nodamage

15 ms·

121.
by nodamage 3y ago
> Google indisputably has a monopoly over web search: ~93% market share. (I'll never understand why we've done nothing legally about this.) You seem to be under the misconception that it is illegal for Google to possess a monop
122.
by nodamage 3y ago
A literal monopoly is 100% market share. So all this quote is saying is that 100% market share is not required before antitrust law applies, which doesn't really tell us anything meaningful.
123.
by nodamage 3y ago
In case anyone is interested in the legal background behind this decision I've read through the ruling and here are the key reasons why Epic's appeal failed: 1. The first reason involves Epic's attempt to define the relevant
124.
by nodamage 3y ago
That's how theses cases usually work. Antitrust claimants want to define the market as narrowly as possible for their own benefit. Defendants want to define it as wide as possible for the same reason. It's up to the court to figur
125.
by nodamage 3y ago
Just like every other law? The legal definition of a monopoly has been refined over decades of case law, this ruling comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with the specific requirements of that definition (which were clearly not met by Ep
126.
by nodamage 3y ago
The entire point of the court ruling is that it is not legally considered a monopoly, at least according to US antitrust law.
127.
by nodamage 4y ago
If you are a light sleeper I would not recommend taking an overnight train, especially on Amtrak. I took the Empire Builder from Seattle to Chicago once and found it essentially impossible to sleep for three days, which killed whatever roma
128.
by nodamage 4y ago
That is indeed the important question. Unfortunately we really need clarification from the IRS here (or additional action from Congress).
129.
by nodamage 4y ago
I read that too but it seems like speculation and I'm not sure it's correct, see my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34634335
130.
by nodamage 4y ago
> In short, use of software to support your business is different from “Software R&E”. Of course the cost of using software to support your business is already deductible as an ordinary business expense. Just to be clear, the discuss
131.
by nodamage 4y ago
I am not sure the interpretation given in this article is correct. Specifically, this claim: > "Is Section 174 Needed to Deduct R&E Expenses?" > "In a word, no. During the Supreme Court oral arguments regarding S
132.
by nodamage 4y ago
Under the previous law it was not a mutually exclusive choice, you could deduct the R&E expense under Section 174 and also claim the R&D credit under Section 41. Under the current law you can no longer do both, if you want to take t
133.
by nodamage 4y ago
You appear to be conflating R&E expenses (Section 174) with the R&D credit (Section 41). Everyone knows taking the R&D credit (Section 41) is optional, that's not what is being discussed here. The actual question is: if you
134.
by nodamage 4y ago
You appear to be conflating R&E expenses (Section 174) with the R&D credit (Section 41). They are related but not the same thing, and the original question was about the former not the latter.
135.
by nodamage 4y ago
The Wikipedia page does not make this clear but Microsoft did not actually lose on the tying claim. The district court ruled against them but this was appealed and the appeals court vacated that ruling and remanded the case for further anal
136.
by nodamage 4y ago
> Nearly every app, even "safe apps" including children-rated apps, allow access to an in app browser. Even when iOs has locked down all access to Safari, a parent has removed access to all the "apparent" unsafe sites
137.
by nodamage 4y ago
That's not actually what this paper says. Reduced neutralization in a lab experiment doesn't necessarily imply zero protection in the real world. (As we're now finding out.)
138.
by nodamage 4y ago
That's pretty unfortunate for the end user who is then forced to choose between having all notifications or not at all.
139.
by nodamage 4y ago
Sure, you can offer me different notification channels for rides vs ads. But remember, I am an unscrupulous developer. How are you going to stop me from sending you ads through the rides channel? My underlying point, of course, is just beca
140.
by nodamage 4y ago
> More restrictive and more transparent handling of permissions. Maybe this mechanism was caused by Uber bundling some sort of library that led to permissions leak. Perhaps the OS could expose that permission being triggered. I don'
141.
by nodamage 4y ago
> But off the bat, iOS could force even more granular alerts to the user when sensitive permissions are required. How does having more granular alerts actually solve this issue? > Curious too, how you think that App Store review curre
142.
by nodamage 4y ago
> If these abuses happen under the aegis of the current App Store, doesn't that nullify the argument that App Store review is sufficient protection? Not at all. App Store review is not perfect and no one expects it to be. That doesn
143.
by nodamage 4y ago
People always make this argument in these kinds of threads and I wonder how it isn't blatantly obvious that operating-system level restrictions are woefully inadequate to deal with unscrupulous developers. Put yourself in the mindset o
144.
by nodamage 4y ago
The way this tweet is phrased seems to suggest that it is being sold, just not specifically for $25M.
145.
by nodamage 4y ago
I'm not sure whether by "bundling" you are referring to Microsoft bundling IE with Windows, but if so, that was actually one of the findings that was specifically vacated by the appeals court: These arguments all point to on
146.
by nodamage 5y ago
There are several states that tax your income based on the location of your employer even if you do not live or work in that state. New York being the most prominent example since they actually changed their policy during Covid. (Presumably
147.
by nodamage 5y ago
This Danish study ( https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.27.21268278v... ) of Omicron household secondary attack rates found a 52% reduction in susceptibility for boosted individuals and a 51% reduction i
148.
by nodamage 5y ago
Not sure why this was downvoted? Studies have shown that vaccination does indeed reduce both susceptibility and transmissibility ( https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.27.21268278v... ).
149.
by nodamage 5y ago
I'm sorry but this kind of calculation is handwavy to the point of absurdity. The author might as well be pulling this number out of a hat. 1. 25% chance for literal anything at all, sure, why not. 2. 66% reduction from vaccination pl
150.
by nodamage 5y ago
> So why do you need to have a vaccine pass to go places? You can still carry the virus and infect people. Even if they aren't 100% effective, vaccines still reduce both the likelihood that you will become infected and also the like

More ›