I have not met the person saying it as a cop-out. In my experience they say God did it and tell us about him.
It's only a cop-out if they say it to avoid looking into reasons for the explanation. The religious people I know, myself included, have well established and agreed upon reasons.
Just because you disagree with their conclusions and reasons for them, it's ridiculous to call it a cop-out.
But using that as your basis to ignore the question is ignoring the can.
Religion tries to answer the questions on existence, meaning and morality (this is not meant to be defimitively comprehensive). An atheist who calls the religious person a fool for asking a question and finding an answer that still leaves some questions is himself the fool.
Showing that people are willing to pay a price does not make it equitable. You have to account for power dynamics and market conditions. I believe the original question was whether there was a relatively even or fair split of 'profits' from the current setup. One could make a case for this being even, and also for it being somehow relational to investment (blood from the giver, r&d + logistics from the receiver). Your 'answer' glosses over all that.
Thanks for the rant, was great. Used to play Eve a lot. In the end I got pretty deep into suicide ganking (destroying ships in 'secure' space at the cost of your own ship(s) for the loot).
At best it was like 400m/ hour but didn't exactly scale easily. I had 7 windows open. Scanner dramiel remote sensor boosted by someone two jumps from target, three battleships with artillery cannons, one destroyer with artillery cannons and a scrambler, someone sensor boosting these ships, and a hauler ready to warp to can. Sometimes I would scan the other direction and be ready to switch gank gates but it depends on system. Goal was to be able to catch almost anything with 1bil+ in cargo. Cruisers, t2 haulers, t3 cruisers, etc. It felt really distopian. Some hits were upwards of 5bil.
I share your skepticism of the (inherent) potential of the internet. It's not a popular belief and I haven't seen a good solution... But in the mean time I watch as everyone heralds the dawn of the information age, awaiting the death of ignorance and bigotry... and I suspect we will find ourselves in a dark place in ten years wishing we had realized how much work we should have done because this gigantic confounding tool is just a tool and like all tools is not a neutral force. A tool's effects in history are those that its use/existence tends to promote.
I'm not sure discussions of a free and equal internet approach something that will be a net good.
I think there's ample evidence that the internet is really most similar to TV.
All lives matter is a direct response to black lives matter and is trying to nullify the claims of the latter. It is functionally abusive because it actively fights increased awareness of the racism that BLM was(is) working towards.
The statement 'All Lives Matter' not as response to BLM would have been fine, but come on. No one here is blind to the current discussion to that extent.
Why are you belittling it as a knee-jerk reaction and sad?
A group of people is experiencing horrible and unjust treatment. The implication of the situation is they don't matter, and the correct reformist statement is that they do matter.
Black lives matter also is not the correct statement. It is the correct understanding of the while situation but you need to keep in mind the nuance of language.
I think it's a great slogan. If everyone (society at large) aleady believed all lives matter then it would be a dumb slogan. It's a great slogan because currently black lives don't matter in many people's eyes. In my experience the only people who don't like the slogan either don't think black lives matter or are absurdly blind to the reality of racism in this country.
The controversy isn't because it's a bad slogan. The controversy is evidence of it being the correct slogan.
Edit: sorry for re-stating some of your points. I'm sort of delirious with a head cold right now.
What's pretty interesting is that it could be both.
Sellers get's a return. Upon receiving returned item they check that packaging is still sealed and when it is, they send it back to amazon's fulfillment center to be sold again.
Amazon receives the item. Amazon's system (obviously) doesn't open boxes. They at the very most check the barcode, visually inspect for sealed box, and check weight.
Now the items are co-mingled with other new items
Now a buyer can receive a box of clay when they buy from an entirely different seller.
Co-mingled items allow for a ton of fraud. They also save Amazon a lot of money on logistics. They make prime shipping possible. For Amazon, the acceptable rate of fraud is very high because everyone wants to be on their marketplace (huge sales volume) and the system they use allows them to offer such value at such a low cost.
It seems like the issue here should be that rentals/hotels are discriminating based on whether someone operates as an AirBnB host or not. Other renter's who do the same without such a notable 'incident' are the same level of risk. It is quite unfair I believe that this person is unable to find a rental. Rental agencies should figure out their stance and make it clear and unilateral.
It's only a cop-out if they say it to avoid looking into reasons for the explanation. The religious people I know, myself included, have well established and agreed upon reasons.
Just because you disagree with their conclusions and reasons for them, it's ridiculous to call it a cop-out.