Random Thoughts or Whatever

[ernieb1536]

Well, this is fun. Not because it's the correct thing to do but because it is a thoughtful thing to do I always put the seat down, wouldn't want to set down without it myself... as an add, I think for them, the girls, it has to do with having to touch the thing, reach down and get hold of it, not the effort. Besides, the thing, the toilet, just looks better with the seat down, the lid too but, you know, enough is enough.

Years ago I was listening to a local dial date show on the radio ,and this old bat called in she got one caller ! She’s asked him if he puts the toilet seat down , he said it depends if I’m paying the bills you need to put it up for me ! Couldn’t stop laughing after he messed with her he hung up ! And then there was the awkward silence !

 

[Mystic]

Less than three weeks after the European Commission hit Apple with a €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion) antitrust fine for “abusive App store rules for music streaming services”, the U.S. Department of Justice has sued Apple for allegedly “monopolizing smartphone markets”. The DOJ, along with 16 state and district attorneys general, accuses Apple of using and maintaining its dominant position in the U.S. smartphone market by engaging in behavior that stifles competition and, as a consequence, hurts U.S. consumers.

“Apple undermines apps, products, and services that would otherwise make users less reliant on the iPhone, promote interoperability, and lower costs for consumers and developers,” the DOJ said in a statement. “Apple exercises its monopoly power to extract more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses, and merchants, among others.”

The sweeping lawsuit that encompasses 88 pages focuses on five different examples of Apple engaging in what the DOJ thinks is illegal, anticompetitive behavior. Those examples include Apple’s treatment of so-called super apps (e.g. WeChat), cloud streaming apps (mostly for gaming), cross-platform messaging, smartwatches and digital wallets. In all of these examples, the DOJ alleges, Apple used it position to put in place rules and policies that make it harder for non-Apple devices and services to compete with Apple’s own offerings, thus keeping users in the company’s (in)famous walled garden.

“Rather than respond to competitive threats by offering lower smartphone prices to consumers or better monetization for developers, Apple would meet competitive threats by imposing a series of shapeshifting rules and restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer agreements that would allow Apple to extract higher fees, thwart innovation, offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle competitive alternatives,” the DOJ describes Apple’s “playbook”, which it has allegedly deployed across many technologies, products and services.

Apple responded by calling the lawsuit “wrong on the facts and the law” and saying that it would “vigorously defend against it”. In fact, the DOJ attacks the very core of Apple’s business model, which is creating products and services that seamlessly work together, and thus by definition make it less attractive for users to opt for non-Apple products. Whether or not, or to what extent, Apple’s behavior is against antitrust laws is now for the courts to decide. Experts think that the lawsuit, which has been years in the making, could drag on for years before we see a verdict.

 

[Pio1980]

View attachment 3158930

Less than three weeks after the European Commission hit Apple with a €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion) antitrust fine for “abusive App store rules for music streaming services”, the U.S. Department of Justice has sued Apple for allegedly “monopolizing smartphone markets”. The DOJ, along with 16 state and district attorneys general, accuses Apple of using and maintaining its dominant position in the U.S. smartphone market by engaging in behavior that stifles competition and, as a consequence, hurts U.S. consumers.

“Apple undermines apps, products, and services that would otherwise make users less reliant on the iPhone, promote interoperability, and lower costs for consumers and developers,” the DOJ said in a statement. “Apple exercises its monopoly power to extract more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses, and merchants, among others.”

The sweeping lawsuit that encompasses 88 pages focuses on five different examples of Apple engaging in what the DOJ thinks is illegal, anticompetitive behavior. Those examples include Apple’s treatment of so-called super apps (e.g. WeChat), cloud streaming apps (mostly for gaming), cross-platform messaging, smartwatches and digital wallets. In all of these examples, the DOJ alleges, Apple used it position to put in place rules and policies that make it harder for non-Apple devices and services to compete with Apple’s own offerings, thus keeping users in the company’s (in)famous walled garden.

“Rather than respond to competitive threats by offering lower smartphone prices to consumers or better monetization for developers, Apple would meet competitive threats by imposing a series of shapeshifting rules and restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer agreements that would allow Apple to extract higher fees, thwart innovation, offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle competitive alternatives,” the DOJ describes Apple’s “playbook”, which it has allegedly deployed across many technologies, products and services.

Apple responded by calling the lawsuit “wrong on the facts and the law” and saying that it would “vigorously defend against it”. In fact, the DOJ attacks the very core of Apple’s business model, which is creating products and services that seamlessly work together, and thus by definition make it less attractive for users to opt for non-Apple products. Whether or not, or to what extent, Apple’s behavior is against antitrust laws is now for the courts to decide. Experts think that the lawsuit, which has been years in the making, could drag on for years before we see a verdict.

Apple has a monopoly in its own domain, yes. However, Android is the major alternative, so what "monopoly"?

 

[Lord Patrick]

It's only a matter of time before some idiot sues BMW because he can't use BMW pistons in his Ford pickup.

 

[Mystic]

The Cold War fought via clandestine operations with boots on the ground and proxy conflicts between parties backed by the U.S., China or Russia might be a thing of the past, but the times of bloc-based warfare are far from over. Now, a majority of the theatres of war have become digital, with state-sponsored or -affiliated groups conducting cyber warfare against targets in various sectors.

According to a recent Reuters report, United States and United Kingdom officials imposed sanctions against the hacking group Advanced Persistent Threat 31 and indicted seven of its members on Monday, citing a "decade-plus spying spree [compromising] defense contractors, dissidents and a variety of U.S. companies, including American steel, energy and apparel firms".

The group is allegedly linked to the Chinese government, which refuted the claims made by U.S. and U.K. authorities. Apart from China, such allegations are mostly aimed at Russian and North Korean groups, many of the latter of which have also been connected to crypto heists reportedly funding the nation's nuclear program.

As data from the open-access database of the European Repository of Cyber Incidents shows, the sector most targeted by malevolent actors, according to reports by either victims, attackers, authorities, security companies, media or third parties is critical infrastructure. In 2023 alone, 500 incidents involving industries like energy, telecommunications, transport or health were entered into the database, followed by attacks on state institutions or political systems (376) and corporate targets (113).

Overall, the EuRepoC recorded 895 cyber incidents in 2023, with many of said incidents involving more than one attack. As of March 26, 171 cyber operations reported in 2024 are found in EuRepoC's database, with 89 incidents connected to critical infrastructure and 82 to state institutions or political systems, including on ministries, civil services or the police.

While cyberattacks on regular companies can, at most, lead to financial harm or data on their inner workings being exposed, attacks on power stations, the energy grid or telecommunications networks could potentially evolve into a national security threat. This makes cybersecurity not only necessary but a lucrative and competitive market. According to estimates by various sources like our Statista Market Insights and the IDC, the worldwide estimated cybersecurity spend for 2023 ranged somewhere between $160 and $220 billion, with the market poised to grow significantly in the next three to five years.

 

[DeadRock]

I fought The Cold War...from a lot of Beer Tents and Fests along The Rhine and in the hills...someone had to do it...

 

[Stillhouse]

Human Man, Human Man
Only does what a human can
Two legs, feet, arms and hands
Has a brother-in-law named Dan
Who's that? Oh, that's just Human Man

 

[Chad Michael]

Here is a random thought or whatever.

I am completely disappointed that the new JBL Classic series of loudspeakers are:
1) wildly over priced
2) made in China

You be the judge

 

[nailer]

Isn't just about everything made in China nowadays?

 

[Mystic]

Five years after the Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), sports betting continues to boom in the United States. According to the American Gaming Association, gross gaming revenue from sports betting, i.e. total wagers minus winnings, amounted to $10.9 billion in 2023, shattering the previous record set the year before. In total, Americans wagered almost $120 billion on legal sportsbooks last year, up from $93 billion in 2022. According to the AGA, last year's growth was driven by continued maturation of existing markets as well as several new markets, including Massachusetts and Ohio.

Following its enactment by Congress in 1992, PASPA had effectively banned sports betting everywhere except for Nevada (and three other states that had certain betting games grandfathered in). In 2012, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed a law allowing betting on professional and amateur sports at New Jersey casinos and racetracks, after which all major sports leagues had sued Christie for violating PASPA. The lawsuit resulted in a long legal battle, which culminated in the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down PASPA in May 2018.

“Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own,” the court had explained its decision back then. “Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not. PASPA regulates state governments’ regulation of their citizens. The Constitution gives Congress no such power.”

 

[SuperjazzyJa]

Here is a random thought or whatever.

I am completely disappointed that the new JBL Classic series of loudspeakers are:
1) wildly over priced
2) made in China

You be the judge

View attachment 3161501

A disappointment or actually 2 disappointments? Yes! Surprising? Not a bit. The old expression "You get what you pay for" isn't really true anymore. Truth is you get 1 billionth of what you pay for at best most of the time. These days, companies make products extremely cheaply and charge humongous prices for them, no matter what it is. Real life example: If you look at Polo shirt as in actual Ralph Lauren brand in Macy's, you could easily spend North of $100 for just one shirt. Go into T.J. Maxx or Marshalls and the same shirt is about a quarter of the price and STILL overpriced. What's the difference? The one you get from TJ or Marshalls has a defect that you will never find no matter how long and hard you look or it's just one year out of date. However, you might not find the exact shirt you want in your size. It's a crapshoot.

I don't see a price (MSRP) in your post and haven't looked online for one yet, but it undoubtedly is huge compared to the manufacturing cost.

How much does it cost to make a brand new vehicle? Last I heard, about 12 years ago, it was one TWENTYETH of the sticker price. You see a brand new pickup truck at a dealer with a price of $70,000? It's probably a bare bones half ton. $3500 or less to make it. Not 35,000, 3500. 12 years later, it might very well be even cheaper to make and even more expensive to buy.

I know I mentioned this before, but it beats repeating. My BT speaker (Ultimate Ears Megaboom 3) was $160 when I bought it last summer at Best Buy. Less than a year later, it's $200. It's a pretty darn good speaker for what it is, all things considered, etc, but it apparently gained serious popularity since I bought it and of course the law of supply and demand doesn't break or bend or even flex in the slightest.

Meanwhile, I have a pair of JBL earbuds that I am not very pleased with. The sound quality comes up a little short, but not too bad. The charging doesn't hold a charge for very long, but recently, I have had a problem using them for phone calls. They connect just fine for listening to music, but they're not working with calls for some reason and the noise cancelation is a joke. They were $70. It seems like one has to spend $125 or more to get good ones. I'm not in a rush to do so, unless they come with a 10,000 year unlimited warranty that doubles as a free insurance policy in case someone even looks at them the wrong way or breathes the wrong way within 1000 feet of them. Yeah, I'm getting goofy here, but you get the point.

 

[Mystic]

 

[Quadman2]

Just came across a random stat that caused a random thought for me.

"If the earth were to suddenly stop rotating, we would be thrust eastward, at a velocity of 467 metres per second/1564 feet per second...and instantly die!"

So, lets hope this globe continues to spin, albeit wobble in the process!

Q

 

[nailer]

View attachment 3161842

Five years after the Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), sports betting continues to boom in the United States. According to the American Gaming Association, gross gaming revenue from sports betting, i.e. total wagers minus winnings, amounted to $10.9 billion in 2023, shattering the previous record set the year before. In total, Americans wagered almost $120 billion on legal sportsbooks last year, up from $93 billion in 2022. According to the AGA, last year's growth was driven by continued maturation of existing markets as well as several new markets, including Massachusetts and Ohio.

Following its enactment by Congress in 1992, PASPA had effectively banned sports betting everywhere except for Nevada (and three other states that had certain betting games grandfathered in). In 2012, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed a law allowing betting on professional and amateur sports at New Jersey casinos and racetracks, after which all major sports leagues had sued Christie for violating PASPA. The lawsuit resulted in a long legal battle, which culminated in the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down PASPA in May 2018.

“Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own,” the court had explained its decision back then. “Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not. PASPA regulates state governments’ regulation of their citizens. The Constitution gives Congress no such power.”

If bets are revenue then the winners of the bets payments would be an expense. Would be fun to see the bar for this on the chart. A Paul Harvey "the rest of the story."

 

[Mystic]

The global cocoa trade is a sensitive business. More than half of the world's harvest comes from the Ivory Coast and Ghana. As soon as there are signs for a less-than-optimal harvest, traders become restless. Poor harvest yields have caused the price of cocoa to rise significantly in recent months. May futures of the commodity even rose above $10,000 in intra-day trading over the past two days, although the price dipped below this historic high point each day at market close.

This Statista graphic shows just how dependent the cocoa market is on Africa. Around three quarters of the global cocoa harvest comes from African countries - primarily from the West Africa region. According to estimates by the International Cocoa Organization from February 2024, the global harvest season 2023/24 will be significantly below the level of previous years at around 4.5 million tons. This is mainly due to the significant drop in the harvest volume from Africa, which will fall by around 0.4 million tons to 3.2 million.

 

[spicer]

View attachment 3163206

The global cocoa trade is a sensitive business. More than half of the world's harvest comes from the Ivory Coast and Ghana. As soon as there are signs for a less-than-optimal harvest, traders become restless. Poor harvest yields have caused the price of cocoa to rise significantly in recent months. May futures of the commodity even rose above $10,000 in intra-day trading over the past two days, although the price dipped below this historic high point each day at market close.

This Statista graphic shows just how dependent the cocoa market is on Africa. Around three quarters of the global cocoa harvest comes from African countries - primarily from the West Africa region. According to estimates by the International Cocoa Organization from February 2024, the global harvest season 2023/24 will be significantly below the level of previous years at around 4.5 million tons. This is mainly due to the significant drop in the harvest volume from Africa, which will fall by around 0.4 million tons to 3.2 million.

'This statista graphic shows just how dependent the cocoa market is on Africa.'

Indeed but think how dependent Africa is on the cocoa market. One is commodity prices, the other is lives.

 

[Pio1980]

What about shortshoremen,? Longshoremen get all the attention.

 

[nailer]

What about shortshoremen,? Longshoremen get all the attention.

They're not seen because being short they've got no body.

 

[init4fun]

 

[nailer]

View attachment 3158930

Less than three weeks after the European Commission hit Apple with a €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion) antitrust fine for “abusive App store rules for music streaming services”, the U.S. Department of Justice has sued Apple for allegedly “monopolizing smartphone markets”. The DOJ, along with 16 state and district attorneys general, accuses Apple of using and maintaining its dominant position in the U.S. smartphone market by engaging in behavior that stifles competition and, as a consequence, hurts U.S. consumers.

“Apple undermines apps, products, and services that would otherwise make users less reliant on the iPhone, promote interoperability, and lower costs for consumers and developers,” the DOJ said in a statement. “Apple exercises its monopoly power to extract more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses, and merchants, among others.”

The sweeping lawsuit that encompasses 88 pages focuses on five different examples of Apple engaging in what the DOJ thinks is illegal, anticompetitive behavior. Those examples include Apple’s treatment of so-called super apps (e.g. WeChat), cloud streaming apps (mostly for gaming), cross-platform messaging, smartwatches and digital wallets. In all of these examples, the DOJ alleges, Apple used it position to put in place rules and policies that make it harder for non-Apple devices and services to compete with Apple’s own offerings, thus keeping users in the company’s (in)famous walled garden.

“Rather than respond to competitive threats by offering lower smartphone prices to consumers or better monetization for developers, Apple would meet competitive threats by imposing a series of shapeshifting rules and restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer agreements that would allow Apple to extract higher fees, thwart innovation, offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle competitive alternatives,” the DOJ describes Apple’s “playbook”, which it has allegedly deployed across many technologies, products and services.

Apple responded by calling the lawsuit “wrong on the facts and the law” and saying that it would “vigorously defend against it”. In fact, the DOJ attacks the very core of Apple’s business model, which is creating products and services that seamlessly work together, and thus by definition make it less attractive for users to opt for non-Apple products. Whether or not, or to what extent, Apple’s behavior is against antitrust laws is now for the courts to decide. Experts think that the lawsuit, which has been years in the making, could drag on for years before we see a verdict.

Interesting how the EU can just fine for anti-trust violations and the US has to take the case before the courts. Also, not even 1/3 of the states have joined the suit. Not sure how Apple's rules and policies are noncompetitive and monopolistic. After all, it's their platform and there are others out there. Samsung for instance. Aren't the companies who want to make money on Apple's platform trying to get something for nothing or maybe by meeting Apple's requirements their services would no longer be competitive?