Randomness thread, part two.

[BananaStand]

This is why we can't have nice things. I don't see the point in your specific example as to the benefit this would give the lobbying group.

I illustrated it quite clearly. In my example, the full-serve station can make an extra penny of profit per gallon if the consumers are denied the ability to exercise their choice in a free market.

Anyone telling me to open my eyes whilst trying to have a normal conversation about something (of which I've made no claims against) is just incredibly off putting.

Your exact words were "i don't really see....". In that instance, I think 'open your eyes' is a perfectly apt suggestion.

[Jack Sawyer]

No need to quote into oblivion. Let's say you suffer from intense delusional paranoia and leave it at that.



...

Paranoid? Not at all.


But you are putting a lot of words in my proverbial mouth there too, that I "ignore", "see that as a bad thing" and I "seem to think"

[BananaStand]

But you are putting a lot of words in my proverbial mouth there too, that I "ignore", "see that as a bad thing" and I "seem to think"

Just making a read man. Show your hand and prove me wrong

If wal mart wants to open a store across the street from 'Gramps Local Hardware Store', whose side are you on?

Is it

A) you're on Gramp's side because he's being overrun by a vastly more powerful competitor, and that's not fair.

or

B) you're on Wal-mart's side because the overall economy is effected positively, even if Gramps is affected negatively. You also recognize that Gramps didn't do shit to compete in a changing market place, or address the changing concerns of his customers.

I'm gonna guess you lean heavily toward A. But feel free to tell me differently.

[Jack Sawyer]

I said this:

Which is why I distrust every single corporation in the world. Good that you see this, even though I'm 95% sure you didn't know you saw it just yet, and will quote this post to oblivion on how much you disagree with


Every single one cares for just one thing: Profit.


And, if left unchecked, unregulated, and to do what they do best, this is the exact market position they strive for. Bankroll this behaviour (old money, previous gains, whatever) and other mini businesses, particularly mom n pop shops, are fucked right out of existence by lobbyist armies. Competition? Fuck 'em.






Impossible hamster much?

So we start here

When AT&T promises broadband—but delivers only 300kbps
For new homeowners, accurate information from Internet providers is hard to find.


Dave Mortimer went house shopping in 2013, and he made Internet speed a top priority. His standards weren’t incredibly high—he just wanted 20Mbps or so to make sure he could avoid some trips to the office.


But Mortimer learned the truth after moving into the house in Lowell, Michigan, a city of about 4,000 residents. Instead of AT&T’s U-verse fiber-to-the-node service, which could have provided up to 45Mbps, the best AT&T could actually offer him was up to 768kbps download speeds over DSL lines.


Since it was the only wired Internet option available, Mortimer subscribed. He soon found that the "up to" in AT&T's description was there for a reason; Mortimer said he could only get about 300 to 400kbps, a fraction of the 25Mbps download speed that meets the US definition of "broadband.”

https://arstechnica.com/business/201...-only-300kbps/




Then we go here

AT&T refuses to offer low-income discounts for sub-3Mbps Internet
AT&T is required to offer $5 Internet to poor people, but many are out of luck.


When AT&T purchased DirecTV, merger conditions imposed by the Federal Communications Commission required the ISP to offer Internet service for either $5 or $10 a month to people with low incomes.


But AT&T has found a way around this requirement in areas where the company has failed to upgrade its network to anything remotely resembling modern Internet service. If you live in a place where AT&T's maximum download speeds are less than a paltry 3Mbps, you can't get the discount from the new "Access from AT&T" program.


The FCC merger condition appears to require discount Internet service only in areas where speeds of at least 3Mbps are available. In most places, AT&T must offer either 5Mbps or 10Mbps Internet service for $10 per month to poor people. But in areas "where AT&T has deployed broadband service at top speeds below 5Mbps," the FCC merger order says, "the Company shall offer wireline Broadband Internet Access Service at speeds of at least 3Mbps, where technically available, to qualifying households in the Company’s wireline footprint for no more than $5 per month."

https://arstechnica.com/information-...mbps-internet/




And today we are here

Study on AT&T’s fiber deployment: 1Gbps for the rich, 768kbps for the poor


https://arstechnica.com/information-...l-study-finds/


AT&T's deployment of fiber-to-the-home in California has been heavily concentrated in higher-income neighborhoods, giving affluent people access to gigabit speeds while others are stuck with Internet service that doesn't even meet state and federal broadband standards, according to a new analysis.


"Because there is no regulatory oversight of AT&T’s fiber-to-the-home deployment, AT&T is free to choose the communities in which it builds its all-fiber GigaPower network," UC Berkeley’s Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society wrote in a report released today. "Our analysis finds that AT&T has built its all-fiber network disproportionately in higher income communities. If this pattern continues, it has troubling consequences for low- and moderate-income Californians, leaving many without access to AT&T’s gold standard all-fiber network and exacerbating the digital divide."

AT&T is in this position, because it dominates in the markets in question. It dominates because of its monopolistic position here. It acquired its monopolistic position by being heavily subsidized by the government (which is taboo nowadays) and keeps getting big slices of the government telecom pie https://arstechnica.com/business/201...nment-funding/ (despite claiming to be “free marketists”), and as you can see, its sheer position does not allow “mom and pop” telecom industries to come in and compete.


So, can they give much better internet access for less? Sure they can, they even get subsidized to do just that.








However

Which is why I distrust every single corporation in the world. Good that you see this, even though I'm 95% sure you didn't know you saw it just yet, and will quote this post to oblivion on how much you disagree with


Every single one cares for just one thing: Profit.


And, if left unchecked, unregulated, and to do what they do best, this is the exact market position they strive for. Bankroll this behaviour (old money, previous gains, whatever) and other mini businesses, particularly mom n pop shops, are fucked right out of existence by lobbyist armies. Competition? Fuck 'em.






Impossible hamster much?

[Jack Sawyer]

Just making a read man. Show your hand and prove me wrong

If wal mart wants to open a store across the street from 'Gramps Local Hardware Store', whose side are you on?

Is it

A) you're on Gramp's side because he's being overrun by a vastly more powerful competitor, and that's not fair.

or

B) you're on Wal-mart's side because the overall economy is effected positively, even if Gramps is affected negatively. You also recognize that Gramps didn't do shit to compete in a changing market place, or address the changing concerns of his customers.

I'm gonna guess you lean heavily toward A. But feel free to tell me differently.

What keeps Walmart from raising its prices once 'Gramps Local Hardware Store' is gone?

[Jack Sawyer]

Rights?

[Savy]

What keeps Walmart from raising its prices once 'Gramps Local Hardware Store' is gone?

All their other competition. The idea that a company can just raise prices and nothing happens even if they have a very dominant position in the market is madness.

Rights?

tl;dw, the 4 were?

[BananaStand]

What keeps Walmart from raising its prices once 'Gramps Local Hardware Store' is gone?

Target
Amazon
The Ghost of Gramps

Do a little research on Wal-Mart's operational strategy. They don't raise prices.

"low prices, always" isn't just a marketing slogan. It's a mission statement.

They do not raise prices

Check out a book called "The Wal Mart Effect" pretty interesting stuff.

I'm not saying Wally is a saint. Not everything they do in the pursuit of low prices is 'worth it' in my opinion. But putting Gramps out of business is totally fair game.

[Jack Sawyer]

All their other competition. The idea that a company can just raise prices and nothing happens even if they have a very dominant position in the market is madness.

In the given hypothetical example, only target and the mom and pop shop were actors

In the example I gave, the actual real world one, only AT&T was an actor. And this one was the real world one

tl;dw, the 4 were?

Watch it and maybe you will know

Or don't; it's your choice

[Savy]

In the given hypothetical example, only target and the mom and pop shop were actors

In the example I gave, the actual real world one, only AT&T was an actor. And this one was the real world one



Watch it and maybe you will know

Or don't; it's your choice

Yeah but it was your assumption that there was no other competition which is a ridiculous assumption to make. There are examples of markets that do have this problem but that tends to come from ridiculous networking problems, such as internet, railway, telephone lines, etc. It's disingenuous to imply that "mom & pop shops" would be the competition here though. It just takes profitable chances for other big companies to move in that have the resources to compete. Especially when they are already in that sector.

It's similar in the UK how universities almost always charge the maximum amount of money that they are allowed to charge when the price is raised. Obviously they do because there is nothing that allows others to compete due to the structure of the whole thing. Sort the market out and this wouldn't happen.

Yeah I won't, hence asking.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I see it more as a cover-your-ass-anyway-possible kind of tactic.

Remember the related but unrelated MCD hot coffee incident? They are trying to account for that one fool with suicidal tendencies wanting to go out with a bang who decides to smoke at or near the pump

I'd lay 20:1 that you never familiarized yourself with the facts in the McD hot coffee case, if this is what you think it was.

It doesn't make sense to me that she - a 79-year-old woman in the passenger seat of a parked car, with her grandson in the driving seat - intentionally dumped hot coffee on her thighs, causing 3rd degree burns to 6% of her skin, which required over a week in the hospital getting skin grafts.

Whether or not the court's ruling was justified is another issue.

[Jack Sawyer]

I'd lay 20:1 that you never familiarized yourself with the facts in the McD hot coffee case, if this is what you think it was.

It doesn't make sense to me that she - a 79-year-old woman in the passenger seat of a parked car, with her grandson in the driving seat - intentionally dumped hot coffee on her thighs, causing 3rd degree burns to 6% of her skin, which required over a week in the hospital getting skin grafts.

Whether or not the court's ruling was justified is another issue.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned it being related but unrelated.

Whether or not grandma wanted to spill that coffee on herself, the end result is the same; a very public suit and reputation points which MCD ended up losing both of. Of course it could have been an accident, it could have also been sheer stupidity (on either or both parties), and yet the end result is the same

As examples, had McD had some sort of measure in place ensuring that its coffees can't be too hot, it wouldn't have happened. Had the granny expected the coffee too be too hot and handled it with care, it also wouldn't have happened. Which brings us back to the pump assistant.

BTW: I happen to have familiarized myself with the case. I also look at things in various ways, always looking for the reason why

[Jack Sawyer]

Yeah but it was your assumption that there was no other competition which is a ridiculous assumption to make.

It was a hypothetical. I thought that was the constraint, particularly due to the manner it was presented.

There are examples of markets that do have this problem but that tends to come from ridiculous networking problems, such as internet, railway, telephone lines, etc. It's disingenuous to imply that "mom & pop shops" would be the competition here though. It just takes profitable chances for other big companies to move in that have the resources to compete. Especially when they are already in that sector.

Yeah, and it sucks right? It’s happened to book shops when Amazon showed up. Videorental stores when Netflix showed up. If before there were 100 in any given city, now there’s 1. Or 2. Perhaps none even. The competition which will kill you does not necessarily have to be right in front of your place.


Would I rent a vid at the corner store or on Netflix? I would choose Netflix every time.


Did Netflix kill the videostar? You can bet it did.


Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily for me, but it sure sucks for that video rental store. It should have seen the writing on the wall and changed its act long ago to survive anyway.


However, you have to always keep in mind it’s not easy to build the next Amazon. The next Netflix. The barrier of entry into a hell of a lot of fields has gone up amazingly recently (in certain markets, anyway)

It's similar in the UK how universities almost always charge the maximum amount of money that they are allowed to charge when the price is raised. Obviously they do because there is nothing that allows others to compete due to the structure of the whole thing. Sort the market out and this wouldn't happen.

Exactly. They (corporations) are masters at weaseling themselves in this exact position every fucking time they can. You see this behaviour/result time and time again. And then, guess what? Regulatory bodies need to (or should) step in. Regulatory bodies which should be looking out for the populace rather for the corporation. But the corporation pays them, I’m sorry, I mean “speak” to them since money was considered speech in recent times. The populace does not have that voice most of the time.


Is it possible for the market to correct itself? Maybe. Yet we run into that barrier of entry thing again, thinning the possible competition field drastically. And never forget the bought regulatory bodies. Think Ajit Pai.


There are countless real-world non-hypotethical examples. Look, for instance, at biotech as a whole. How cures are being bought up, patented, repackaged and sold at 100,000% markup overnight. That raise in price was on top of the price that that particular drug was available for forever.


I see playing with people’s lives. Others see profit driven motives, nothing wrong with earning an extra buck whatever it takes, charge them as fucking much as you can legally get away with.


There I go on my socialist rants again rah rah ;(

Yeah I won't, hence asking.

You’ve made your choice; don’t worry about it

[Savy]

So you're saying solve the problems of free markets with regulation that has basically done nothing but create more problems in every situation you name.

Or am I missing something?

Things like patent laws are bullshit protectionism in their current state. That's is what allows biotech companies to to take the piss. It was something that was brought in that has been nothing but counter productive. That being said without those mental profits R&D into a lot of drugs wouldn't exist (go look up the costs and losses on those that don't work) and if those drugs where the prices are so ridiculous aren't selling then they don't sell.

ALSO why would that company that owned the drug sell it to someone only to let that person raise the price and make loads of money? Why would they not do that themselves?

The specific example you're talking of where someone bought a drug, repacked it, sold it at mental prices ended up losing that person loads of money and was a nightmare. Just so you know.

[Jack Sawyer]

So you're saying solve the problems of free markets with regulation that has basically done nothing but create more problems in every situation you name.

Or am I missing something.

The game is rigged*, has been rigged for quite a while. So long as that riggedness isn't fixed, nothing will be accomplished, not with regulation, particularly not with entirely free markets. In the meantime, the marauders keep raiding

*Hint: money = speech, etc.

[Jack Sawyer]

Things like patent laws are bullshit protectionism in their current state. That's is what allows biotech companies to to take the piss. It was something that was brought in that has been nothing but counter productive. That being said without those mental profits R&D into a lot of drugs wouldn't exist (go look up the costs and losses on those that don't work) and if those drugs where the prices are so ridiculous aren't selling then they don't sell.

For reference:


“In May 2014 Retrophin acquired the rights to market Thiola, a drug used to treat the rare disease cystinuria.[54] Shortly before Retrophin fired Shkreli, Retrophin raised the price of Thiola from $1.50 to $30 per pill; patients must take 10 to 15 pills a day.”


That drug already existed before that.






‘On August 10, 2015, in accordance with Shkreli's business plan, Turing acquired Daraprim (pyrimethamine), a medication approved by the FDA in 1953,[62] from Impax Laboratories[63] for US$55 million.[64] The drug's most prominent use as of late 2015 was as an anti-malarial[65] and an antiparasitic, in conjunction with leucovorin and sulfadiazine[66] to treat patients with AIDS-related and AIDS-unrelated toxoplasmosis.[67]


The patent for Daraprim had expired, but no generic version was available.[68] The Turing–Impax deal included the condition that Impax remove the drug from regular wholesalers and pharmacies,[65] and so in June 2015, two months before the sale to Turing was announced, Impax switched to tightly controlled distribution.[26] In keeping with its strategy for pricing in the face of limited competition (see above), Turing maintained the closed distribution.[60] The New York Times noted that the deal "made sense only if Turing planned to raise the price of the drug substantially."[26]


On September 17, 2015, Dave Muoio of Healio, an in-depth clinical information website for health care specialists,[69] reported on a letter from the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the HIV Medicine Association to executives at Turing,[70] questioning a new pricing for Daraprim.[67] The price of a dose of the drug in the U.S. market increased from US$13.50 to US$750 per pill, overnight, a factor of 56.[71]”


That drug existed in its exact form since 1953.




“A drug maker was accused of slowly hiking the price of a life-saving medication used to treat infants from $40 a vial to more than $34,000 a vial, and preventing other pharmaceutical firms from creating a competitive drug.
The company, Mallinckrodt, agreed Wednesday to settle charges of anti-competitive practices by paying a $100 million fine and allow a competitor to produce a similar medication.”


And yet another

ALSO why would that company that owned the drug sell it to someone only to let that person raise the price and make loads of money? Why would they not do that themselves?

Good question. Yet maybe they already did, and then the others throw it as a cherry on top. But the answer is probably “lobbyists”


But I got something:


‘Lawsuit: Mylan’s epic EpiPen price hike wasn’t about greed—it’s worse
With higher prices, Mylan allegedly dangled deep discounts—if buyers excluded rival.”


But god damned you are going to have to click a link to see more
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...eed-its-worse/

The specific example you're talking of where someone bought a drug, repacked it, sold it at mental prices ended up losing that person loads of money and was a nightmare. Just so you know.

>>INSERT DRUG WAR CONSPIRACY HERE<<


In truth, this is the one you have heard of. It’s been basically standard practice in recent times, and 90% of the time they get away with it completely clean. The ones you hear is simply those that catch the eye of some journalist that decides to cover the story.


Bernie wanted to import prescription Canadian drugs. Lobbyists rallied to stop his bill. People were citing Canadian drugs being unsafe, yet for some reason they forgot mention that those drugs were the exact same thing, and yet drastically cheaper

[OngBonga]

The specific example you're talking of where someone bought a drug, repacked it, sold it at mental prices ended up losing that person loads of money and was a nightmare. Just so you know.

Nurofen.

[Savy]

Nurofen.

Is this not an example of people buying the named brand rather than the other? i.e. stupidity. It's like women how moan that women razors cost more than mens therefore they should be banned/forced to be the same price. Well no, just don't buy them.

As for JS you're just arguing against what I say for the sake of it with contradictory points literally within different quotes of mine. Other stuf fmay well be viable in the argument but you're literally C&P from wiki and if you're too lazy to put it into better english and give the source (rather than give the argument provide the source) then you can't be all that mad that people ignore you.

edit - I should also add that with my thinking of bullshit patent protectionist bullshit I also think things like being able to buy drugs from "over the border" should be perfectly legal. My idea of a free market doesn't stop at man made lines. The bullshit between them being exposed by such is more of a + than a -.

[Savy]

I'm really struggling with apathy in my life currently, anyone got any suggestions?

[Poopadoop]

I'm really struggling with apathy in my life currently, anyone got any suggestions?

I do, but I can't be bothered to tell you (haha).

Have you tried setting yourself some goals?

[OngBonga]

Is this not an example of people buying the named brand rather than the other? i.e. stupidity.

Well yeah but Nurofen repack a drug and sell at mental prices (relative to how much ibuprofen costs), Nurofen make tons of money, so lots of people are stupid enough to buy it.

It's like women how moan that women razors cost more than mens

Pink plastic costs more to manufacture, love. Now pop the kettle on.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm really struggling with apathy in my life currently, anyone got any suggestions?

Sorry to hear, man.

Maybe you've become separated from experiences which inspire you?
You have a love for mathematics. Spend some time looking into the most recent discoveries and developments in the field. I'm sure you'll find something which captures your attention.

Have you been practicing self-disciplined learning to maintain a skill?
E.g. practicing a musical instrument has profound effects on my ability to focus and reminds me that my creativity is always with me, even when it feels distant.

Are you in a bit of a rut? / Have your daily experiences become wholly predictable?
Maybe make it a point to get out in the world and be exposed to unexpected sights and situations.

Are you keeping up on your physical health?
Adjusting diet / getting some exercise can make a noticeable difference in your brain's chemistry.

[Jack Sawyer]

As for JS you're just arguing against what I say for the sake of it with contradictory points literally within different quotes of mine. Other stuf fmay well be viable in the argument but you're literally C&P from wiki

Those are examples. But do I have to spoonfeed them to you?


There are links, but I’m not sure you cba to click them anyway. If you want the sources when they are not provided, google the keywords.

and if you're too lazy to put it into better english and give the source (rather than give the argument provide the source) then you can't be all that mad that people ignore you.

Like I care. I am not inventing things however.


Are you more interested in shooting the messenger?

edit - I should also add that with my thinking of bullshit patent protectionist bullshit I also think things like being able to buy drugs from "over the border" should be perfectly legal. My idea of a free market doesn't stop at man made lines. The bullshit between them being exposed by such is more of a + than a -.

And I tell you that the companies selling the drugs don’t want you to do that. Because the ones over the border, despite being the same thing made according to even higher standards, or even literally the same thing but repackaged, will kill you somehow. They are in favor of the free market until they are against it.




Speaking about free market: a synthetic version of marihuana with a lot of adverse side effects was approved for sale by the DEA. The real marihuana does not have as many side effects as this synthetic version.


However this one can be sold, yet the real thing is illegal.


“A pharma company that spent $500,000 trying to keep pot illegal just got DEA approval for synthetic marijuana”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.43143be1f981


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.7e1ee63b1257

I'm really struggling with apathy in my life currently, anyone got any suggestions?

Ah. Find something you like, and then do something about it.

[Savy]

Sorry to hear, man.

Maybe you've become separated from experiences which inspire you?
You have a love for mathematics. Spend some time looking into the most recent discoveries and developments in the field. I'm sure you'll find something which captures your attention.

Have you been practicing self-disciplined learning to maintain a skill?
E.g. practicing a musical instrument has profound effects on my ability to focus and reminds me that my creativity is always with me, even when it feels distant.

Are you in a bit of a rut? / Have your daily experiences become wholly predictable?
Maybe make it a point to get out in the world and be exposed to unexpected sights and situations.

Are you keeping up on your physical health?
Adjusting diet / getting some exercise can make a noticeable difference in your brain's chemistry.

I don't have a love for maths and tbh even if I did I've not done any for like 4 years now (arguably didn't really do any at uni either) so just meh.

I've been doing things, playing squash & pool/snooker, diet for the past week or so has been shit but before that it was pretty good for a while. I don't really have any skills I want to learn.

I've got three things I want to sort out, one is unimportant, the other two are learning to drive & getting my teaching application sent off. Both just feel incredibly trapping.

As for setting goals, learning new stuff there just isn't anything that really interests me or that I want to do. Maybe I just need to get out more, weather is getting decent now.

[Jack Sawyer]

[BananaStand]

Yeah, and it sucks right? It’s happened to book shops when Amazon showed up. Videorental stores when Netflix showed up. If before there were 100 in any given city, now there’s 1. Or 2. Perhaps none even. The competition which will kill you does not necessarily have to be right in front of your place.


Would I rent a vid at the corner store or on Netflix? I would choose Netflix every time.


Did Netflix kill the videostar? You can bet it did.

Can you explain why you feel a video store should be entitled to lifelong market share?

[OngBonga]

lol video store

Can I hire a VHS of the latest blockbuster please?

[BananaStand]

I actually read that there is a BlockBuster Video store still doing great business in 2017.

Apparently internet is so expensive in Alaska that people still rent videos.

I wonder what's stopped redbox from ruining their fun?


On a related note, I was thinking recently about the word 'rewind' and how we still use it despite its relevant technology having gone obsolete.

[MadMojoMonkey]

On a related note, I was thinking recently about the word 'rewind' and how we still use it despite its relevant technology having gone obsolete.

[Jack Sawyer]

Can you explain why you feel a video store should be entitled to lifelong market share?

Can you explain how you did arrive at that conclusion?

[BananaStand]

Can you explain how you did arrive at that conclusion?

Relevant passages were quoted for reference.

[Jack Sawyer]

Relevant passages were quoted for reference.

You don't seem to understand the "relevant passages" you quoted for reference. Where did I say what you are claiming?

[BananaStand]

Dude, it's pretty clear that the headline to this entire narrative is "Evil faceless corporations decimate small businesses"

[Savy]

I certainly got the same impression when I read your post. I'm never quite sure what point it is you're trying to make though bar business is evil.

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/...king-bets.html

This seems ludicrous to me. Most of the money is going on McGregor???? Really??? I'm not even a casual fan of either sport and I can tell you definitively that Mcgregor has no chance. Literally none.

He might have a chance if they force Floyd to fight while tied to a chair.

[Savy]

This seems ludicrous to me. Most of the money is going on McGregor???? Really??? I'm not even a casual fan of either sport and I can tell you definitively that Mcgregor has no chance. Literally none.

He might have a chance if they force Floyd to fight while tied to a chair.

40 bets and a small amount of money which means someone putting a big bet on sways the result very easily.

[BananaStand]

40 bets and a small amount of money which means someone putting a big bet on sways the result very easily.

My point was more hyperbolic. Regardless of how many bets, or how large, you would think that all the money would be on one side when the outcome is so obviously pre-determined.

McGregor may be younger, or hit harder, or whatever. He has to actually hit Mayweather for any of that to matter. This fight is gonna be like watching McGregor try to punch a bolt of lightning.

[BankItDrew]

Today I:

- installed central vac
- hung a large mirror ($25 CAD baby!)
- got drunk
- obv
- went to ftr

[BankItDrew]

Yo fuck trump. I probably could have changed my avatar months ago but I don't post here often enough to make it worh my while.

I wish I did though, because it would mean werewolf is running alive and well.

Also, I would love to get back into hh strat. Every now and then I post but I can't find the responses (been too long since I posted).

Advice? Which threads are best at FTR for hh analysis?

[a500lbgorilla]

Today I:

- installed central vac
- hung a large mirror ($25 CAD baby!)
- got drunk
- obv
- went to ftr

A good day.

[gabe]

ay fam flop turn river was lit

[Jack Sawyer]

Dude, it's pretty clear that the headline to this entire narrative is "Evil faceless corporations decimate small businesses"

I certainly got the same impression when I read your post. I'm never quite sure what point it is you're trying to make though bar business is evil.

Ong nailed it

Yeah I know I'm well above your level of understanding, thanks for noticing.

Let me try to ELY5


You have big business, you have small business. By their very nature, it’s easier to set up a small business rather than bigger businesses. Capital (both minds and money) needed, manpower, HR, etc. Which is why you should have more small businesses (mom n pop shops) than big businesses (the actual companies verizon, walmart, not referring to A walmart outlet store nor A verizon storefront. Hopefully you’ll see why)


Big business will inevitably render small business obsolete. Because it can offer more stuff, probably cheaper because of mass production, etc, to compete. Yet it is also in a particular position to make the barrier of entry, as in how to get in the market, higher (more difficult) for up and comers. Through legislation and other forms of law-making, bribes, strong-arming/bullying, etc.






Now going into details by providing an example:


A mom n pop video store would never have been able to compete with a Netflix/Amazon-esque competitor. It was doomed to fail from the start. It sounds cliché but it is: technology fucked them out of existence. Once the Pandora’s Box containing digital video (xvid/mkv/mp4 etc) was opened, it killed off DVD. Then came the next format wars between HD DVD and Bluray, of which bluray emerged victorious; you can still rent blu rays though. But who will rent your bluray when they can get that same movie as a rental from Amazon/Netflix/Apple etc at competitive prices without ever leaving their homes?


Now, can a mom n pop video shop offer digital downloads? It would be cost prohibitive to do so. Not because of technology per sé; it is technically possible to set up servers for cheap, but you would probably have to rely on bittorent protocols to serve up content in cost effective manners. But the studios, who own the IP, would never ever ever consent to you giving up their content in this way. It is not de facto secure, etc. And they would need more money in royalties etc.


You used to be able to just buy the disc, and then rent it out to your customers. But now, it’s not as easy anymore. You need servers set up to serve the content, license checks, hard disk space, data corruption safeguards, a ton of expensive IT motherfuckers on payroll, make an app for various platforms for your customers, caring for UI, etc. The barrier of entry (see above) into that particular market has risen dramatically. So it’s not easy to replicate, to come up with, a competitor to Amazon, Netflix, etc. You need a lot of resources to get started. Literally, competitors in this particular field can be counted using the fingers on your hands, when before there were a fuckton. Since when was having defacto oligopolies popping up everywhere a good thing?



This explains why mom n pop video shops have gone the way of the plesiosaur; still a possible sighting along the Loch Ness river every few decades, but other than that, pretty much gone. Except, it's not for the reasons that you believe.




This is also why you should be particularly worried that some of these competitors are now so big that they literally own the “roads” connecting to other competitors services, aka net neutrality and scheming to fuck it up by placing unelected corporate shills in the right places, and then somehow brazenly claiming it’s actually good for you

[Jack Sawyer]

NET NEUTRALITY people, brush up on this as it's very important right now

[Jack Sawyer]

www.gofccyourself.com

And the FCC actually fucking nerfed the page, so that you cannot leave a comment on the bill at all. This is war ladies and gentlemen, and the FCC plays dirty AF. Hopefully more people will realize that their interests are simply not catered for by their elected officials, to the tune that the FCC is willing to nerf the site completely, making it incredibly more difficult to leave a comment and then taking down the search entirely.


Democracy? The population's interests? Hahahaha


Remember this next time you are voting

[BananaStand]

Let me try to ELY5

Like I'm 5, or like YOU'RE 5. Based on your explanation, I think your understanding of business is on a kindergarten level.

You have big business, you have small business. By their very nature, it’s easier to set up a small business rather than bigger businesses.

Ok. You just said that. I agree. However, everything you say after this, seems to ignore this fact. It's easier to set up small businesses. Keep this in mind as we move on.

Big business will inevitably render small business obsolete.

False. This presumes that ONLY a large business built on efficiency, variety, and low costs can satisfy the needs of consumers. What about quality, relationships, personal service? Do people care about those things? If so, then the small business will never be obsolete. If not, then why are small businesses worth protecting?

Because it can offer more stuff, probably cheaper because of mass production, etc, to compete. Yet it is also in a particular position to make the barrier of entry, as in how to get in the market, higher (more difficult) for up and comers.

False, we just got through agreeing that small business are easier to set up than big ones.

Through legislation and other forms of law-making, bribes, strong-arming/bullying, etc.

You make it sound like the big corporations can just buy the government. I realize sometimes it seems that way, and I'm sure if you tried you could find me lots of anecdotal evidence. But it's nowhere near the extremes you seem to believe it is. Small businesses are not alone in the fight. They can participate in, and share the resources of, all sorts of larger entities that can help them level the playing field. Bank of America isn't the only bank in the world you know. There are thousands of small, local banks in communities nationwide. Are they loaning money to Amazon, wal-mart, or verizon? Probably not. They're probably supporting local businesses.

Are there such a thing as trade organizations? Is it impossible for a small business to work with a lobbying group? Does virtually every town have a local chamber of commerce? Better Business Bureau? What about the Small Business Administration and it's offices in all 50 states?

Dude you make it sound like small businesses are hung out to dry. They aren't. I think you need to open your mind to the possibility that alot of small businesses fail simply because alot of them are started. Additionally, alot of them are started by idiots. Don't go blaming wal-mart for every boarded up storefront you see.

Now going into details by providing an example:

Thank you for helping me to illustrate your ignorance.

A mom n pop video store would never have been able to compete with a Netflix/Amazon-esque competitor

So?

It was doomed to fail from the start.

Then why should we sympathize with someone who set out on a doomed quest in the first place?

It sounds cliché but it is: technology fucked them out of existence.

Technology changed the business landscape. "Fucked them out of existence" is a real stretch.

Once the Pandora’s Box containing digital video (xvid/mkv/mp4 etc) was opened, it killed off DVD.......You used to be able to just buy the disc, and then rent it out to your customers. But now, it’s not as easy anymore.

I'll repeat my original question. Why do you think the video store owner is entitled to life-long market-share?

So it’s not easy to replicate, to come up with, a competitor to Amazon, Netflix, etc. You need a lot of resources to get started.

Why are you asserting that any business or industry should be easy to replicate?

This explains why mom n pop video shops have gone the way of the plesiosaur;

I just want to recap here and make sure that I understand your point.... It is your assertion that mom and pop video stores are becoming extinct because large corporations have muscled in on their market with services that mom and pop can't replicate.

How are you totally ignoring the changing needs of consumers in your analysis? Why are mom and pop entitled to continue to offer inferior services without the threat of outside competition?

You know what I see a lot of now...cupcake shops. I see small boutique bakeries offering a variety of flavored and decorated personal sized pastries at head-scratching prices. However, long before there was a cupcake shop on every corner, there were grocery chains and super stores like wal-mart with very large bakery departments. They have sheet cakes, enough to feed 30 people, ready to go. They have high efficiency baking equipment that allows them to make huge volumes of cake at incredibly low prices. They can sell 4 packs of cupcakes for the same price as one cake at a boutique. They'll even decorate it how you want.

And despite those conditions, the mom and pop cupcake store emerged, and is thriving. I think its because people are becoming a little more health and fitness conscious, and exercising a little more control. In other words, people don't want a 24 pack of brownies for 2.99. They'd rather pay 5.99 for a single pastry. Why? Portion control? It's more of a "treat"? Personal connection to the proprietor? Quality of ingredients? Flavor? It's probably all of those things. Those are all things that can't be replicated by you're typical monolithic corporate baking interest.

Let me ask you this.....exactly which evil, faceless, corporate machine squashed the ash-tray industry? 50 years ago there were a lot of manufacturing companies, retail outlets, and skilled craftsmen making a living selling decorative and functional cigarette ash receptacles. Now, they're incredibly less common. So, how exactly did they get "fucked out of existence"?

What you're missing here, is that mom and pop's skill set doesn't necessarily have to do with video rentals. Their skill set is retail. If they are in a convenient location with lots of traffic, if they have strong relationships with the community, if they offer products that people want to buy at prices they are willing to pay, then they are fine. If technology changes such that people don't want video rentals anymore, that doesn't stop mom and pop from using their retail expertise and networks in the community to simply switch to cupcakes, or washing machines, or custom engraved toothbrushes.

The idea that mom and pop business owners should not have to embrace changing economic conditions and react to changes in consumers needs is CRAZY. If they are unable to do those things, then they really don't deserve to be in business in the first place. And I'm not sorry that Netflix "fucked them out of existence".

[a500lbgorilla]

My company got hit by that same ransomeware virus that smashed the NHS.

[OngBonga]

Did you pay up?

[a500lbgorilla]

Our french arm got hit first, so I assume they paid up immediately.

Early in the day, a lot of networked functionality was taken offline including email, printers, and phones. Then one guy in the office got hit with the red screen asking for 300 bucks, and they just told everyone to shut it down and leave.

The problem being that I have two laptops that share the same "harddrive" through the network because we have an amazing backup system. If the virus hits one "harddrive", once it syncs up, it could hit them all.

[OngBonga]

Our french arm got hit first, so I assume they paid up immediately.

I approve of this comment.

[oskar]

Is this becoming a majority opinion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOCoqoUdssM

More upvotes than downvotes on a clearly mentally ill man screaming gibberish. I know people are stupid, but flat-earth stupid?

[OngBonga]

Flat earthers aren't necessarily stupid. We have basically three types of people producing material on this subject...

1) religious nutjobs who reject science
2) ultra-conspiracy theorists
3) trolls

What surprises me is that noone has actually been able to put this to bed yet. It should be easy. Just find three mountains that are all in view but far from each other. Take photos at different distances, or perhaps film as you approach by air. Apply mathematics.

This isn't 9/11 territory. It can be debunked with pure mathematics.

[oskar]

Well there's your problem! You're thinking rationally, Marty!

If you applied rational thought and scientific method you could determine that the earth is a globe in many different ways... or show that it can't be flat. The problem is that flat earth supporters don't brain so good. If you watch just a couple of seconds of that video you can clearly see that this guy is hysterical. There is nothing you could possibly tell him that he won't shut down by shouting nonsense. You would first have to lay the groundwork of what the scientific method is and why it works, and only then can you start to have an argument. You essentially have to make them catch up to at least the 17th century before you can even attempt to tackle the subject of the shape of the earth.

[Savy]

Did Ong really just imply that logic and proof are actual persuasive tools? lol

[OngBonga]

If you watch just a couple of seconds of that video you can clearly see that this guy is hysterical. There is nothing you could possibly tell him that he won't shut down by shouting nonsense.

Well he's either stupid, crazy, or a troll.

Most of what I've read from flat earthers (which is laregly limited to idiots on youtube) is either religious bullshit or people arguing that it hasn't been proven to be spherical. I really hate to admit it when it comes to this matter because of how fucking obvious it is that the earth is spherical, but based on most of what we can find out by simple googling, it isn't proven.

How can you prove to yourself that it's spherical? I'm not talking about reading Wikipedia articles about Greeks studying shadows, you're taking someone else's word for it. Repeat that experiment yourself, and observe it. The awkward truth is that it's not easy to demonstrate to yourself beyond any doubt that the world is spherical. At some point, you're assuming something you learned is true. So it's not just stupid people that can buy into this, it's also paranoid people who can't figure out a way to prove it to themself without relying on third party information.

Did Ong really just imply that logic and proof are actual persuasive tools? lol

I'm pretty sure I've stated my absolute faith in mathematics before.

[Savy]

I'm pretty sure I've stated my absolute faith in mathematics before.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to what I said.

The problem is how all this stuff comes around. So science advances and stuff we learn builds upon itself. The internet is still a fairly new thing, let's say it's been in real mainstream use ~15 years, and there are lots of cool science bits all over the place. Lots of the educational stuff people learn is covered in absolutely fantastic ways, lots of the cool stuff is covered in absolutely fantastic ways and if you look hard enough the rest of it tends to be covered pretty well.

The issue is that if you create an issue like flat-earth in the past couple of years then it's really easy to set up lots neat, pretty well made sites that can ask a lot of questions that can confuse people, make them think they don't understand and ultimately doubt everything. I've got an ok grounding in physics & maths, fairly well educated,, fairly intelligent and I imagine if I searched for this type of stuff I'd get confused not be able to say why it's wrong etc.

This leads to the spread of these ideas, the answers to the questions aren't easily accessible, take time effort etc to learn. When people ask questions like this they tend to get lots of people who also don't really understand it but take science as gospel shouting at them calling them stupid making them not want to get involved and find out why it's wrong. When they do get answers they tend not to be the nicely presented, best explanations like lots of other topics they may look up because it hasn't had that time to get the nicest answer.

If you wanted to learn basic calculus on the internet there are loads of great resources that have built up over time but at the same time I can link you lots of stuff that is right but at the same time really hard to read, poorly presented, obtuse, hard language. Iterations of people making better and better stuff solves that.

As conspiracy theories flesh out and exist longer we tend to find that they get better and better information to dispute them. If you look at something like moon landings being fake, lots of quite good science that's easy to take in to debunk most (all) of this stuff. 10 years ago, not the case.


/really long boring post, repeating points, going off topic, etc..

[OngBonga]

I've been thinking about this a bit more.

There has to be an element of stupid in flattards. It's not that questioning what we're told is stupid... it's the blind refusal to accept fairly intuitive evidence.

I have a pretty solid grasp of geometry and phsyics, for someone uneducated at least. Certainly I'd say I'm above average on these subjects. Most people haven't got a clue how gravity works, neither can they immediately understand the problems of flat maps of the earth. If I were average on these matters, I think I could have entertained the concept of flat earth, at least for a short time. However, being somewhat intelligent, I would want to try to understand. I would realise it can be proven one way or the other.

A friend of mine recently asked on facebook if anyone could prove the earth is round. I tried throwing Coriolis at him, to which he replied "I don't understand the science of hurricanes", so I explained it to him as best I could. Granted, I can't articulate this science as well as academics, but if he really wanted to understand, he could google it and get a better explanation. Coriolis in hurricanes is actually quite easy to understand, once you accept the earth is a rotating sphere.

But he didn't dig further. There's a reluctance to because a) it proves him wrong, and b) it requires a degree of intelligence.

Now this friend doesn't come across as stupid, he's more than capable of socialising and engaging in interesting conversation without sounding like a fool. However, he does demonstrate an intellectual limit by being reluctant to research counter evidence to his beliefs.

All it takes is a basic grasp of geometry. Armed with this knowledge, proving the earth is not flat is very easy.

[oskar]

I don't think it has much to do with intelligence, tho being really dumb certainly helps. I mean... the sun sets. Doesn't take a genius to unravel this conundrum.
But yet the sun setting is less convincing than a guy showing composite image of the earth saying that this is irrefutable evidence that the earth is flat... because it's obviously been faked to fool us and [...] just a giant fallacy sandwich that concludes that the world is definitely flat. That's the fun part about moon conspiracy theorists dissecting pictures as if proving that a picture is fake is proof of anything besides that picture being fake. You could ask any flat earth theorist what kind of test one could do to show that the earth is definitely not flat and if he can answer that question he's a troll because not understanding scientific method is a prerequisite for believing in nonsense of this magnitude.

[Jack Sawyer]

[MadMojoMonkey]

There has to be an element of stupid in flattards. It's not that questioning what we're told is stupid... it's the blind refusal to accept fairly intuitive evidence.

... countered by blind repetition of untested claims and appeals to authority.

Trolls on one side saying flat - trolls on the other side saying round.

If you don't have personal observations which formulate an evidence-based assessment, then you're a troll to assert you "know" anything on the subject.

[OngBonga]

If you don't have personal observations which formulate an evidence-based assessment, then you're a troll to assert you "know" anything on the subject.

I do have personal observations. I have witnessed a total solar eclipse (predicted to the second), and numerous partial and lunar eclipses (also accurately predicted). I have observed the phases of the moon (once again, predicted), even witnessed how the tides are in synch with the moon's motion (predicted). I have been out to sea, where there is no land in any direction (I would've predicted this). I have flown, and witnessed the horizon extend (and this). I have skyped friends in New Zealand where their summer is our winter and their day is our night (also predicted). They have confirmed they can see the Southern Cross, but not the North Star (predicted).

Time and again, all of these observations will stand the test of prediction. These absolutely fuck the flat earth model, at least any theories I've seen.

For example, they say the moon is 3000 miles away. Well you're probably 3000 miles away from me. So next time we can both see the moon at the same time, we can compare our observations of its phase. Assuming the moon is 3000 miles away, then it (roughly) forms an equilateral triangle with our two points of observation. So you'll have a different angle of observation to me - around 60 degrees. Thus, we shall observe different phases. However, if the moon is 240,000 miles away, as proposed by the spherical earth model, then our observation angles differe by only a fraction of a degree, so we will observe (nearly) the same phase of the moon.

Trolls aren't people who think they know what they're talking about. Trolls are those who deliberately bait others into responding in a particular way, or someone who pretends to believe one thing when they believe another. Those who actually think the world is flat, they're not trolls; they're stupid, religious, or deeply paranoid.

I am a troll, but that's because I have pretended to believe the earth is flat to bait stupid people into arguing with me.

[Savy]

Don't worry lads I'm still alive and well.

[OngBonga]

I didn't think you were a young girl or homosexual.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@ong: you're a special case... in many ways... bro.
You have taken the time to understand that all of those predictions are indicative of a single phenomenon, or relation.
You have taken the time to explore the deeper connectivity of physical laws and understand both what they predict and how they are inter-connected.

I don't necessarily agree with your definition of troll. People pretending they believe something which they do not, or playing devil's advocate, is clearly trolling. People choosing to ignore what is effectively right in front of them because it feels cool to claim ignorance, like it's the world's or society's responsibility to teach them things, is equally trolly. When you hold a position that is undone with a single google search, and you persist that you're right because you refuse to do the google search, that's trolling, too.

***
It's kind of about belief, and oscar nailed it with "if they can answer the question, they're trolls."
If they don't believe the scientific method is a process that produces knowledge, that's fine. I do believe that, so here we are.
I have no idea how to change someone's mind on this. Present evidence? They don't believe that evidence-based conclusions lead to knowledge, so that's out.
What's left? IDK.

If they can present that any evidence will sway their view, then they have demonstrated they believe in evidence-based conclusions leading to knowledge, and are therefore ignoring the wealth of evidence demonstrating that the Earth is round, and are therefore trolls.

**
Except that, physically speaking, whether or not something is flat or round is a matter of perspective / reference frame and definitions.

So the whole argument exists only on the bottom of the pyramid of understanding the physical model. Then it goes away because the wealth of information suggesting the flat-Earth model makes poor predictions. Finally, it comes back, but as an idle musing - nothing to get heated and entrenched about.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Don't worry lads I'm still alive and well.

I didn't think you were a young girl or homosexual.

This exchange makes no sense to me.

Is this a British thing?

[BananaStand]

People choosing to ignore what is effectively right in front of them because it feels cool to claim ignorance,

You just described every religious believer in the world. And there are literally billions of them. Science hasn't definitively proven the origins of the universe, maybe they think you're the troll.

[OngBonga]

This exchange makes no sense to me.

Is this a British thing?

I'll tanslate so you can admire our gallows humour...

savy - holy shit terrorism, I didn't die

ong - why would you be at an Ariana Grande gig?

[OngBonga]

People choosing to ignore what is effectively right in front of them because it feels cool to claim ignorance, like it's the world's or society's responsibility to teach them things, is equally trolly.

Nah it's just dumb, or stubborn. Trolls are those who deliberately deceive, usually for personal amusement. Let's not water down that term to mean an online adversary who we want to give a label to. Just call stupid people stupid.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You just described every religious believer in the world. And there are literally billions of them. Science hasn't definitively proven the origins of the universe, maybe they think you're the troll.

No, I didn't.
Science and religion don't even address the same categories of questions, so nothing I've said about someone's position on science is even related to what they believe about religion.
Science is only concerned with measurably predictable events. Religion is concerned with questions which do not have measurably predictable outcomes like, "What can we do to be 'good' people?"

You, however, just called them all ignorant.


I don't put forth that the scientific origin story (Big Bang theory) is a fact. If other people do, and they assert it's a scientific fact, then they are both A) a bit trolly at best, and B) totally confused about the goals of science. (Science doesn't produce, nor is it interested in "facts." Science is interested in what is consistent i.e. predictable. Religion and philosophy can dicker over what is a fact, but that is an unrelated conversation to science.)

Nah it's just dumb, or stubborn. Trolls are those who deliberately deceive, usually for personal amusement. Let's not water down that term to mean an online adversary who we want to give a label to. Just call stupid people stupid.

Stupid people are stupid.

Smart people who are behaving stupidly are not stupid, they're trolls.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'll tanslate so you can admire our gallows humour...

savy - holy shit terrorism, I didn't die

ong - why would you be at an Ariana Grande gig?

What's an Ariana Gr....

Nevermind. I'm realizing that I'm sorry I asked in the first place.

Carry on.

[OngBonga]

What's an Ariana Gr....

It took me ten minutes after news broke to realise it's a singer, not a venue.

Smart people who are behaving stupidly are not stupid, they're trolls.

Yeah ok. I would argue "deliberately" behaving stupidly. We're all allowed a stupid moment now and then.

[BananaStand]

No, I didn't.

Oh yes you did

Science and religion don't even address the same categories of questions, so nothing I've said about someone's position on science is even related to what they believe about religion.

^You realize that is really fucking trolly, right?

Science is only concerned with measurably predictable events. Religion is concerned with questions which do not have measurably predictable outcomes like, "What can we do to be 'good' people?"

More trollage. C'mon man, BOTH institutions are pretty much obsessed with the origin of the universe.

You, however, just called them all ignorant.

Yeah. Well, I wish I used stronger language then.

I don't put forth that the scientific origin story (Big Bang theory) is a fact.

Hey Trolly McTrollerson, when I said 'you', it was meant to mean you scientists...collectively.

Science doesn't produce, nor is it interested in "facts." Science is interested in what is consistent i.e. predictable.

You don't think you're being a hair splitting troll here? Science's efforts to understand the conditions that led to the big bang, is really just another way of saying "under what conditions can we predict a big bang"

[Savy]

I'll tanslate so you can admire our gallows humour...

savy - holy shit terrorism, I didn't die

ong - why would you be at an Ariana Grande gig?

terrorism at where I'm from was why it was funny

[Poopadoop]

terrorism at where I'm from was why it was funny

Having to explain why something is funny is usually a tell that it wasn't funny. Unless you're explaining it to mojo in which case it's ok.

p.s. Religion tries to argue both Science and Philosophy. It will say the world is 5k years old (or w/e) as well as why it was created. What makes religion idiotic is that it provides 'facts' without evidence, and even in blatant contradiction to the evidence. If you want to argue imponderables like why the universe is here or w/e that's one thing. When you start spewing crap that isn't even remotely plausible like that the earth is 5k years old (or is flat, if you're a flattard), then ya, you're not just religious, you're an idiot.

[Poopadoop]

It took me ten minutes after news broke to realise it's a singer, not a venue.

Had no idea it was a singer either. Ariana Grande sounds like the name of a porn star with a big booty to me.

[Savy]

Having to explain why something is funny is usually a tell that it wasn't funny. Unless you're explaining it to mojo in which case it's ok.

I was explaining it to MMM but at the same time that logic is bullshit.