491–500 of 521 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reduce the goods and services they consume? This would show up as a drop in real GDP
Yes it should show up as a drop in real GDP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suicide bombers have downed planes before. Bombs have been left in the cabin to go off on the next segment. It’s not every terrorist's goal to walk away from their event.
Do you have a link where a terrorist exploded a battery on a plane? I've never heard of that before.
No one’s downed an airliner with a two-part liquid bomb either, but you’re still dumping your water and soft drinks at security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Megacorps is a red herring and emotional appeal. The same applies just as much to small businesses in the same industries.
Nope. "Megacorps" have economies of scale that small businesses don't have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It pretty much always costs more going direct though, which is counterintuitive and annoying. Unless you call and negotiate which I ain’t doing.
All the hotel brands offer best price guarantees where they will give you a discount if you are able to reserve with a lower price elsewhere. The reservation systems are setup so that the pricing that goes out to priceline and Expedia is higher than what is on the hotel brand’s website. https://www.marriott.com/look/claimForm.mi https://www.hyatt.com/info/best-rate-guarantee https://www.hilton.com/en/p/price-match-gu…
Its not a real option for most people who value their time, and thats by design.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with that is they don't honor most of the deals. A lot of the OTAs do the 'member only' 'mobile only' etc style deals which are not covered. That said I would book direct from Hilton but every time I do they only allow pay later which in certain currencies, I'd rather not risk (Looking at Japan right now). I'd rather pay now and lock in the rate.
Can you give an example? I have never been able to find an Expedia/Priceline price that is lower than the Hyatt/Hilton/Marriott/IHG/etc rewards member price. And being a rewards member is free, so effectively you get cheaper prices directly. I also do not see how it would be technically possible. The hotel brands’ reservations systems are surely set to offer a discounted price on their own website than they send out…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the hotel brands offer best price guarantees where they will give you a discount if you are able to reserve with a lower price elsewhere. The reservation systems are setup so that the pricing that goes out to priceline and Expedia is higher than what is on the hotel brand’s website. https://www.marriott.com/look/claimForm.mi https://www.hyatt.com/info/best-rate-guarantee https://www.hilton.com/en/p/price-match-gu…
i mean you're just proving my point. They all involve onerous claim forms, or having to call... and just read and try and navigate all the conditions and caveats on those links. No thanks, i never want to navigate that mess, who has time for that? So it ends up being, you can instantly and effortlessly book for _cheaper_ with an OTA vs the hotel website, or you can navigate some byzantine claims process and _maybe_ i…
Note that it is free to be a member of a hotel rewards programs, and requires giving the hotel brand no additional information, so the rewards member price is the effective price for a hotel brand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give an example? I have never been able to find an Expedia/Priceline price that is lower than the Hyatt/Hilton/Marriott/IHG/etc rewards member price. And being a rewards member is free, so effectively you get cheaper prices directly. I also do not see how it would be technically possible. The hotel brands’ reservations systems are surely set to offer a discounted price on their own website than they send out…
my experience is the opposite. i want to book direct, but OTAs are 70% of the time cheaper. Its "technically possible" because the OTAs in most cases have contract terms that prevent the hotel from undercutting their negotiated rates, at least in advertised online prices.
The hotel owner/management sets the price, or the automated rate setting program sets the price based on its parameters and shop of other hotels in the “comp set” (competing hotels in the area). This rate is the “best available rate” (BAR) or “best flexible rate” (BFR), and there may be a prepaid non refundable discount rate option too.
The OTAs then get this pricing information via the central reservation system and then either sell a reservation where the guest pays the OTA the BFR, and the OTA pays the hotel 85% (typically). Or the OTA offers the guest to pay the the hotel directly, in which case the hotel pays the OTA 15% commission.
Either way, it is all very automated, and there is no specific negotiated pricing. But the big brands will typically offer 2% to 6% or so discount (depending on how much hotel management wants to do) on their BFR/BAR pricing as a “rewards member” discount, as a way to avoid paying 15% to Expedia/Booking.
Restricting it to rewards members avoids the hotel from violating any agreement with the online travel agent that they also get the same BFR/BAR as everyone else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you might be mis-reading the GP's point. It's not that it's a common occurrence for laptops to spontaneously combust, but rather than an adversary could intentionally cause one (or several) to do so.
And then what? Is someone going to hijack a plane by setting their laptop battery on fire?
Anyway, it’s no more a risk than guns or water on planes since it hasn’t happened yet; but among this security circus, it’s hypocritical to ban water and not li-ion batteries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a thin line because of terrible reporting. This is destructive because until we get basic facts clear the pro-gun people are just not going to take people who say such things seriously. No more "assault-style" weapons or "fully semi-automatic" guns. Just tell the truth and break down the semantic defenses.
Naw, it’s a thin line because the whole point of bump stocks is to make a semi-automatic fire like an automatic. Even the NRA says so, this has nothing to do with the quality of reporting. ‘In the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, twelve bump stocks were found at the scene.[7] The National Rifle Association stated on October 5, 2017, "Devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles shou…
Then the lawyer should say "we should ban bump stocks" instead of perpetuating the lie that automatic weapons are prevalent in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it should show up as a drop in real GDP.
Then this can't be correct, since real GDP in 2012 dollars has been growing and is higher in 2022 than it was in 2019 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1