kiplkipl

Mine was also a Toyota in the UK, so consistent with your experience.

>And I know exactly how they would respond to me: What do you mean by "these people" you *ist!

You're inventing a stance to get angry about.

I recently bought a new car for the first time and the level of poor customer service, anti-consumer acts and outright trickery were appalling. Do they not depend on repeat customers?

At least if the dealership model disappears, it's the manufacturer's own reputation at stake, not whoever owns the franchise.

There is a common pattern where a startup is named after their main product, grows to the point of needing diversification, and starts being limited by their name.

On the other hand, Amazon worked around it.

Marvel Studios writing it as a baddie is not a very compelling reason to avoid automation. As of today, the vast majority of autonomous devices and robots are factory devices that have minimal input from humans.

Any time Facebook's UI is insulted, it's common to see the defence that it's a feature, not a bug, because clearly it works or a competitor would replace them. That time spent improving it is time wasted, because it doesn't make money. I see this as proof that a highly-scalable market doesn't optimise for good, it optimises for good-enough, and there's a lot of potential revenue lost between good and good-enough.

>If its free, your the product.

Like my bank account?

You don't need to sell order flow to make money when people are letting you hold their billions. Trading 212 already offer commission-free trading in the UK.

The only unconditional offers I've ever heard of have been for less prestigious courses.

That passes the buck on to the university addmissions teams. Then it's the same story with Oxbridge as the antagonists.

Fundamentally it's a hard problem: the admissions require more information than is available. But...

> All this fiasco does is demonstrate how unnecessarily reductive the whole concept is.

...there never really was enough information. This is an important factor IMO. The system has always been unfair, now it's less fair and in a colder, more obvious , more systematic way that resonates with the current political climate around technology. Politically it's hard for this government to get away with standing by a policy that adversely affects poor students in the same way it would have been hard for a left-wing government to institute the current fiscal policy.

>kids

Nit: almost all of them are now legally adults. At university they can look forward to this twilight age where they are treated as an adult when it's about financial obligations and treated as a child when it's their institutions forcing policy upon them.

I find the elected fascist to be an interesting thought experiment. If someone was fairly elected on a platform of genocide, would you comply? If someone doesn't, does that mean democracy is second to morality? And, if they don't, do they think that person should be allowed to stand on that plaform?

> If "they" are doing it, where's the issue? Markets may not be perfect, but they're not that bad, especially when huge profits are waiting to be collected with little risk.

See C

>Is your point that the majority of those may be white and therefore they should've let them crash?

If you truly think that's what I'm saying, we're on very different pages. The pensions have greater political power than the people in black areas. Both of them have the same problem - an unfair pressure that drives costs of lending up - but when it affects the majority rich and white investors, spending money to fix it is much more palatable.

I know what the article says. A person who can't get a mortgage on 8 won't be able to get a mortgage on 4 at the same rate as another person who can get a mortgage on 8.

>I suggested that if you can't get a loan you should tune down your ambitions a bit.

This is not about the ambitions of the individial in the link, it's an issue of structurally unequal differences that make it harder for black areas to see investment.

>tune it down with the racist us vs them thinking. It's not like all white people gain from that one person getting more leverage.

>I was talking about doing this to remove the statistics that cause the apparent racism, while you want to keep perpetuating the same mentality. Wake up or keep wondering why you are still losing.

Please stop telling me what I'm thinking.

A) They are doing it

B) Markets aren't perfect

C) You have to fight against, or change the influence of (through, say, commentary in the media), the government's funding and regulation.

>Are the shareholders mostly white? It's my understanding that most large investors are pension funds, insurance companies and the like, not individuals.

Who owns and benefits from the funds?

That's not a quote.

Maybe YCombinator companies should have tried bootstrapping.