301–310 of 783 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's be real. He earned much more than half.
Let’s go ahead and not debate this. You won’t come to a satisfactorily equitable answer, no one will change their minds and we’ll just have a thread of gray comments where nothing of value was gained.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does Amazon do more good for society or bad? Serious question. I wonder this a lot. Can they be blamed for wanting to create something better than Wal-Mart? Can they be blamed for the fact that shareholders expect growth and customers expect lower prices all the time? Is this not a bigger problem than just blaming the billionaires for all of society's woes? Aren't all of us complicit for buying and supporting Big Tec…
If we made a pro con list, what would you say are Amazon's greatest negatives to society? It saves people time and money, and AWS has enabled many start ups and small businesses. I can't think of any big negatives other than the general hate that people have towards big companies.
I happen to like Peter Thiel a lot and agree with most of his perspectives. I'm not sure if punishing an extremely forward-thinking organization is the way forward for our society.
I don't know. I'm hungry to find out though. What are your thoughts on this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want this thread to devolve needlessly; in summary: I treat my wife like my cofounder with an equal share of equity. I wouldn't let my cofounder take anything less than half of the total value of the business if a liquidation/separation/liquidity event occurred, so why would I treat my spousal relationship differently considering the work a relationship requires? If you're concerned about your partner entitle…
I have seen this go both ways. Some spouses give everything for other to succeed while some become extra work in addition to what you already have. Lot depends on circumstances, personallies and loads of luck . Let’s not be judgmental here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well come on - don't host your business on a company you plan on antagonizing. Pretty sure AWS has contract clauses that allow them to deny service or perform forensics when criminal activity is suspected, and blackmail would certainly qualify.
Pretty sure that AWS doesn't have permission to conduct criminal investigations. Those would need to be turned over to a criminal prosecutor. It would be a pretty scary world if corporations were able to police consumer and business data whenever they "suspected" something. Talk about political hit jobs.
even if that isn't the case, the amount of effort required for amazon to obtain a warrant from a magistrate judge or however they'd play it is negligible.
What struck me was how brazen AMI was about the blackmail. Then I realized: they were comoftable doing it that way, putting it in writing, because in nearly every other time they've done this, it worked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well come on - don't host your business on a company you plan on antagonizing. Pretty sure AWS has contract clauses that allow them to deny service or perform forensics when criminal activity is suspected, and blackmail would certainly qualify.
Pretty sure that AWS doesn't have permission to conduct criminal investigations. Those would need to be turned over to a criminal prosecutor. It would be a pretty scary world if corporations were able to police consumer and business data whenever they "suspected" something. Talk about political hit jobs.
All they need to do is to tick one of the boxes in their ToS and kick them off their property. Heck, there's an entire sub-category of law colloquially known as "Amazon-law", where you hire folks who specialize in navigating the intricacies of Amazon's policies so your business doesn't get crushed:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/19/18140799/amazon-marketpl...
Edit: https://aws.amazon.com/aup/ TL;DR - they can do whatever they want.
No Illegal, Harmful, or Offensive Use or Content
You may not use, or encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to use, the Services or AWS Site for any illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive use, or to transmit, store, display, distribute or otherwise make available content that is illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive. Prohibited activities or content include:
Illegal, Harmful or Fraudulent Activities. Any activities that are illegal, that violate the rights of others, or that may be harmful to others, our operations or reputation, including disseminating, promoting or facilitating child pornography, offering or disseminating fraudulent goods, services, schemes, or promotions, make-money-fast schemes, ponzi and pyramid schemes, phishing, or pharming.
Infringing Content. Content that infringes or misappropriates the intellectual property or proprietary rights of others.
Offensive Content. Content that is defamatory, obscene, abusive, invasive of privacy, or otherwise objectionable, including content that constitutes child pornography, relates to bestiality, or depicts non-consensual sex acts.
Our Monitoring and Enforcement
We reserve the right, but do not assume the obligation, to investigate any violation of this Policy or misuse of the Services or AWS Site.Web Archive has snapshots from yesterday (2019/02/07) still showing the National Enquirer website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMI picked the wrong person. Jeff, literally, has tons of money, extremely respected in the business world. Forget about the embarrassment, if he secretly capitulates to this, then the real blackmail material would be the capitulation, not the photos. Cause if the owner of Washington Post bowed down to blackmail, every article published in the article will be called into question. And who gives a shit if a billionair…
> literally has tons of money If his keeps his money in $100 bills, then you're right. $136 billion would weigh about 1,230 metric tons. More likely, his cash consists of electronic entries in bank systems which weigh substantially less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want this thread to devolve needlessly; in summary: I treat my wife like my cofounder with an equal share of equity. I wouldn't let my cofounder take anything less than half of the total value of the business if a liquidation/separation/liquidity event occurred, so why would I treat my spousal relationship differently considering the work a relationship requires? If you're concerned about your partner entitle…
I am not commenting on the law. The law says a divorced wife gets half of whatever. I don't care. What I do care is the notion that the growth and success of Amazon is 50% due to the wife. That I disagree with.