The claim in the suit is notably that the company failed to disclose the behavior, not that they did the behavior (Target notwithstanding), which mostly agrees with your line of questioning.

They’re controversial on hacker news but I don’t think people in the “real world” care all that much.

How that connects to the meta glasses is certainly up for debate —- the doorbells provide a lot of value to the user (know who is at the door remotely!), the glasses are more of a mixed bag.

Furthermore, Koren lied about what the tests showed the stomach contents to be: he omitted codeine entirely. Codeine (per the article) would not be expected to be transferred by breastmilk -- it's metabolized into morphine to be effective.

Compare with setting up a home theater and having people over to watch a movie, or split screen gaming.

After all that you run into the limited content availability and, as you noted, the high price.

I do wonder why Meta hasn’t done something like license Skyrim or GTA for the quest. It shouldn’t be too expensive compared with the other investments, and would bring over some solidly popular (and big!) content.

All this at my company would be a call or chat to the travel agent (which, sure, kind of a pain, but they also paid for dedicated agents so wait time was generally good).

  struct A {
    B one;
    C two;
  };
  struct B {
    B() {
      cout << "init B" << endl;
    }
  }
  struct C {
    C() {
      cout << "init C" << endl;
    }
  }

  A{.two=B(),.one=A()}

As an aside, TikTok itself is banned in China.

If the overall liability pool goes down but the human drivers become an outsized part of it, the insurance company will likely shift that cost to them. If they don’t, someone could set up an autonomous-only insurance company (or google could just insure itself) to take advantage of the lower risk, making the human insurance more expensive (even more so that the liability since the overall pool will be much smaller).

Previously landlords would require renters to work with (and pay) the broker, so there was no incentive to choose a cheaper broker.

Whether this is a good deal for the employee is a bit complicated: you're effectively holding stock for 4 years but taxed at ordinary income rates (as opposed to long term capital gains). On the other hand, if the stock goes up you've locked in being paid substantially above market. During the hot market times this effectively was an option: if they stayed they got stock granted at a low price, but they could leave if a different company was paying more.

Private companies can offer ISOs which do have a nice tax treatment, but this is all predicated on public company buybacks where that doesn't apply.

Buffett successfully applied this strategy with geico.

That's of course assuming he sold as quickly as he could. LNUX IPOed right before the dot com crash, a year post IPI it was 9/share (at that price, ~1 million to ESR).