Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | duk3luk3's commentslogin

you can always try the plastic bag + vacuum cleaner trick - take a thin flexible rope, tie it to a small plastic bag, stuff the small plastic bag into the conduit, use a vacuum cleaner at the other end to suck the plastic bag & rope through. You can then use the rope to pull through new cable. If you make the rope twice the length of the conduit, you can keep it in there indefinitely to pull through new cable whenever you want.

This is an unreasonably effective way of running cables. The first time I used it it felt like magic with how quick and painless it was.

No - the obvious play here is for Amazon to undercut the original vendors by 15%, sell at a loss until all of the sales go through Amazon, and then pressure the vendors into cutting their pricing and becoming suppliers subservient to and dependent on Amazon, allowing Amazon to become a middle-man dipping into the revenue stream.

But then brands could buy their own products back for cheaper and just get a real life infinite money glitch?

This actually happened to some restaurants who found their service on DoorDash. The restaurant owners were able to make a fine profit out of DoorDash’s arbitrage scheme.


It's worth pointing out that it only worked because doordash scraped their menu incorrectly (using AI maybe?) and used the price of a plain pizza for specialty pizzas. Also it was a trial period where they waved all their usual fees.

Don’t worry. If Amazon decided to undercut by selling at a loss, they would absolutely put it in their ToS that retailers cannot exploit this loophole and they would sue to enforce their ToS.

Retailers could put into their TOS that they are exempt from those clauses when buying things bought from them.

I like this. “By purchasing from us you agree that you cannot enforce your ridiculous terms of service and if you try, you also owe us a pony.”

These manufacturers never signed any ToS, and the most Amazon could do to retaliate would be to de-list the product that they never asked to be listed in the first place.

When the manufacturer buys their own product via Amazon’s service they would become subject to their TOS as a buyer.

I guess they'll just have to use some service to buy for them instead. ;)

It looks like a good idea, this works better for refrigerators than pizza.

gait recognition is a pseudoscience. this is also obvious from the way it is used: to fabricate a pretext to detain undesirables.

gait recognition is a pseudoscience.

Your citation appears to directly contradict your argument. How did this happen?


My citation explains that Michael Hart was the founder of PG, and the foundation that Newby headed didn't even exist until 02000. Newby would never in his life have wanted people to think that he had founded PG!

I've edited my comment above to make it clearer what its central argument is, since you seem to have misunderstood either the argument or the quote.


Sad that my first thought was "AI".


This isn't about an aws account, this is about the auth inside the project that user is running.


FYI: pjb goes by she/her.


Thanks, I'd forgotten that. Can't edit the comment anymore.


> a lot of the fear that ordinarily motivates the rest of us

No, that seems like mostly you. Most people are not motivated by fear.


> There's supposedly video evidence

That statement is so weak it's better at inflaming the conspiracy theory than quelling it.


I hadn't watched the footage personally. Many other have and that was their conclusion.

The coroner's report also sure sounds like a suicide. Gunshot to the right temple, very close range, from the victim's gun. No evidence of any struggle or forced entry. No evidence of anyone being with him. A note with only his fingerprints in what seems to be his handwriting.

Obviously there's no possibile way a mentally unstable person under a lot of continued stress would ever take their own life, just never happens. The only way people die are because corporations have them executed.

Is there even a single shred of evidence suggesting someone else pulled the trigger?


There is no insurance that will insure you against your own gross negligence.

Insurance will only pay out if you can show that you have done everything a reasonable person would be expected to do to avoid the loss/damage.

> Don't take the right safety precautions and burn down a customers house - liability insurance

You mean someone burnt a customers house down /because of something like an electrical or equipment malfunction that they could not have reasonably foreseen or prevented/, right?

> Forget to lock your door and get burgled - property insurance

That seems unlikely. Compare this: https://moneysmart.gov.au/home-insurance/contents-insurance

> It's worth checking what isn't included. For example, damage caused by floods, intentional or criminal damage, or theft if you leave windows or doors unlocked.

Happy to be shown that I'm wrong but please do not give people the impression that liability insurance or property insurance will absolve them of losses no questions asked.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: