ikeboy

97 ms·

961.
by ikeboy 7y ago
An even more interesting idea is treasury bonds with high coupons that would sell for above par, allowing more spending without increasing the debt by the full amount. See https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles&#x2F
962.
by ikeboy 7y ago
The equivalent in the US is a design patent.
963.
by ikeboy 7y ago
You said they were not copying the brand, so it's not trademark infringement nor counterfeit. You keep using the word counterfeit when it does not apply. Copyright is also not applicable unless there's a work of art printed on the
964.
by ikeboy 7y ago
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
965.
by ikeboy 7y ago
The only way it would be counterfeit is if they sell it as an Anker product or print Anker on the product. My assumption would be that the same factory that makes Anker products is also selling the same designs to competitors - it's al
966.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Nothing illegal about that unless Anker has a design patent.
967.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Are those identical products being sold as Anker, or under different brands? If it's different brands then it's not counterfeit just to make a product that looks similar to another one.
968.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Most Anker stuff is sold by only Anker, so that wouldn't be a problem.
969.
by ikeboy 7y ago
If you weight all sellers equally, sure. If you weight by sales volume, I suspect they'd come out behind.
970.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Anecdotally I've spoken to people who compete with Amazon private label in electronics and they tell me Amazon doesn't care about quality, and that the factories they were buying from were known to be lower quality. I've also
971.
by ikeboy 7y ago
They recalled a quarter million power banks because they were catching fire. Everybody uses the same factories and Amazon doesn't have better quality control than anyone else.
972.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Tldr of the algorithm from the paper: Instead of choosing random numbers to include in the list, they're choosing the gap between numbers. They derive the distribution of this gap then approximate it so it can be calculated quickly.
973.
by ikeboy 7y ago
I'm assuming so based on the tweet where she shares it and effectively says the NYT had the same info and didn't print it.
974.
by ikeboy 7y ago
She did take it elsewhere. Compare the NYMAG story and the NYT one.
975.
by ikeboy 7y ago
QuickBooks, PayPal, and Amazon all offer effectively the same product. Being the fourth (at least, I may be missing some) major player in a market doing the same thing as everyone else isn't innovative.
976.
by ikeboy 7y ago
https://popula.com/2018/08/08/honestly-yonatan-raz-portugali... looking through previous posts by the same author
977.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Switching from an iPhone to a laptop is a huge step down in security, even with 2FA. Orders of magnitude more 0-days on whatever software is running on that laptop than on iOS. This is bad advice.
978.
Even Amazon's own products are getting hijacked by imposter sellers(theverge.com)
5 points by ikeboy 7y ago|0 comments
979.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Comparing the cheapest international shipping program with one of the more expensive domestic options, when there are several differences I pointed out above, is misleading. You've yet to make a case that they're comparable.
980.
by ikeboy 7y ago
They may not be charging you for shipping but they're definitely paying for it. I'm not sure exactly what program AliExpress Standard Shipping is sent through. It seems like it's slower but it's hard to get information.
981.
by ikeboy 7y ago
No, US sellers can't ship using an international shipping program. It's two fundamentally different things. You can try to set up a comparison that's closer. That would involve sorting discounts on the US side. Chinese shippe
982.
by ikeboy 7y ago
UPU and epacket are different things, and epacket is currently profitable for the USPS.
983.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Large shippers generally do have access to similarly priced shipping options. It's difficult to directly compare because volume prices aren't all public.
984.
by ikeboy 7y ago
https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library... estimates $74 million profit for 2016 using internal data. https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-l
985.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Note that the program described there, ePacket, is now profitable for the USPS. It took them a few years to scale up but it's been profitable for years now.
986.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Then they're most likely using ePacket, which is more expensive than UPU rates and is profitable for the USPS, and is not subsidized.
987.
by ikeboy 7y ago
You can get costs down on small, light packages by putting it in a big envelope and using good old fashioned stamps.
988.
by ikeboy 7y ago
UPU and ePacket are two different programs. ePacket is more expensive, includes tracking, and is profitable for USPS.
989.
by ikeboy 7y ago
And that is evaluated on a per market basis. The assertion that losing money on some services causes them to raise prices elsewhere is baseless. Even if there was a mechanism the numbers don't work - there's orders of magnitude mo
990.
by ikeboy 7y ago
This is incorrect. There's no mechanism by which cheaper prices for UPU mail translates into higher prices for US customers. If they had pricing power they'd raise prices regardless of fixed losses elsewhere.

More ›