Thank you so much for taking the time to answer! I do think I have at least product market fit, we know exactly who our customers are, we closed 10 of them and their reaction to your product is ecstatic. I really don't think we have a product problem, but reaching these customers is definitely harder than expected. We did run into high minimums with agencies sadly, so I guess we will have to invest the time and learn what we can!
I applied their advice: "It’s a crucial skill to know how to read the news as it’s presented to us, whether it’s CNN’s rightward swing or the British media’s achingly inescapable royal propaganda during the coronation. One should be able to dissect how a story is told, who is telling it, and what the intended endgame is." and stopped reading right at this paragraph.
The GPU market is ruined by fuckers who are buying up all inventory and reselling it to either desperate system integrators and users, or to crypto fuckers at an enormous markup. This is an entirely different problem compared to what we're talking about here.
>The US GDP directly translates into the amount of taxes paid. Suppose a 50% drop in the value of USD happens. If nothing else happens taxes increase by 100%, and people need to acquire more USD which drives the value of the currency up.
?
GDP is produced and denominated in USD, domestic taxes are paid in USD. How does a drop in the relative value of USD compared to a foreign currency influence domestically paid taxes in any way?
Okay, I have (a bit) more details for you. I got a copy of the bill so I could check the exact wording, I am not a lawyer, just a concerned citizen but I am sure many of you are curious to know so I am sharing it.
First, to understand how this law amendment was introduced, it's important to understand the original act, called the "TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS ACT" which is the main act regulating the sector. Article 50 of this act defines a list of prohibited acts by market participants, and the related Enforcement Decree prescribes a number of punitive measures the Korean Communication Commission is allowed to take against entities found in breach of Article 50 (the measures range from corrective orders to penalties).
Here is the original article:
Article 50 (Prohibited Acts)(1) No telecommunications business operator may engage in any of the following conduct (hereinafter referred to as "prohibited acts") which undermine or are likely to undermine fair competition or users' interests, or allow other telecommunications business operators or third parties to engage in such conduct: <Amended by Act No. 13823, Jan. 27, 2016; Act No. 15858, Dec. 11, 2018> 1. Placing unfair or discriminatory conditions or restrictions on the provision of equipment, etc., joint utilization, joint use, interconnection or joint-use services, wholesale services, provision of information, etc.;
.
.
.
...and the list goes on, to end at number 8:
8. Unfairly restricting measures to delete any software unessential to implementing functions of a communications terminal device or measures equivalent thereto; or installing and operating or suggesting any software that unfairly restricts the installation of other software.
Now what this amendment does is add the following three prohibited acts to the list:
Korean:
9. 앱 마켓사업자가 모바일콘텐츠 등의 거래를 중개함에 있어 자기의 거래상의 지위를 부당하게 이용하여 모바일콘텐츠 등 제공사업자에게 특정한 결제방식을 강제하는 행위
10. 앱 마켓사업자가 모바일콘텐츠 등의 심사를 부당하게 지연하는 행위
11. 앱 마켓사업자가 앱 마켓에서 모바일콘텐츠 등을 부당하게 삭제하는 행위
English:
9. For app market operators, abusing their dominant position as intermediary in mobile contents transactions to force upon the mobile content providers the usage of a designated (specific) payment method
10. For app market operators, unfairly and unduly delaying the review of mobile contents submitted to the marketplace [by mobile contents providers]
11. For app market operators , unfairly and unduly deleting mobile contents from the marketplace
Please note:
1) All translation is mine.
2) I am not a lawyer.
3) I am only sharing this because I learned so much from the HN community and because I've repeatedly seen requests for details about this law.
I agree in a way; there has been a lot of inflation due to printing money, but that inflation went straight to and stayed in the financial sector, supporting assets prices for the last decade. The recent inflationary trend in the real economy is due to "real" factors, including the covid-19 shock.
If what you are saying is true, then there is a huge arbitrage opportunity there, unless there are sufficient transaction costs or legal deterrents involved.
If the value of bitcoin relative to MXN is steadily going up (meaning that MXN is losing value relative to USD), then it automatically mean that the value of MXN is also steadily losing value relative to USD. So at the end, from a "value" point of view, nothing will change for you because both currencies are "pegged" to USD. If parity doesn't hold, there is an arbitrage opportunity there; suppose
1 USD = 2 BTC
1 USD = 4 MXN
The implied exchange rate MXNUSD would be BTC = 2 MXN. But imagine as you say that for some reason, this doesn't hold, and actually 1 BTC = 5 MXN in Mexico. I have then an incentive to buy 1 BTC at 0.5 USD, use that 1 BTC to buy 5 MXN, and sell all that MXN at the original rate of 0.25 USD, earning 1.25 USD.
I can understand that it may be easier to physically hold BTC as opposed to fiat USD in that situation, but I don't get the value store proposition. Anyone saying that they see Bitcoin as a store value, are implying they believe that in the future, some people will want to pay for 1 Bitcoin the same amount (or higher than) it's currently worth. It's a perfectly valid claim to make, but what is this belief based on?
The value of MXN is going down relative to BTC and to USD at the same time. There is no arbitrage opportunity, beyond the obvious slow drip of money moving between the two and maintaining this balance.
It doesn't matter if masks were hard to source at the beginning, every single country found itself in the same situation. Korea is one of the biggest producers of what you call FFP2 masks in the world yet we had a severe domestic shortage here too (the reason for the shortage, after a government investigation, was that suppliers exported most of their production because China was ready to pay x10times the regular price; old dear capitalism at work), forcing the government to nationalize the supply (basically buy all the production) and take over distribution under a strict rationing scheme, until supply stabilized. Nowadays a KF95 (FFP2 equivalent) mask costs less than KRW 500 and supply is plentiful. In early March last year, I had to line up once a week for the chance to buy a maximum of three masks for KRW 2500 each. Sure, the government should have anticipated all of this and establish an export ban early, after all "gouverner c'est prevoir". But what's more important is to be honest with the people who elected you and fix things as soon as possible.
None of what you mention can excuse or justify the blatant lies of the French government. A democratically elected government should not lie to its population, under no circumstances. You don't send a spokesperson on national TV to tell the population that masks are useless, and that the general population wouldn't even know how to use one(!!!).
I suspect the French population will be far more forgiving of a government fuckup followed by an apology and visible and effective efforts to fix the situation, than an outright lie that was only necessary in the first place because of arrogance, complacency and incompetence.
