It's closer to industry jargon at this point in American English. Search for LTL tariffs, for example, and you'll find a very long list of trucking companies publishing their fees and terms as tariffs.
Shipping/fulfillment costs are simply far more expensive than most people assume. If you buy a $15 item on Amazon, Amazon keeps about half of that. The seller still has to pay for the entire process of getting it to an Amazon warehouse.
Air freight China to US is very roughly $3/KG. Assume T-shirts (as a light weight good that is going to trend lower price), at an ASP of $5 and weight of 150g. A $30 order (Shein minimum for free shipping) is going to be 6 shirts at 900g for a cost of $2.70. Surepost/Smartpost tier delivery is $5 or lower; even retail-available services would be $7. In comparison, Amazon FBA for 2 shirts at $15 each would charge $7.16 for fulfillment. At December rates, they would also have charged $5.1 in platform fees, which was reduced to as low as $1.5 now due to this competition. That's $12.26 in fulfillment cost for the Amazon order of 2 T-shirts, compared to 6 T-shirts shipped China to US door for $8.70 est.
The above is generous to Amazon. 6 shirts for $5 each on Amazon would cost $22.98-26.58 to sell, and they have an array of additional fees.
It also ignores FBA freight costs - sea freight and duties/tariffs that D2C air avoids due to de minimis. On the other side, I'm ignoring fixed/semi-fixed platform costs and pick/pack costs; I have no idea what that costs in China, but it has to be a tiny fraction of the cost in the US.
They IPOed in 2020 at a valuation of 13.7B. Any investors in those rounds made fantastic profits. Dress it up, talk about revenue growth, dump it on the public markets and make it someone else's problem: the venture capital recipe.
I've never listened to a podcast and have zero podcast related content on both mobile and desktop. There is one audiobook recommendation section, the 9th section down.
Definitely. The amps are the expensive part, but if you have consistently high load, moving from residential rates might mean you're only paying $100-200 for all those other advantages.
In other words, when we say "nutritional value", what we mean is carbohydrates.
This is something that everyone understands when we're talking about bears, but somehow forgets when we're talking about people. Those "empty" carbs are 99% of the reason you eat anything. "Nutritional value" and "energy content" are the same thing.
If you’re not trolling, I think you need to learn more about the difference between carbs, other nutrients, and indigestible material. “Carbs” does not mean “anything you can digest” (which seems to be how you’re using it).
For all animals, of course ensuring that you have enough energy to function is a primary concern, but health studies in modern contexts always assumes that the supply of carbs is a solved problem (modern foods generally have far more carbs than most people need), but at the expense of reducing other nutrients.
No, that's stronger than I'd say and I suspect than you think? For example, I think almost anyone would say the nutritional value of 100 calories of whole wheat flour is greater than 100 calories of enriched white flour, is greater than 100 calories of plain white flour.
Sure, but the differences there are very small compared to the nutritional value of the 100 calories of white flour.
Note also that 100 calories of whole wheat flour is more flour than 100 calories of white flour, which will matter to people who need to eat, but gets glossed over as you do the calorie-for-calorie comparison.
3 board members (joined by Ilya Sutskever, who is publicly defecting now) found themselves in a position to take over what used to be a 9-member board, and took full control of OpenAI and the subsidiary previously worth $90 billion.
Speculation is just on motivation, the facts are easy to establish.
> Introduced in June of 2017, the act amends the Revenue Code to allow private foundations to take complete ownership of a for-profit corporation under certain circumstances:
The business must be owned by the private foundation through 100 percent ownership of the voting stock.
The business must be managed independently, meaning its board cannot be controlled by family members of the foundation’s founder or substantial donors to the foundation.
All profits of the business must be distributed to the foundation.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but didn't Mozilla Foundation do that a dozen or so years earlier with their wholly owned subsidiary, Mozilla Corporation? (...and I doubt that's the first instance; just the one that immediately popped into my head.)
It begs the question: why was OpenAI structured this way? For what purposes besides potentially defrauding investors and the government exist for wrapping a for-profit business in a nonprofit? From a governance standpoint it makes no sense, because a nonprofit board doesn't have the same legal obligations to represent shareholders that a for-profit business does. And why did so many investors choose to seed a business that was playing such a cooky shell game?
the impression I got was that they started out with honest intentions and they were more or less infiltrated by Microsoft. this recent news fits that narrative
> 3 board members (joined with Ilya Sutskever, who is publicly defecting now) found themselves in a position to take over what used to be a 9-member board, and took full control of OpenAI and the subsidiary previously worth $90 billion.
er...what does that even mean? how can a board "take full control" of the thing they are the board for? they already have full control.
the actual facts are that the board, by majority vote, sacked the CEO and kicked someone else off the board.
then a lot of other stuff happened that's still becoming clear.
The board had 3 positions empty, people who left this year, leaving it as a 6-member board. Both Sam Altman and Greg Brockman were on the board; Ilya Sutskever's vote (which he now states he regrets) gave them the votes to remove both, and bring it down to a 4 member board controlled by 3 members that started the year as a small minority.
It says 3 board members found themselves in a position to take over OpenAI.
Do they mean we've seen Sam Altman and allies making a bid to take over the entire of OpenAI, through its weird Charity+LLC+Holding company+LLC+Microsoft structure, eschewing its goals of openness and safety in pursuit of short-sighted riches.
Or do they mean we've seen The Board making a bid to take over the entire of OpenAI, by ousting Glorious Leader Sam Altman, while his team was going from strength to strength?
