Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

any number of reasons: language barriers, existing American firms anti-competing, smaller domestic markets, less centralisation, and, yes, in some cases, regulation, but, when it comes down to it, it's better to have smaller firms that don't (or less frequently) damage society than larger firms than do, even just from the perspective of wealth distribution.


sort by: page size:

Hey can you give me a specific example that's bothering you?

If you could give an example to actually illustrate what you mean, maybe I'd agree too, but it's a little tough when you don't...

> Can you provide an example

Why won't you provide an example?

I'm not sure it is an example that go in the sense you think it goes.

You were the one asking for examples and yet you refuse to define what examples you're looking for.

Vague: I think you're going to need at least one example.

It's called an example.

why don't you give examples

And yet I notice you didn't provide an example. Honestly I can't think of one.

You're lacking examples

I don't understand your example.

Again, can you point out what you mean with an example?

You haven't yet provided an actual example. Maybe you could start with just one.

so what is an example, according to you?

I'm not sure how your example is more true.

Agree, seems like a good example. I also understand what you meant by an example :) Sorry for the misunderstanding...

Me neither. Your "example" just isn't an example.

I'll add a better example, thanks for the feedback.
next

Legal | privacy