That if you weren’t part of “our” religion (my family’s religion, Catholic), you were basically living your life wrong and were an awful person. When I went to college I met people who believed different things, including in nothing, and I realized they were not, in fact, terrible, almost subhuman, people. I quickly changed for the better and that’s one of the best things to ever happen to me. It’s amazing how accepting you can be when you just accept people for who they are
That’s right: usually. Sometimes no. Or sometimes the volume of water only slowly drains away (like some rivers move extremely slowly and it’s almost as if it’s not moving at all). If it takes 3 days for the water in the normally filled river to move 1 mile, even if it takes 2 days with the flooded valley to drain instead of 3, that’s still 2 days of floods.
Imagine you drop a bunched up shirt onto the floor. If you look, you’ll see that there are lower spots surrounded on all sides of high spots. Terrain irl is not so different from that in spots. Hope this helps explain :)
If a 400 sq mi area gets 2 ft of rain and there’s a low valley area surrounded mostly by mountains, the water will drain down the mountainsides to the valley. It’s like a big bowl. The water that settles in the valley will be more than 2 ft because of the rest of the runoff from even higher elevations
Kroger next 👏👏
It depends how close you sit to your TV and how large the TV is. I can tell a difference if I’m close enough or if the screen is large enough. As well, try turning on a streamed 1080p show and using a 4k bluray (if you have all of thrsr things). When you stand close (like, closer than you’d watch), you can really see the difference. As you back away, it becomes less noticeable, but even at comfortable viewing distances people can see the difference
You can see an example on your phone. Try watching a video in 1080p and then 480p. You should notice a difference, even if you hold your phone a foot from your face it’s the same idea when watching on a tv.
You might be confusing monopoly with majority. A majority is >50%. There’s no exact percentage for colloquial “monopoly,” but it usually means the only player. For example, if your only Internet service provider is Comcast, they are a monopoly in your area.
Under this definition, apple isn’t a monopoly because you can also use Samsung, Google, etc. cellphones.
However, in US law, a firm may be able to exercise monopoly power (that is, to be able to raise prices without so many customers moving to competitors that the price-raiser loses money (basically)). This is different in different fields and sectors, but caselaw has developed some guidelines for assumptions about being able to exercise monopoly power.
I believe it is something like a company with >75% market share is presumed to be able to exercise monopoly power. Since, according to the article, Apple has less than this, they are arguing that they cannot exercise monopoly power and are therefore not a monopoly.
However, that percentage is not the end of the analysis. The presumption of being able to exercise monopoly power is weaker below 75%, but evidence can still be used to demonstrate apple does indeed have this power (or, without enough evidence, that they do not).
Based on this alone, it seems like apple will not be able to get the case dismissed and that it will need to go into deeper analysis and factfinding to figure out if apple really is a monopoly.
Hope this helps :)
Sure, but I think the point is that raising minimum wage didn’t cause that. Inflation (read: corporate greed) really harmed grocery, food, etc. prices, especially during the pandemic. It truly became a game of how much can we raise these prices until people consider not paying for it