losers

Frankly, negotiating trade deals in the open is difficult precisely because trade usually creates winners and losers.

All the while making huge conjectures about how this means all harassers are low-status losers (a word used pejoratively, not descriptively).

Today's champions maybe tomorrows losers, today's losers maybe tomorrows champions.

Your stockholders are going to pressure you to find ways to quickly increase revenue (because thinking further into the future than a quarter is for losers, right?).

Despite the impression the EFF article gives, the biggest losers will be commercial special interests not consumers.

Let's not lose sight of the main point here: that men who harass women online are losers.

People who waste their time and energy on obvious, pointless studies and cite arbitrary Halo data in their research are losers.

As far as 'more regulation' -- I don't like the idea of the government picking winners and losers.

I don't know, gov rules and regs are unclear and create this type of divisiveness, winners & losers, etc.

That's why anonymous info isn't good enough: it's only anonymous to the losers.

The 2 winners need to make up for the 8 losers.

(Nor were his competitors all losers...) To give the article credit, it does mention later troubles Ford faced.

He quotes Thiel's "competition is for losers" statement, which is prominent in Zero to One, to suggest that Thiel doesn't believe in competition.

B-players hire C-players, and C-players hire losers") I've noticed the same trend though in product-centered businesses where I've worked.

The question that generally needs answering is: "How can I reduce the negative consequences of free markets and what is the most effective way to compensate the losers?"

" but the notion that you as an individual have super-negotiating powers, and that only losers when faced with a pack of lawyers need their own pack of lawyers, is risible" When are you ever faced with a 'pack of lawyers' when getting a job??