Another example: I use Screen Sharing to manage multiple Macs on my network. Each host gets a Screen Sharing window, and I maximize each window (whose virtual resolutions are forced to my physical monitor size) and then toggle between them and other workspaces using Spaces. I need the screen real estate so I would never have multiple host windows in the same workspace.
Lead cyclists take turns riding at the front of the pack (the peloton, from which the company took its name), blocking the apparent wind and allowing teammates to ride in their slipstream. The protected riders use less energy to maintain the same pace.
This would in turn cause a different group of PMs (portfolio managers, in this case) to borrow Netflix stock and sell short. Paying up-front production costs on an asset being provided only to users whose revenues the company has already captured is a suboptimal use of equity capital -- to put it gently.
Good questions. Two differences to consider vis a vis past late cycle moments: US corporate profits haven't peaked, and the politicians could have a better claim on being part of the problem than on being part of the solution. I was tempted to add "leverage" but that's too slippery for a concise discussion.
Profits: it took about two years peak-to-trough for profits/GDP to correct during the past two recessions. Unless you see sudden stop risk, this suggests the US corprorate sector isn't staring down the barrel of a massive deleveraging...yet.
Politics: public support for legislative non-compromise does not speak to the kinds of policy fixes applied in 2008-9. Executive belligerence toward the Fed doesn't seem helpful either. As much as markets may have appeared to ignore US political risks while momentum was positive, it seems credulous to think this more of a divorce than a separation.
There are other quantitative arguments that the turn in the cycle is not here yet (e.g. employment, notwithstanding participation rate). But the prospect of a return to political gridlock is, to me, the most important risk contrast with recent past cycles.
Your retail store analogy is a red herring. A browser plugin that “maximizes the chances of bypassing paywalls” is attempting not to be party to a transaction, because if it succeeds, the user has expressly not agreed to the seller’s terms.
Instead your position appears analogous to arguing that altering a driver’s license to gain free admission to a cinema by misrepresenting oneself as entitled to senior citizen terms of entry is justifiable despite being prohibited by law in that jurisdiction.
It’s clear from this and other posts that you have articulate, principled view on many issues. So why aren’t you addressing the underlying economic issue? Publishers, like any business, need to earn revenue. If technological barriers to accessing intellectual property — and the legal protection thereof — are not valid (your claim of “frivolous overenforcement”), whose economic rights supersede the content producers? And why?
> whose economic rights supersede the content producers?
The owner of the computer they're insisting implements their business logic. It's trivial to simply not send the article to someone they do not want to view it.
If the extension moves on towards sharing an account, P2P distribution, etc, you would have a point. But as it is, it's only action is to interpret the content in a different way than the publisher desires.
Let's say an abutter of a drive-in theater sets up their own seats and starts selling tickets. The intent to "see a movie for cheap" would only become relevant if coupled with some action that is actually illegal.
Cyclists also willfully break traffic rules in SF with alarming regularity. Stop signs are generally regarded as ornamental, and even lightly traveled red lights. I am reminded of this every time my seven year-old cycling companion asks why such and such a person hasn't followed the rules when they blow past us.
As a occasional cyclist with a habit of casually breaking all possible traffic rules that are relatively safely breakable, my thinking is that if I crash with a car, it is me who dies regardless who was right. So as long the traffic culture amongst car drivers is so ignorant toward cyclists that me following traffic rules and actually trying to use the rights the rules give me results to life expectancy calculated in weeks, I keep my relaxed attitude towards traffic rules. Once the driving culture is such that I can drive safely by following rules, I start considering following them. The ball on this one is on cars, not cycles.
(To be fair, when I drive a car, I find myself driving similarly badly way too often. So I definitely do not claim changing the culture is easy)
To be fair, SF seems to have four-way stop signs at basically every intersection. I don't think we have four-way stop signs anywhere in Europe. Coming to a full stop and accelerating again every hundred meters slows you down a lot more on a bike. It's a pretty stupid road design for cars too, it kills your fuel economy.
Many cyclists would agree that a rolling stop allows them to get through, when there is no traffic, the intersection much faster and more safely due to the dangers of an intersection. I'm not arguing for blowing through at top-speed, and they must stop when pedestrians are in a cross-walk.
Just because it's the law, doesn't mean it's correct.
Coming to a full stop on a bike is downright dangerous. The act of unclipping from your pedal, stopping, and then starting again and having to clip back into your pedal is far more dangerous than just slowing down sufficiently to make sure there's no oncoming traffic. You're more likely to fall over when transitioning between moving and stopped on a bike than any other time, and falling over at an intersection is very dangerous.
There's nothing dangerous about stopping, I do it all the time and have never fallen. Cyclists who lack the skills to ride with clipless pedals just shouldn't use them. Or at least switch to something like Speedplay which make it easier to clip in and out.
I ride clipped all the time in the city and don't have this problem. If you can't safely use clips in the city, it's your choice to use them anyway. Saying that due to clips, "Coming to a full stop on a bike is downright dangerous" may be precise for you and your usage, but it's not a general rule as you made it sound.
I have never had clips, clipless pedals or anything similar. All of my bikes have had flat pedals with a bit of rubber and/or protrusions to keep my feet in place.
I have literally never felt that to be a disadvantage. I'm not racing, I'm commuting.
I've never used clips on my pedals when commuting because of the fact that there are times I have to come to a stop where I may not have time to unclip.
Using clips while riding in city traffic is like using cruise control while driving in city traffic.
Riding without clipless pedals means your feet slip all around and you have to pay more attention to your feet while pedaling. Or you have to use toe-clips, which are a PITA because you have to flip the pedal over to get your toe in.
With clipless pedals, you just mash your foot in and go, and your foot is now in the perfect position and you don't have to think about it. But that transition time is more hazardous than simply having your feet on the pedals all the time.
> Riding without clipless pedals means your feet slip all around and you have to pay more attention to your feet while pedaling.
The pedals on my bicycle have some slight metal protrusions that keep my feet in place while riding and work just fine with conventional shoes. Plus, in dry weather, I don't have a problem with my feet slipping off the pedals. Even in wet weather, they don't really slip that much unless I'm not careful about it.
The same thing also applies to motorists and pedestrians. Also, generalizations like this lead to the attitude that it's somehow the cyclists fault if they get hit by the car even if they are following the rules.
I don't follow your argument. Grandparent had pointed out correct cyclist behavior at intersections to avoid accidents. Parent had commented that both motorists and "especially" cyclists made mistakes resulting in violations of traffic rules and expected behavior. I added the observation that many cyclists' incorrect behavior in San Francisco is willful, not only accidental.
Both parent and I agree with GP's point that, "Turning conflicts...are a significant hazard to cyclists"; I simply argued for vigilance in the presence of deliberate rule-breaking by cyclists. Surely you would not argue for less vigilance by motorists? SF drivers are a whole other rant...
If you meant to say that I am making a hasty or sweeping generalization, I did no such thing. I make no claim as to the proportion of two-wheeled scofflaws. Anybody who rides in SF can see it, and some riders have owned up in child comments herein. If your complaint is against motorists who justify their own shitty driving with claims that cyclists are 'always' flouting the rules, then I agree that this is dangerously fallacious. But such a sweeping generalization nonetheless starts with cyclists who clearly break traffic rules.
That's why I wish they would stop. This is about saving lives. And if you are also a rider then you know the apportionment of blame becomes moot when 1800kg of SUV hits 80kg of cyclist. I think GP is absolutely right that good infrastructure design is key to avoiding such risks, but like all transportation systems it has to be built on the assumption that traffic rules will be followed.
There's a myriad of reasons why this is the case. Traffic signals and signage aren't designed for cyclists. Google a little.
Further, this is a false equivalence. When a cyclist fails to be diligent, the risks are fairly small. When a motorists fails to be diligent, other people die.
I ride the streets that I'm speaking about. San Francisco has a team of engineers who redesign road infrastructure, markings, and signage to promote safe cycling. I think they do good work and I benefit directly from their work. I think the infrastructure is better suited to cycling than your dismissive comment implies.
I disagree with your characterization that the risks to motor vehicle-bicycle interactions are fairly small risks as long as motorists are diligent. But I don't suggest that you accept my risk assessment. My equivalence is grounded in California law[0]. Cyclists have equal responsibility with other drivers. Both groups of vehicles need to be operated diligently.
San Francisco has a team of engineers who redesign road infrastructure...
They're adapting roads which were created entirely with motorists in mind in an attempt to promote safe cycling. The infrastructure is more well suited to cycling than it was previously, but I'm not sure that folks from Portland would agree. Folks from Copenhagen, most especially wouldn't agree.
In any case, it's a subjective assessment.
You disagree with my characterization and feel like the law somehow proves you right?
Yes, it is equally illegal for a motorist and a cyclist to blow a stop sign. If a motorist blows a stop sign and has a collision with another motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian, then likely outcome is injury in one of those cases, and death in the other two.
If a cyclist blows a stop sign and causes a collision, the likely outcome is that they'll end up a stain on someone else's car. It's possible they could injure, or even kill a pedestrian, which has happened all of once that I can tell.
The risk is vastly different. Bicycles aren't really ever considered to be deadly weapons.
Cars also willfully break traffic rules in SF with alarming regularity. Almost no one signals, cars rarely come to a full stop at crosswalks (instead inching forward, implying the pedestrian needs to hurry up), and even though I don't have a radar gun I'm pretty sure I see drivers operating at speeds far above the speed limit. Not to mention the drivers who shout out death threats at bikes for merely occupying the lane...
I have a very simple rule. Traffic laws and enforcement of said laws should be proportional to the accident rate.
If the average car driver has 2x, 10x, 100x or anything like higher accident rate than cyclists, and car traffic is several time larger than bike traffic, then it make logical sense that most traffic law and enforcement is put on addressing car traffic and drivers. The only consideration is when funding for such enforcement and laws don't follow strict scaling, in which you have to find the point where putting more funding in bike traffic laws actually produce lower accidents.
The press release hints strongly at their toolkit:
> improbably successful trading
Even before considering trading volume they can look at in-the-money trades as a proportion of total trades. Then I expect they would look at smaller denominators to see if timing correlated with the announcement cycle. The use of short-selling would have made it (relatively) easier still to pick up: assuming the company was ~200MM market cap at the end of 2014, of which 28% was held by management and their strategic shareholder [proxy statement 20150417], borrow could have been expensive enough to limit the holding periods of short trades.
As you and other commenters have pointed out, simple screens can indeed be effective. A short-term, infrequent trader (or small group of traders assuming, um, collusion) with a high win rate and presumably high risk-adjusted return would stick out.
How could the board kick out a CEO founder given the vertiginous increase in equity valuations said founder presided over? Because those valuations are only meaningful to end investors (i.e. the LPs) when shareholders experience positive cash flow. At Uber the opposite is happening. Why shouldn't we assume, then, that the board realizes Uber is headed for a fatal pinch[0] and has acted accordingly?
Bloomberg in April reported[1] Uber's cumulative cash burn at US$8 bn since its founding in 2009. You can argue that Travis Kalanick presided over rising valuations but so far there is no evidence of an increase in book value per share. Conversely that cash burn risks being crystallized as "value destruction" if revenue growth stalls.
The alleged personnel issues, the lawsuit, the bad press -- they are history and the firm has no choice but to cope with them. But failing to improve net margin can be quickly fatal and if that is happening then the other issues remain relevant. TK, who also presided over those, becomes part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
