hype7

Yeah, except for the fact that there’s no one bbs “to rule them all”. The power these platforms have mean they’re up there in terms of influence of govt.

As I saw concisely said on Twitter: If you can silence a king, you are the king

You view this as a bad thing. As a consumer, I view it as a good thing. I’m not sure if folks remember what “apps on mobile” were like before Apple came along, but it was the goddamn Wild West. The fact that it’s walled in, that I’m not going to get pwned, that my parents won’t (and won’t be tempted to by the promise of an extra $0.99 saving) is to my mind, a good thing.

If all this competition that the article talked about was such a good thing, apps would be cheaper on Android, and I, as a consumer, would switch. Fact is, the fact that Tinder et al are now bypassing Google’s mechanisms isn’t a good thing to me at all. It’s more the reason to stay on iOS.

The article writer is pissed he can’t get access to me without paying Apple’s toll, but what he doesn’t understand is that I am like it like that.

Ahhh, but that’s the thing. They’re the same story

I’m far from the biggest fan of Facebook, but I’m absolutely a fan of playing devils advocate in an organization if for no other reason than to solicit reactions and get people engaged. As someone who will use this device sparingly when appropriate, that’s really what this post looked like to me (as opposed to someone who was in it to get terrorists signed up to fb... really?). I honestly feel sorry for the guy

An alternative approach I’ve long been fond of is to lengthen time horizons. In the long run, bad behavior is much more likely to come back and bite you. If you can get incentive structures on a longer term time horizon, you’re much less likely to engage in risky behavior that might have short term payoffs but sinks you in the long run.

Yes, everyone should decide what laws to follow. Ask rosa parks or any poor soul unfortunate enough to be a citizen of nazi Germany.

Herein lies the source of the disagreement.

We are all better off because uber willfully disregarded these laws and regulations. These laws once had a good reason, but are now still on the books only because incumbents have regulators in their pockets.

As for lobbying to have the laws changed, if you expect startups to be able to lobby in every jurisdiction to get the law changed against incumbents when the regulators often come from the industry the startup is disrupting, then I got a bridge to sell you.

Of course speaking to them isn't illegal.

Lying about it during a confirmation hearing? Now that's illegal.

This isn't the right answer. There are times when you need government intervention, and there are times when you don't. The trick is figuring out which is which.

As they often say, libertarians didn't defeat Nazism.

To reply to the people below as to why @themartorana might be against estate taxes: if the tax system does its job properly, death shouldn't be a taxable event. Treating capital gains as normal income, closing shitty loopholes etc - people are paying their fair share that way. Taxing at death would be double dipping. Instead, it's used as a way to claw back failed capital gains tax and it's an awful way to do it (making people sell property, etc)

This is complete bullshit. The number of famous artists/scientists/writers/etc that have been completely unpopular until after they died is staggering. Using $ as a basis for value is a completely flawed measure.