> the efficient market hypothesis assumes that emotion, mass psychology, etc. don't enter into stock markets
Isn't mass psychology part of "public information"?? I know little about stock markets, but from the outside I would say that "how I think people will feel about a company" is pretty much what I would base my "bet" on whether a stock will go up or down.
no, according to the theory, "psychology" plays no role. People are assumed to have some information (signals) that inform them about the stock price. The efficient market hypothesis assumes that the stock price equals the expected value of discounted future dividends, conditional on all the signals of all the market participants (or conditional on all public signals, in the weak version).
It's quite different to how you describe you imagined the stock markets working. But I also believe it's a more accurate picture overall. Markets are pretty accurate at least with regard to individual stocks (see Robert Schiller's work for a non-mainstream but still reasonable theory of irrational exuberance, where all stocks in the market might be over/under-valued at a given time)
That's true, but Uber/Lyft is not sharing a car -- you're being paid to take someone from point A to point B. You're not letting them take your car, use it, and then bring it back.
I understand your point, but why even mention Uber when the parent specifically said "car sharing"? Likewise, why does the parent bring the topic of "house sharing" when Airbnb is clearly renting, and not sharing?
I just feel that too often we are putting professional services and sharing on the same bag, which I find a bit alarming.
As for scalability... I was thinking that for sure free access to internet would be very hard to monitor, but say you limit it to email: That would be certainly much, much easier (hence cheaper) to monitor than what we currently have.
Every written letter must be opened and read, possibly with an horrible script which takes time to "decipher". Besides, I don't know if they keep copies of all the mail in case something happens, but it would be orders of magnitude harder to index and search than email anyway. Phone calls are even worse, since you need at least as much time to monitor the conversation as the conversation lasts.
Maybe introducing email would shift some of the friends and family to use this cheaper means of communication, reducing costs. Or maybe Jevons paradox applies here and the number of emails would go up to such an extent that the improved efficiency would not make up for the increased traffic.
P.S.: just to make it clear, I'm not advocating for the inmates to have their phone calls replaced for emails.
Not knowing anything about squatter's rights (or law in general), shouldn't it be possible to just create a law putting whatever limits we want on camping WITHOUT the need for it to be completely forbidden?
I am just now in a place where free camping is not allowed, but the local authorities interpret the law as: "no tents between dawn and dusk". I wish that was put into a written law.
The key item of squatter's rights is that if a squatter occupies land with the land-owner's knowledge for a number of years, the land now legally belongs to the squatter.
One night of camping is not years, but squatter's rights certainly encourages land-owners to be ever-strict about visitors to their land.
Only 7% of the land in Finland and Sweden is Agricultural land, compared to 70% in the UK, so it's no wonder that the countryside is much more inaccessible.
That being said, there's a lot more that could be done, such as allowing kayaks into rivers and lakes without so many unreasonable limitations and/or paperwork.
>these original, truly Nigerian scams, were less sophisticated than the later Internet imitators, since targeting technical professionals isn't targeting the dumbest of the dumb.
On the contrary, the scam you describe look much more elaborated than current ones since they got your real peraonal info. Besides technical professionals seem like a great target for scams, since they likely have more money than the average and they are probably not as hard to scam as you might think, given that even a harvard professor fell victim to a 419er http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/31/harvard_prof_scams/
I think it's better if nobody benefits from there being scammers. Otherwise those under pay via mehanical turk may be tempted to pose as (or become) scammers themselves
> Spain is just wanted due to the proximity to Africa and a lot of African immigrants/refugees using this vector.
I hear this from time to time, but data paints a radically different picture. What you describe is only the case for sub-Saharan immigrants who are just a tiny, tiny minority of the inmigrants coming to Spain. Most inmigrants come from:
1-Romania (for which Spain is obviously not in the path to any other country)
2-Morocco (the vast majority of whom arrive legally since the late 90s)
3-UK (and contrary to popular belief, only 21% of them are over 65 years old)
Then, the largest component of immigration is from the former colonies, due to the shared language (so, again, not being used as a vector)
All of this data is available online on the INE (national institute of statistics)
Weight does change around the world, mostly because at the equator you are farther away from the centre of mass of the earth than you are at the poles, but also because of local gravity anomalies.
It's mass that never changes, so maybe we should all get an inertial balance for our kitchen!
Isn't mass psychology part of "public information"?? I know little about stock markets, but from the outside I would say that "how I think people will feel about a company" is pretty much what I would base my "bet" on whether a stock will go up or down.