but by definition isn't a duopoly not competing with each other? I might be wrong, but I remember it being about the two companies making deals with each other to keep both prices high and not innovate or improve, like ISPs in the US
I think the idea is to convey that just like a bell has no natural link to food anticipation of which causes salivation, the fact that x has always (at least as far as we remember) come with y which causes z means when we see x, we fear z will happen even though x and y need not necessarily have to come together?
I believe there are people who won’t forgive text drive / Joyent for their dishonesty and sincerely we must never trust the leadership at Joyent with anything as long as they roam the earth.
Pavlovian conditioning [0]:
"a learning procedure in which a biologically potent stimulus (e.g. food) is paired with a previously neutral stimulus (e.g. a bell)."
In my case:
food: losing all my data (or it becoming incredibly difficult to access / control / afford)
bell: uploading all of my data to a new internet product.
----
Most companies have unsustainable business models (grow forever).
For startups, this is especially true (rapid growth forever).
This is a new internet company, but their whole shtick is that they have a sustainable business model. Given that data, maybe my bias is unfair.
Yup. It is the best controller for Smash (which is why Nintendo keeps re-issuing it).
Ultimate and Melee scenes are still alive and well. And even the 64 scene will cannibalize the analog sticks from GC controllers to replace the N64 controller sticks.
