the legislature wants people to get a pay day in such cases.
810.
by ikeboy 7y ago
The judge hasn't said the case is frivolous. He's just required to post a bond in case he loses. This guy is notorious for filing large numbers of cases. That doesn't mean they're meritless. He does this for many differe

More ›