This is for stock sales which they did not restrict. Robinhood stopped the purchase of stock which does not require a collateral because the money is coming directly from the users cash balance. Don’t believe whatever they say, RH action was specifically to stop the short squeeze.
If the pandemic continues for another 9 months probably if not things are going to get worse, because people are going to go out a lot more when the pandemic is over and order delivery’s much less.
This is a regulatory response to Silicon Valley’s implementation
of predatory pricing.
Let me explain:
Predatory pricing is defined as “the pricing of goods or services at such a low level that other suppliers cannot compete and are forced to leave the market.”
For silicon valley startups like Doordash and Grubhub this is accomplished by acquiring customers at a significant loss in ways that may often seem idiotic.
The End game is to be the dominant food ordering platform in any given town where you get to dictate rates like 25%.
Since predatory pricing is illegal, this response is justified. However, it would be better if regulators enforce predatory pricing rules to begin with, which they rarely ever do.
Yes, and the author is misinformed to think that Peloton can lose the customers who take their online classes to Apple free options. People take classes for the inspiration and guidance from the teachers. Before Apple there were plenty of free options so this isn’t new, fitness is and will continue to be a very competitive market.
Uber limits the amount of rides you can deny, i.e. you deny 5 rides in 30min they log you off the platform after awhile you get penalized. They want high acceptance rate.
Climate change is a red herring, air pollution is a clear and present danger. India and China have ignored this in the past and now they are making some efforts to correct course because people are dying from it.
They focus on the team because that’s the how startups raise money these days, investors figure they could always pivot to something else. Obviously this can be problematic especially when the founder(s) is good at raising money, see Wework
That is a hypothetical used to promote a narrative, all the test & observations presented show all mutations must be present for specialization. The Monarch only feeds on milkweed, but somehow it survived the A119s phase feeding on milkweed plant (CG-containing plant)without the needed 111& 122 mutation?
In an hypothetical adaptive walk. A119S does NOT provide sufficient CG-insensitivity so an insect with just A119S will die specializing in CG. The are other mutations needed for survival.
Moreover u left out:
“A119S is a common substitution among taxa that do not specialize on CG-containing hostplants“
Natural selection is undefeated.
Therefore the need for immediate substitutions to sites 111 & 122 in order to specialize on “CG-containing hostplants“
An adaptive walk has to show adaptation in the environment. If all the mutations occur outside the natural environment, without natural selection, it is not an adaptive walk.
Not two, but three mutations. The first & second induced mutations gives the fruit fly immunity to the poison but the mutations are also lethal, which means the fly could not survive long enough for the third needed mutation to occur in an adaptive walk. The third mutation is like a stabilizer of the first & second mutation, it does not give immunity. In the test all three mutations are needed simultaneously for the fly to have the immunity and survive, that is not an adaptive walk, that is incredible engineering.
So essentially you can engineer a monarch butterfly, but an adaptive walk is impossible in this case. (Writing on the go, may edit later)