ironcan

> As a person who study UX for living

So a student?

Would such a move be enough to not be under the jurisdiction of the Eastern District? Google doesn't have any store there yet that doesn't stop any patent troll.

I think a better example would be losing a partner vs losing a distant relative, snapping a nail sounds like apple and oranges.

Your link doesn't support your thesis, and I don't know of any place that have such policy, except probably shitty places that didn't have good services in the first place.

> but lets not pretend like a more objective version of this study would have ever happened

Precisely, because a more objective version would have found no effect whatsoever.

On the flip side, if it wasn't Amazon mentioned but pets.com, they were entirely right.

Is there actually any reason why we should allow pet stores to sell animals at all? Even outside of radical animal rights, it seems like a breeding ground for terrible conditions for the animals.

Just a correction, but it's a project of the European Space Agency, not NASA.

Well, if they haven't included any connection to other books, people could complain that it's too self-contained, there is no way to win.

This is something you hear all the time, why?

What is inconsistent here? Apart from the fact we don't know how truthful his friends are, the numbers don't seem out of whack.

And since there is no google customer service, nobody can social engineer it out of you!

If there is one comment that embodies the HN spirit, it's this one...

There'd still be a mental overhead though, and it's notwithstanding the fact that the euro is more than twenty years old, at a time where paying by credit card often meant someone was physically copying your card number and details so it's unsurprising that they didn't account for that fact.