That would mean no reviews or Q/A section because engagement there is a good proxy for sales. Search would also be completely broken because Amazon wouldn't know what products were good.
Not to mention payment processing. How is Amazon going to pay sellers their money if Amazon has no data on what is bought and sold? Dealing with payments cannot be stateless for a number of technical and legal reasons (audits, chargebacks, accounting, etc).
Amazon collecting this data is completely legitimate. Are you concerned that Best Buy knows how many third party HDMI cables they sell while also selling their own?
Amazon only needs third party sales data if it is acting as a middleman for third party sellers. There is no requirement that Amazon act as a middleman. The company was founded as an online bookstore.
> Your assumption is that Amazon, the middleman, must exist.
You don't think stores should exist? How do you justify that?
>If Best Buy, a brick and mortar, were anything like Amazon, they would be under investigation as well.
I don't see how they are so different. Both are stores that sell third and first party items. BB even does significant online business. Care to explain?
Many sellers on Amazon have their own stores, be they brick and mortar and/or website. Amazon in these cases is just a middleman processing sales that the third parties are already capable of making themselves. They simply lack the web traffic. This is not true of all the brands carried by Best Buy. Many do not do direct-to-consumer sales.
There are less obvious differences such as the contract terms agreed between brands and Best Buy versus the ones between sellers and Amazon. Those details often are only discovered through litigation.
To suggest Best Buy was already doing what Amazon is doing is nonsense.
> This is not true of _all_ the brands carried by Best Buy.
Now you're just playing word games. Both Amazon and Best Buy sell some amount of stuff that could be sold direct to consumer, and some amount of stuff that could not. Even if the proportions are different, I'm not seeing how they differ in principle.
How would they acquire it? Amazon is normally their answer to "I'm trying to sell, but don't have the web traffic". Seems like if they could get the traffic without Amazon, they'd leave the platform, like Nike did.
As to the question, I would guess the answer is "Not easily." Otherwise, we would not be having these problems with overgrown websites acting as middlemen for large swaths of the web. The rest of your statements are all true, but that does not change the truth of "They simply lack the web traffic". Amazon has an amount of traffic that gives them leverage as a middleman.
Beyond that, even when you order directly from the manufacturer's website, that doesn't mean they, personally, are handling the sale. All the logistics that go with fulfilling orders and customer service around that I'm sure is outsourced frequently (to Amazon or someone else)
Many years ago I had disk error problem and could not boot. I tried a popular, Linux-based "system rescue" CD and it could not boot without accessing the disk. I tried my own "live" NetBSD USB stick and booted up no problem. No disk access needed.
I stayed away from Linux for many years as a result of experiences like that. I have been using Linux lately and I continue to find more stuff like this that would just never happen on BSD.
I do not understand why people use grub, let alone grub2. There are plenty of other bootloaders. What is wrong with syslinux?
GRUB2 is the most flexible bootloader. I use it for a multi-boot flash drive, used for booting 64-bit FreeBSD on a 32-bit-EFI machine (earliest Mac mini + 64-bit CPU)…
But yeah for normal desktop usage… there's rEFInd.
I'd say support in distros. With grub you can throw pretty much any distro onto your machine and it will show up (except Solus) . Also I don't think you can just choose which bootloader you want in most distros except Arch and Debian if I remember correctly. You can do that manually of course, but grub is easy and it works.
In arch you can choose the bootloader as well. The recommendation I hear a lot and that I use is systemd-boot (formerly gummiboot), which strangely doesn't have much to do with systemd.
It can pick up Windows for multiboot and is straightforward to configure (can even be configured from a windows live disk if you mount that FAT partition).
Well, I just had a look at the Arch Wiki article on Boot Loaders [1]. GRUB is by far the most widely supported and also the most widely compatible bootloader.
The table is somewhat misleading. The filesystem support for example refers to being able to boot a kernel that is on that FS from disk.
In most gummiboot setups, your kernel will be on the ESP partition along with everything else, so it doesn't matter what FS the root is.
The lack of support for MBR or BIOS doesn't matter much either, systemd-boot requires a 64bit System and most 64-bit systems that are still around and largely used (or actively sold) have a UEFI that supports GPT. If you absolutely need to, systemd-boot supports booting from a GPT that has a MBR wrapper.
So while the table looks like systemd-boot lacks support for a lot of things, the reality is that when you setup systemd-boot a lot of these columns simply don't matter
So does that mean that I can't use those filesystems for my /boot/efi partition and everything else is ok? Then it's really not that bad.
I haven't played around with other boot manager as you might be able to tell.
That's pretty much your limitation; your linux kernel + initramfs can't be on filesystems other than VFAT (ie, must be on the ESP but there is some ways you can have it work across disks).
Hence the table being slightly misleading.
For example, it also mentions that EFISTUB means you can't boot on btrfs and friends anymore. But it's the same limitation, initramfs and kernel need to be on the ESP, everything after that is up to the initramfs to bring up.
The point is not to "escape" complexity, but to manage it.
Of course, these type of "I hate the word simple" comments are always besides the point. They could be the whines of frustrated, incompetent programmers who continually produce overly complex solutions to relatively simple problems and call it a day. We all know those programmers exist.
"If this body is concerned with what we are doing with the laws, it should change those laws based on the best interests of this country and its people;"
"however, this body should also note that Amazon will seek to exert control over the legislative process to ensure that Amazon's best interests are represented to the maximum extent that our influence and lobbying budget will allow,^1 even if those interests conflict with the best interests of this country and its people."
1. We spent $16,790,000 in 2019. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary... I own the Washington Post. I am considered by Forbes, among others, to be the world's wealthiest billionaire. I am also a registered voter in this country.
The relevant part of the First Amendment states (emphasis mine):
"...OR the right of the people peaceably to assemble, AND to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This is preceded by a semicolon, making this clause a compound clause. The right to petition the Government is conferred both on individuals and on assemblies (organizations), and has been since the nation was founded. And this principle has been taken as gospel in law as interpreted by our Courts since the nation's founding.
(*IAAL but this is not legal advice. Seek licensed counsel in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.)
But the type of organization that is a corporation didn't exist when the constitution was written. Much like nuclear arms (and chemical, and biological) didn't exist when the constitution was written so we don't consider them covered by the second amendment.
It certainly did. Among others, the Virginia Company, the Plymouth Company, the British East India Company all featured tradeable shares, perpetual lifetime, limited liability and legal personhood.
What makes the modern economy so different is the democraticization of incorporation. Prior to the 19th century it took a specific legislative act to incorporate.
British East India company had its own army and literally did run a big part of society. Amazon doesn’t have an army at least. Maybe we are trending in the right direction.
We don't consider nuclear warheads to be covered under the second amendment because they are munitions, not arms. What you're saying is a little ridiculous - do you expect that something written on the Internet is not covered by the first amendment, simply because it didn't exist at the time the amendment was written? Of course not. Technological progress is easily covered by the Constitution.
The English East India Company was set up along lines pretty similar to today's corporations, and that happened almost 200 years before the constitution was written (1600, to be precise). By 1720 you definitely have bubbles involving corporate stocks (see South Sea Bubble).
By the time you get to the late 18th century (i.e. about when the Constitution was written) you have publications with titles like "A Treatise on the Law of Corporations"; just keep reading the Wikipedia entry above. That was published 7 years after the US Constitution was ratified, but of course the laws and corporations it was talking abot had been around for _quite_ a while at that point.
What happens when corporations have more practical daily influence over people's lives than the government? This is a problem. Is it our Achilles heel?
I see that as a good thing. Macy's can't force me to do anything. The federal government can. I'd prefer Macy's to have more influence in my day to day life than the business end of a gun.
> What happens when corporations have more practical daily influence over people's lives than the government?
Impossible, because while corporations are a vehicle through which private individuals act, they are a creation and extension of government power. While the power exerted through corporations is not proximately controlled by people who are particularly accountable to the public for their actions, it is nevertheless government power, and thus the power exerted by corporations can never be greater than that exerted by government, because the former is a subset of the latter.
You don't think that a corporation, even now, can exceed the ability of its employees to disagree with what it's doing?
Like lobby for legislation that protects (or makes paramount) the corporate interests, even though the people within the corporation might completely object to what is being lobbied for?
I think we underestimate how much people are willing to do what their employer requires to continue to be employed, and end up doing things that are totally legal, but not desireable in the long run.
The Supreme Court has determined that companies are granted some rights as citizens have. The first is one of the rights that is protected according to their rulings.
And it is widely believed to be a failure of the justice system. Companies are not expected to behave the same as individuals. They have different motivations and calculate risks differently. If it looks like a dog and barks like a dog, it isn’t a duck.
You can't say that the first amendment doesn't apply to companies when the law has found that it does. You can say that you believe it shouldn't, but legally today it does.
The issue is that the first amendment isn't absolute, there are in fact limits, those limits however have been effectively rescinded when it comes to corporations but are still in place for individuals. The disparity of power this affords in our democracy is destined to erode what is left of it.
Congress has some power to outlaw corruption (or the perception thereof), but not lobbying per se. Restrictions on donations to political campaigns have been upheld in the past, but those tend to be direct money donations to candidates.
Handing over money directly to a candidate is one thing, but the Courts have been a little more hesitant to uphold restrictions on lobbying or political speech -- and the spending of money to do it -- if it's being spent by or given to a third party not directly connected to the Government. The hesitancy is most recently exemplified in the Citizen's United case that is of significant controversy.
Sometimes I think that Congress had better think ahead to save its own skin, propose amendments to the Constitution about limits on corporations, before they lose all power to them and can no longer escape their grasp.
What does it matter that Amazon in particular is the one buying out these politicians? Someone would do it. They're a big enough company that the left hand probably doesn't know what the right hand is doing anyway.
And the most evil company in the world telling you to regulate it ought to give you some pause that maybe you really should think about doing that, don't you think?
How do you figure that Amazon is the most evil company in the world? Like, more than companies whose main products literally kill the users (Altria/Phillip Morris)? The companies that develop ICBMs? Or energy companies that create false narratives to confuse the conversation around climate change? Which frankly has a non-zero chance of being the cause of a new dark age.
I'm just using that word as hyperbole. If the person above thinks that Amazon is so bad for lobbying congresspeople, wouldn't Amazon itself saying it needs to be regulated deserve some serious consideration?
This is a very typical response on HN in response to articles/blog posts about issues raised by the Google business.
When these sort of comments rise to the top of HN threads, I am at a loss how to interpret the meaning.
1. Does it mean the commenter and HN voters do not care about the issue (e.g., anti-competitive behaviour)?
or
2. Does it mean they normally would care about anti-competitive behaviour but because they "like" this particular company they do not care?
If the commenter means #2, then it seems like there are some assumptions being made. For example, one assumption might be that if Google is held accountable for anti-competitive behaviour then it will affect the commenter's "web user experience".
However, I cannot see how to arrive at that conclusion. In fact, the commenter states "Build better alternatives and I'm on board."
What if anti-competitive behaviour was an impediment to others seeking to "[b]uild better alternatives"? If holding Google to account for anti-competitive behaviour would remove such impediments, then it seems that the commenter is more likely to mean #1.
The commenter appears to desire the most convenient and quick "service" he/she can get, and is impartial to who provides it. He/she acknowledges that others could build better alternatives to Google. If holding Google accountable for its conduct helps others build better alternatives, this would meet the commenter's needs.
Without further clarification from the commenter, I am going to assume that #1 better represents his/her meaning.
"We can't guarantee that policy has never been violated."
Perhaps there is a way to make this guarantee: Do not collect the data to begin with.