Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Matt Yglesias's take from four+ years ago still holds up pretty well:

I just want to know if I can buy The Slants at Amazon?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you want to figure out how Bezos views the world, reading stuff he wrote would be a better place to start.

Our village kicked him out of Gigsville (the village) at Burning Man in 1999. He rode in on a bike, hung out for a little bit, and then tried to throw his bike into the Car-B-Que (our firepit). He was dissuaded and ordered to leave, and I think he's permanently banned from Gigsville. I don't think he's tried to come back.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Our village kicked him out of Gigsville (the village) at Burning Man in 1999. He rode in on a bike, hung out for a little bit, and then tried to throw his bike into the Car-B-Que (our firepit). He was dissuaded and ordered to leave, and I think he's permanently banned from Gigsville. I don't think he's tried to come back.

Was he entitled?

eta: I've been both attracted and repelled by the prospect of working for Amazon. It sounds like a well-run company that knows how to execute, and gets things right. But it also sounds like it can be miserable.

eta: To avoid confusion, I'm not working for Amazon, but I've thought about it.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

E-commerce is killing traditional retail, because it's just not efficient to have to go to store to buy many things. This will cause a lot of dislocation.

Immigrents r tekin mer job. So wat I got a c in chem, I wanted too be a ducter

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Nobody. That's the point.

The sole effective change would be to bar predatory pricing of the kind in which Amazon engages. I'm not even remotely close to qualified to comment on the acceptable breadth of antitrust law, but that sounds like outlawing loss leading as a business practice. That seems extreme.

I only offered the article because you asked the question. I was more interested in the question of how people like Bezos view the world (the bit in the editorial I posted earlier, where the author described tech oligarchs as believing they were entitled to outsize influence, as they were emerging as masters, with superfluous labor serfs below).

Predatory pricing is only when you price low to wipe out your competitors, then raise your price to one you couldn't if you had competitors.

Amazon hasn't done that for anything I bought. Generally, AMZN prices low and keep them low.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Predatory pricing is only when you price low to wipe out your competitors, then raise your price to one you couldn't if you had competitors.

Amazon hasn't done that for anything I bought. Generally, AMZN prices low and keep them low.

It's the Utah Pie case (described in Sebby's law review note). Amazon is killing retails by being better, cheaper and more convenient. Some think that's a problem.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Republican moderates ("moderates") always cave.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Was he entitled?

eta: I've been both attracted and repelled by the prospect of working for Amazon. It sounds like a well-run company that knows how to execute, and gets things right. But it also sounds like it can be miserable.

eta: To avoid confusion, I'm not working for Amazon, but I've thought about it.

I found myself standing next to him at a bar. Seemed pleasant enough. Did not throw his empty glass into the fireplace.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you want to figure out how Bezos views the world, reading stuff he wrote would be a better place to start.

I read WaPo.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I read WaPo.

In that case, you now know that we had intelligence showing Putin personally ordering interference to harm Hillary and help Trump.

Something that Trump should have learned shortly after taking office, like before he fired Comey and invited the foreign minister & ambassador into the Oval Office without the US press and told them that he fired Comey to take the heat off.

If the GOP functioned or cared at all about this country, pre-election collusion would be irrelevant. The way this administration has conducted itself toward Russia and its election interference after taking office is borderline treason.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I just want to know if I can buy The Slants at Amazon?

I've had "Holiday in Cambodia" and "Police Truck" in my running mix for as long as I've had digital music.

I can't help thinking a lot of this dimwitted tone deafness to irony accrues from people communicating more over disconnected tech mediums than in person. They learn sarcasm late, and badly. I've no doubt 7 out of 10 millennials would recoil at Jello Biafra's lyrics.

Yes, with the surf guitar, the affected lisp, the sneering delivery, and with that band name, Biafra is, of course, an earnest bigot.

Oh, and there's nothing funny about assassinations!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

In that case, you now know that we had intelligence showing Putin personally ordering interference to harm Hillary and help Trump.

Something that Trump should have learned shortly after taking office, like before he fired Comey and invited the foreign minister & ambassador into the Oval Office without the US press and told them that he fired Comey to take the heat off.

If the GOP functioned or cared at all about this country, pre-election collusion would be irrelevant. The way this administration has conducted itself toward Russia and its election interference after taking office is borderline treason.

I have a serious problem with Russia trying to hack voting machines.

I have no problem with anyone hacking either political party and leaking internal communications to sway public sentiment. The more dirt exposed on the rot within the parties, the better. But I do wish it would be done to both parties as equally as possible (imagine what the RNC said about Trump, and how it attempted to fix things for Jeb, behind the scenes).

Trump doing nothing about the former is a gross abrogation of duty. Doing nothing about the latter is also an abrogation, but a much smaller one, and one that doesn't very much bother me, or anyone else who wishes to see the two parties discredited (read: most of the country).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I read WaPo.

I could read a Tesla owner's manual, but I don't think it would give me any special insight into how Elon Musk thinks.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

The way this administration has conducted itself toward Russia and its election interference after taking office is borderline treason.

Obama fucked it up too.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I have a serious problem with Russia trying to hack voting machines.

They did more than that.

The more dirt exposed on the rot within the parties, the better.

This is idiotic, unless the exposure is reciprocal. Exposing one side's dirt and not the other isn't cleansing.

Especially when it's not the dirt that makes a difference but rather the continual coverage of exposure as though the dirt amounted to something (case in point, you still think something shady happened at the DNC, when there's no evidence of that).