Right. I use doordash all the time, and pay $5 - $10 for delivery. It gives me occasional status updates on my delivery, but no real time tracking. I'd love to see this in doordash, and if it costs them $0.04 from the $5 fee it seems like a no brainer. Same for so many other similar services.
IIRC, doordash used to provide a live map a couple years back. I'm guessing they have all the data and could share it again if they desired. Presumably they have some product reason for not offering it.
Exactly, even when you add in the transfer fee proposed here. Any rational ticket holder wouldn't sell their ticket for less than [what they paid for it] + [the transfer fee], and that means the airline let someone else get money they could have got if they had just sold the ticket directly to the second person.
The only scenario where this would be useful is if the the original purchaser is willing to sell their ticket at a loss for some reason, e.g. if they know they can't make it and just need to minimize their losses. But at least Southwest airlines already has a customer-friendly solution here, they will credit you the full price of the ticket for a future flight, for most tickets at least.
Original purchasers sell their tickets at a loss back to the airline all the time (for credit). It's called canceling your flight because your plans change for some reason.
As you point out, Southwest lets you do this for free. And JetBlue is something pretty reasonable as I recall. Unfortunately most of the fee-addicted airlines have really ratcheted up their cancellation fee however.
Is anyone aware of these outside of the HN/SV tech bubble? When I mention them to non-tech people here in Paris I found absolutely no one aware of these daily scandals.
My aunt which comes out of the fashion world and is trading at the stock market told me that uber is dead. She mostly trades in fashion stocks and the obvious blue chips. So this is probably well known in the finance world.
It was in reply to a comment mentioning how much the author has struggled, and my comment points that he had even more to deal with, with the tragic death of his son. Why is it crass, genuinely?
His son's death wasn't a plot device, but a tragedy. It's not part of the book. It's not intended to have any meaning. Calling it a 'spoiler' is a strange mixup of categories, and somewhat insensitive.
His son Chris was murdered long after the book was published, there is nothing spoiled unless you're really into the plot of postscripts of later editions.
EDIT: (And, yeesh, it was forty years ago. What "spoiler"? BTW, Vader is Luke's father.)
Read it in the context of someone who would now be old enough to have died through a variety of causes, be it a motorcycle accident, cancer, or a heart attack. You also now have to read it in the context of (spoiler alert) the author being dead as well.
You don't, because it has no bearing on subsequent events. It might be interesting to consider that on a subsequent reading (ZAMM certainly stands up to multiple readings) but you're just as apt to mislead yourself by projecting your incomplete knowledge of his eventual end onto his behavior and utterances in the book; so you might find yourself reading it and thinking 'oh, this element in his character no doubt played into his murder' when iirc the circumstances of his death were essentially random.
My experience of the book certainly ends with my reading wave being affected by that postscript in the book. Pirsig allowed for it to be in the book itself, which means it became part of his text too.
Chris may have been murdered long after the events of the book itself, but in the reading timeline, it's mere moments after finishing the main text.
I read the book about 5 years back, it interested me so much, and I ofcourse wanted to research the father/son's present day life. Well it was heart breaking. So I get what you are saying.
I have upvoted your comment, regardless of the technical accuracy of your wording. In the edition of the book that I first read, Pirsig included this information in an afterword and although it wasn't a core part of the original narrative it certainly was expressed as an update or continuation. And having travelled the journey with father, son and ghost until that point, it was a heartbreaking epilogue.
Even if you could fingerprint the location accurately, how do you know I'm there now, vs. capturing all of the information when I was there and replaying them later?
A much easier problem than "are you really where you say you are?" is "are you likely to be sending me fake locations?", which is hard to do with a single location update, but if the user is moving rapidly, or in geographically distant locations across multiple updates it's much easier to catch.
Is that true? I've never read the SEC rules or looked into this in detail but my understanding was that information sharing only becomes a problem if you actually trade on that information (ie. insider trading). I didn't know the rules actually tried to limit what was shared. How does that work with employees etc, who will almost certainly have access to a lot of preferential information and many also be investors or significant shareholders? Would love to know more!
