Sangama34

> Play stupid games and win stupid prices. No govt will surrender sovereignty and media control.

Why should government control the media ? That makes no sense.

Most of the social media giants lose money on their India operations while giving poor Indians an opportunity to have a better platform to express themselves. India has virtually seen a one party rule since independence, that too by a single family who could be more corrupt than all the south american dictators combined. The only way an ordinary tea seller could become a PM while defeating this party was because of power of social media are grassroot movement against corruption.

India has a history of screwing up what works without fully understanding the consequences of their regulations.

Tomorrow this exact mumbo jumbo will be used against "California" companies and "New York" companies.

It is not Google's job to ensure private practice of shrinks is sustainable. Large scale small margin offerings clearly better serve the patients and if Google does not help them they will be in a better position to seek other alternatives like national TV. I do not think small shrinks can even enter those spaces today.

One possibility I see is for many shrinks to come together form a co-operative and compete with vc backed alternatives.

The article is so wrong. This is part of the reason why I do not take main stream journalists very seriously. I wish same issue was taken up by some hard core economist.

What is wrong with the article :

- So one small Psychiatrist is losing business to other Psychiatrists.

It is perfectly possible that Ross is an inefficient Psychiatrist here and patients are better served by other Psychiatrists. This is a loss for Ross but barely a "complication". Also it is not clear to me if the market was divided 50-50 between say Google and Bing why would it be any difference. From over 10 years of experience in ad industry I have realized that it is a ruthlessly free market system where the inefficient player will get punished very quickly.

What Google has done here is that opened up a lager pool of customers for the suppliers and that has resulted into fierce competition among suppliers. The customers invariably will benefit here as they have more options.

- The rant about smart campaigns

This is one of the real bad arguments. A couple's councilor is upset that Google is unable to differentiate between a PTSD councilor and couple's Councillor. Will the world be better served if a couple's councilor has to compete with a florist or a nanny ? [That it what yellow pages were].

The article laments that customers have more choice and it is not easy for the suppliers to rely on information asymmetry to make profit. They take some fictional futuristic scenario and compare google against it and blame those problems on Google. But in reality it is a good problem to have.

PS. This is by no means to claim that Google's ad algorithms are perfect, but it is without dispute that they are better than all available alternatives.

India's potential is limited only by the incompetence of Indian government (irrespective of who is in power). Too many shady powers being involved here pulling the string. India's data localization law was in fact lobbied for by the real estate firms as they wanted foreign companies to be arm twisted into investing in real estate in India. You can search news for who benefits from this sort of wasteful expenditure.

> AGs are elected so they seek publicity, they are also corrupt

I might also add incompetent and narcissist.

Fun Fact 4: Everyone, that is everyone which includes Google has due process rights which I feel should be exercised by everyone. Next what ? > "Man charged with murder resists punishment by pleading non guilty in court".

Bankruptcy protects the citizens. In fact it should be simpler to go bankrupt and come back.

> This should not be an area of focus - There are better climate change opportunities to put money towards

People who put money should decide the area of focus. Not others.

> The project is ineffective and introduces a lot of other environmental problems

This achievement matters and useful in itself. May be they can figure it out how to scale or will find more commercially viable products from this sort of technology.

Not always.

If students are allowed to declare bankruptcy from student loans than banks can apply a more realistic risk models to such lines of credit. Students will then have to either pay very high rate of interest or will have to go out their way to prove their financial responsibility. Banks will then be able to create sophisticated models to figure out which young people are responsible enough and who are not. This will incentivize responsible behavior from students as well as institutes and not to mention a competition to reduce fees.

Not to mention, this model will also ensure the folks who should not be in college or will not benefit from it will not be able to go to college. I think this is where politicians disagreed and came with the completely wrong policies with perfectly predictable bad outcomes.

Any average economist (irrespective of political leanings) would have predicted these secondary consequences of not allowing students to file for bankruptcy.

IT is time incompetent PgnE monopoly is broken and we have more private players in the fray. At least all bay area cities should have a plan to protect themselves from pg&e's incompetence.

The war on drugs has worked for those it was meant to work. It has helped governments grab more power, engage in more violence and create the prison industrial complex we all abhor on HN.

>The monetary cost of U.S. domestic drug policy is equally remarkable. Since the War on Drugs began more than 40 years ago, the U.S. government has spent more than $1 trillion on interdiction policies. Spending on the war continues to cost U.S. taxpayers more than $51 billion annually

That is $1T to polices, contractors, private prisons, prison guard unions and so on. It is an economy in itself.

Here is plenty of information on the topic.

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/four-decad...

Communication remains the hardest problem in Software Engineering and despite all the I do not think remote = onsite is the same thing. We might reach there in 2-3 years but today is not that time.

I have worked as a remote engineers and have hired remote engineers. There are scaling issues and then there are life satisfaction issues. While many people think that being with their families and familiar location might be good for them it does not turn out to be the same.

The law was not sensible to begin with and has helped kill many species.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/john-stossel-loving-endanger...