gibba999
Handling exceptions might require a business day or two of admin time just to handle the baseline exception. Multiply 16 hours by salary, and you're at big bucks.
Plus, you need processes for oversight. That costs /a lot/ more. Ownership sounds great on paper -- where any support rep can grant an exception -- but in practice, that gradually leads to a culture of abuse. It starts little, and once that's part of the culture, increases over time.
I feel like the UK was competitive when it was competing with European countries. Competing with countries in the EU? I just have no idea why anyone would invest in businesses there. It just feels like an inferior option, unless labor costs fall like a rock.
I think over time, the deals the UK gets will get worse and worse, not just on investment, but on everything.
It doesn't help that China still thinks of opium wars when the UK comes up, India things of the British Empire, and much of the rest of the world feels the same way. The UK was always respected, but never loved. If that respect goes away...
- Market forces drive companies to support one point of view in media, and censor everything else;
- Market forces drive everyone to work under draconian NDAs; and
- Market forces drive companies not to hire people who engage in WrongThink
We've got a broken system where no one has free speech, no matter what the laws say.
And no, you can't successfully start a competing company, because market forces mean that companies which optimize to market forces win.
I don't care about conservatives, liberals, or victim complexes. I care about having reason discourse, civic debate, and free speech. If a social, political, and economic system doesn't allow that, we've got a broken system. As a footnote, every conservative I've spoken to thinks I'm a leftwing nutjob, and every liberal, a rightwing nutjob. If you disagree with either party line on anything (even not in the opposing direction), that's how you're viewed. The polarization and stereotyping is crazy.
From what I understand, they moved less because of demonetization, and more because of the chilling effect it had on free speech. They needed to be super-careful in script writing to make sure they didn't anger the YouTube algorithm.
I'll also mention another darker side of this: Google is almost entirely liberal inside. If a liberal channel is wrongly banned, an army of Googlers quickly rushes to fix it. If a conservative channel is wrongly banned, there's internal snickering. AIs are not neutral, and Google's reflects the biases of the people who keep tweaking it.
A lot of content creators -- of documentaries -- created Nebula because they were sick and tired of getting censored.
https://nebula.app/videos?category=history
These aren't wackos. These are mostly serious scholars, tired of a serious problem with Google. I'm giving this as an example; this has been a problem for a lot of people for a long time.
As much as I'm offended by many of the things Ron Paul does and stands for, I'm glad he's there. There's a lot of divergent thinking there. Outliers are good. I'd be terrified of a congress with a dozen Ron Pauls, but one is good to have around.
If I had my druthers, we'd have one of him in Congress. And one of each other extremist point of view, left-wing, right-wing, or just off in another direction.
* There's nothing about who is doing this or why.
* There's no way to actually pay that I could find.
* There's no information about overhead, or if the GratiPay is pocketing the money.
It's just a half-baked half-finished web page. I think a good not-for-profit here might be helpful? But I'm not sure how to structure it so that it is. I don't see why a business would actually want to pay. Most managers believe they have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value. This doesn't help.
And the money raised? I'm not sure a serious analysis has been done by anyone. As an open source author, I'm not inclined to even deposit a $0.32 royalty check.
This is obnoxious since I tend to watch series of documentaries, and I prefer to watch many episodes in a row. Stuff just poofs out of existence.
Different scientific communities use different scientific methods, and often come to vastly different conclusions as a result. Epi, and related communities, uses frequentist statistical methods. It's an interesting dynamic when two communities have research methods which fundamentally conflict.
What's interesting is the dynamic between the epi community and the security community. I'm not sure if I'm naming those correctly:
* The security community does a lot of threat modeling (how might we be attacked? how might we have been attacked?), which is helpful. That doesn't suggest they believe those things actually happened.
* The epi community views this as coded language for believing in bizarre conspiracy theories.
- The cheapest, safest way to "invade" the US (or any Western democracy) isn't through an army, but through manipulation of news, social media, and elections
- Indeed, if I'm Iran and I want Iraq attacked, it's much cheaper to manipulate the US into doing the dirty work than to attack myself.
- Much of the same is true of corporations -- a million spend lobbying can "buy" hundreds of millions in corrupt (but usually legal) profits.
- The checks-and-balances put in 250 years ago aren't adequate to defend democracy.
As a footnote: The second-cheapest way is through asymmetric attacks, such as cyberattacks, and increasingly, bioattacks. I don't want a debate about COVID19 origins, vaccines, or what-not (please don't), but the fact of the matter is that engineering a virus like COVID19 is within the grasp of most nation-states. That vulnerability went from theoretical to very, very visible. Genetic engineering will only get better. It's not implausible that soon we'll be able to engineer viruses which lead to long-term disability, decrease the IQ of a nation, or are at least somewhat selective by ethnicity (of course, once released, all bets are off). It's definitely possible to have vaccine-in-hand when releasing a bioweapon.
Come to think of it, they were Dells. Perhaps some switch is not properly debounced or something.
I do tend to automate things in corporate settings in ways which differ from personal use, and I have seen many similar features break or disappear.
Anyone who automated anything based on RSS now has something broken. I bet that's a lot of enterprise use.
If company B tries to charge customers an extra $500, they'll be more expensive than company A, and customers will go to company A. They'll exactly go bankrupt. If they could have charged customers $500 extra and kept it, they would have done that from the get-go. The money won't come from customers, at least in a market with any competition.
Where will it come from? Well, the money will ultimately come from company B's investors. There are several mechanisms by which this can happen:
- Company B has a billion dollars in the bank. It spends $500 million on damages. It now has $500 million in the bank, and is worth $500 million less.
- Company B has zero dollars in the bank, but an otherwise solid business. It issues new equity, diluting existing equity, to raise $500 million. Existing shares are worth $500 million less.
- Company B has zero dollars in the bank, and a negative net worth. It files for bankruptcy. A court reorganizes it to pay the debtors (e.g. the customers). Old shares are worth $0, and the company is now owned by its debtors -- it's customers. The shares aren't quite worth $500 each, but customers get as much as possible, and the business keeps chugging along. No one loses their job.
Once investors notice, they'll start to include data security into company valuations. Insurance companies will do likewise. Keeping poor security will decrease profits, and security will improve. On the other hand, I don't think many companies will fold -- in the sense of letting customers and employees down -- based on this.
Company A has good security, which adds $5 in your costs.
Company B has poor security, which doesn't, which will lead to $500 down-the-line from a security breach and identity theft. It charges $2.50 less and otherwise has an identical product.
You have no way to know that. You will go with company B, and you will split the $5 gain, where you save $2.50 and they take $2.50 more in profit.
Company B externalizes costs onto the customer. Company A's customers have higher initial costs, but they wouldn't be defined as 'externalized.'
https://www.telekom.com/en/corporate-responsibility/data-pro...
Most such issues are business-as-usual there.
And a corporate dissolution isn't the outcome. The outcome is that T-Mobile goes into bankruptcy, with its customers as the debtors. The outcome of that is that a bankruptcy court divides up the assets to maximize payout to you.
Most likely, this means:
- T-Mobile, as an entity continues to exist, as-is..
- Shareholder value is wiped out...
- And handed to customers, as the customers become shareholders.
T-Mobile has a 180B market cap, which probably means you acquire stock worth a grand or so.
When I was young, I wasn't a fan of this sort of policy, since I looked at things less holistically, and on shorter timeframes.
Holistically, higher damages aren't anticorporation, but just shift the ecosystem. Over time, companies who treat data securely will have a market advantage. Different, more secure programming practice will evolve, and companies will innovate and compete in security.
My thinking changed around the time GDPR passed. Before, I thought policies like that were anti-corporate. After, I saw how they changed market forces, but economies did just fine or better. Externalizing costs isn't good for economies.
Singapore hospitals were good case studies too. Hundreds of COVID19 exposures early in the pandemic, with virtually no spread.
You can do web searches for both.
Million dollar question is how this impacts delta. Delta has higher viral loads, and it's perfectly possible filtering 95% of delta will still result in more virus than the original, unmasked. Things also get more complex with both sides filtering; naive math would place filtration at 99.75% effective, but I don't believe naive math in this case beyond saying "a lot more effective."
What's scary is gamma through omega.
Proper masks (electrostatic or nano layer) are widely available, and they all but stop the original COVID. They cost a buck. The nano ones can be reused several times. Providing those prior to vaccines would have been cheap and effective.
Masks + vaccines + modest social distancing would have stopped it then. They would have been to rush to get vaccines to everyone, and to prioritize by exposures (e.g. service workers before WFH employees).
Plus, look at China. If we all did what China did, we'd be done.
The "free" is on the forces of supply-and-demand, not a lack of regulations altogether (which is laissez-faire / anarchist). Wikipedia continues -- although with a bit of a non-sequitur in between, to explain that:
"All of these fields emphasize the importance in currently existing market systems of rule-making institutions external to the simple forces of supply and demand which create space for those forces to operate to control productive output and distribution."
Note that regulation is _external_ to supply-and-demand. It shouldn't interfere with the core concepts:
- Economic equilibrium
- Low barriers to entry
- Competition
- Spontaneous order
- Supply and demand
* Studies on the spread of flu virus
* Case studies of COVID in Asia.
We know a little more today, but not a lot more. We have replicated the flu results with COVID19.
I didn't hear anything in that interview which felt out-of-bounds for normal discourse. It certainly was a step higher than discourse I hear from liberals all the time in my community, and discourse I hear from other conservatives.
I disagreed with a lot of what he said, but it didn't deserve to be censored. It was intelligent, reasoned, and I just happen to have a different opinion.
... and ironically, the liberals are far more individualistic, and conservatives, collectivist, at least as anthropologists use the term.
A big part of the rationale for limited government is family and church support support networks.
Free market capitalism is really good algorithm at approximating an optimal solution to the problem posed to it. Regulation is needed to define the problem.
Regulation is really poor at coming up with solutions to problems, and free market capitalism is really poor at defining problems.
I'd recommend a quick re-read of Adam Smith.
Building codes are an example of a bad regulations. They require e.g. a specific spacing of wooden beams, and specific materials used. That's regulation defining a solution. When people come up with better ways to achieve the same level of safety, it's banned.
In contrast, for example, a lot of codes around EMI and consumer electronics are good regulations. They require bounds on how much EMI is emitted, but leave the free market to solve the problem. That works well.
Fines and mandatory insurance are another example of good regulation, whereas bans are usually bad regulation. If there is an externality, a fine places a cost on it, and a free market can optimize to it. A ban distorts a free market. Mandatory insurance too allows us to price in the cost of externalities with market mechanisms.
In this case, if you allow logging where:
- Underbush has to be removed to within some level
- Trees ought to be left to a specific spacing
... and so on, things will work out okay.
If you require loggers to have insurance, such that if a fire breaks out where they logged within some time window, insurance covers the damage, very smart finance people will figure out which things are high ROI and which are low ROI, and things will work out even better.
I know perfectly good scientists who believe cloth masks are useless. They're in the minority, and I disagree with them, but I can't classify reasonable opinions I disagree with a "misinformation."
I went against the scientific establishment early in the pandemic advocating for masks, when consensus was that they were useless. The evidence and confidence hasn't changed very much since then; the party line has. I'm glad for that change, but it'd be hypocritical of me to complain that I was censored then, and support censorship now.
I'm also glad for freedom-of-speech, and sad when it's taken away. I think it's okay to restrict freedom-of-speech when people lie -- and there's good precedent for that -- but not for differences of opinion, even (and especially) ones I disagree with.