doublesCs

He's right. I'm done here. Good bye.

> Perhaps the other 90% work for the government.

What a poisonous attitude.

Typo. *in the realm of chemistry

I guess when you said "conservation of matter" I interpreted that as meaning "conservation of mass", seeing as we're talking about weight loss.

No, this isn't true. There's no conservation of matter anywhere. If you take 2 hydrogen atoms and weight them, then bond them together in a hydrogen molecule and weight that, the molecule weights less than twice one hydrogen atom.

This is the correct answer.

There's no such thing as conservation of mass, mass and energy are convertible into each other. But in the real of chemistry that conversion happens on a ratio of at most 1e-7, so when it comes to the human body we might as well say that the weight that goes in must equal what comes out, and that's close enough.

Can you spell how exactly this law makes it harder for a competitor to come up?

Because if you don't, you'll sound like you're just parroting the generic (and generically false) old "regulations are bad for business".

Would you like to discuss what makes a syncthetic good or bad?

> Airline standards are the direct consequences of vote with your wallet. No matter what some claim, 99.999% of people will buy the cheapest ticket possible.

For the airline industry, yes. This isn't true in all industries.

> because what's the point anyway?

Same point as soccer: some people like it.

I'd never heard of this newsletter, but it's really really high quality. Thanks to OP.

I'll bet you $100 there won't.

Actually not a bad analogy, thank you.

> I'm generally very sympathetic to anti-trust measures, but this strikes me as a situation where DuckDuckGo needs to stand on its own two feet. If your position is that privacy is more valuable to consumers, then you should compete in the auction.

If you're very sympathetic to anti-trust measures, then this shouldn't be decided in an auction. Obviously the most profitable companies will win the auction. And those are the same companies that you should be taking measures against (not because they're profitable in itself, but because by being profitable they can kill competitors).

So saying: "search engines should compete on a lawless free market" vs "search engines have to compete on an auction for users" is more or less the same thing. Anti-trust measures try to make the outcome slightly less sensitive to profitability.