This is how Uber matches trips[0]. Optimising not for the fastest pick up for any one rider, but to reduce the total time of arrival in the whole network.
In New Zealand, our broadband market is structurally separated.
The the access provider for both the copper and fibre network (right to the customer premises) is a regulated wholesale only provider, which is required to provide open access to its network on a non-discriminatory basis between all access seekers (retail telecommunications companies).[0]
This almost entirely resolves the net neutrality debate in New Zealand.
[0] This is a slight simplification: Chorus is the network owner for the copper network, and about 70% of the fibre network. The other 30% of fibre network is also built, owned and operated by wholesale only providers on a comparable basis.
NZ used to have expensive and slow internet (we don't have much TV cable here, so it was all ADSL), but it's gotten a lot better in the last few years. Currently I have 1000mbit down / 500mbit up fiber with unlimited data for $130nz/month (90usd).
The US has basically that model for many other natural monopolies, and it works alright.
I think we could do with a bit more government investment in infrastructure, because government is really the only entity that can drop a trillion dollars, then wait 40-50 years for its returns. (Well, them and pension funds, but neither has exactly shown great financial prudence lately.)
I just... Have a hard time articulating why infrastructure is important, because it's just so glaringly obvious from my perspective that it is. I mean, we see infrastructure everywhere in nature -- from the layout of bacteria mats to ant colonies. The idea that our society can be vibrant without having to perform those basic functions is absurd.
So it makes sense that the lives which depend on the services should control the final delivery network when it's not possible to deploy more than one or two -- eg, FTTH should be utility, cellphones should be a market; roads should be (largely) public, etc.
If the US's power is its people, then infrastructure is what allows us to maintain and focus that power.
> Imagine being a chef in 2015 and discovering that there are thousands of vegetable species you’ve never cooked with. It’s like discovering corn, arugula, tomatoes, and lettuce for the first time.
This struck me as particularly interesting. Corn, arugula, tomatoes and lettuce are all a product of selective breeding. To what extent has this been applied to "sea vegetables" and what might the possibilities look like?
Not an aeronautical engineer, but understand that the cylindrical shape used in today's aircraft design is very good at containing the stresses of a pressurised cabin.
However, the design does mean significant pressure stress on the front and rear of the cylinder. This must be managed with extensive (heavy) structures.
A doughnut design, in theory at least, solves for this by removing "the ends" of the cylinder.
Airbus said although the design was worthwhile enough to protect with a patent — like about 6,000 other ideas its engineers devise every year — it was not an immediate prospect for shuttling passengers from Heathrow to JFK. “This is not something that’s currently under active development,” Airbus said.
One surprising thing I learned is that large companies like to mass-produce patents, even ones they have no intention of ever implementing or suing over. Why? Because they provide a MAD defense against patent suits. If Boeing ever sued Airbus for violating patents, Airbus could countersue and, odds are, each company is violating some patent of the other. Also, if each company has 10,000 patents applying to aerospace, it's going to take each company's legal team a lot of time to sort through them and figure out which ones they can countersue over. Time = money; a patent attorney's time especially so. So coming up with as many patents as possible makes it expensive (often prohibitively so) to sue over patents.
Your natural reaction might be to think this is an outrageous waste of people's time, and you'd be right. But if you don't do it, your competitors will and you will be vulnerable to patent suits that, because of how this works, are essentially impossible for you to avoid making yourself vulnerable to.
This is why patents are "short". To offset the monopoly.
It's why you hear pharmaceutical companies whine patents are strong enough, they need them longer. Automobile makers, aeroplane makers, ship builders, and "industrial" companies that make machinery and equipment rarely complain, they are pretty much ok with their duration, they might like them a little shorter but could take it or leave it. And on the other end if the spectrum we have software companies who are forced into the game because of consumer electronics companies (for whom perhaps something between 5-10 years would be best) taking patents on "features" they wanted to make as software... And the software companies pretty much want 0-5 years because this stuff is a all mostly math, or irrelevant, or under better protection by copyright, etc.
Patent limits were devised as a one size fits all solution not taking any of this diversity into account.
The article is quite clear that it's a totally unreal hypothetical:
Of course, once your investment had grown past a certain
point, it would be impossible to put into any stock
without drastically affecting the stock’s price. In many
cases, investing this volume of cash would be
impossible [...] we also did not take into account
trading fees nor changes in the composition of the S&P
index. We also assumed that all companies allowed for
investment in fractional shares.
Moreover, even if one made the impossibly optimistic
assumption that picking the best stock of the day is a
50-50 guess, there would be only a one-in-3.53
trevigintillion (3.53 x 1072) chance of matching these
results.
There's another humorous follow up on Quartz, positing that "[i]nvesting a day late every day would have returned 19.6% in 2013".[0]
A lot of people here seem very upset that this isn't a recipe they can follow to riches. Clearly this is just an exercise illustrating wild growth, and an interesting article. No need for people to be so bitter.
An economic analysis on a proposed minimum income model for New Zealand:[0]
The [basis minimum income] scheme proposed by the Welfare
Working Group is a significant policy change with large
economic consequences. The scheme is fiscally very costly
and would not necessarily achieve its main goal of
reducing poverty. The high personal tax rates required to
fund the scheme are highly distortionary to the labour
market and to savings and investment decisions, and would
be likely to induce a significant behavioural response.
This has damaging effects on the tax system and economic
growth.
Also of importance, from the same report:
Although the Gini coefficient improves under all models,
many beneficiaries (including the disabled, carers and
sole parents) currently receive more than $300 per week
and would be made financially worse off under a GMI
scheme.
At a high level, it seems that the economic reality of providing a basic minimum income to everyone requires a significant increase in taxation revenue. That might be possible with significantly higher GDP per capita, but I'm not certain we're there yet.
That might be possible with significantly higher GDP per capita
That's actually a really interesting point. The feasibility of BI is going to be tied to GDP per capita, as well as cost of living. In a country where GDP-per-capita is several times cost of living, BI would be relatively easy, whereas a country where GDP-per-capita is barely above cost of living, BI would be very difficult (because where do you come up with the money?)
US GDP per capita is about $50k. I'm not sure what cost of living is, but that definitely isn't a whole lot higher than what is usually accepted as the threshold to living somewhat comfortably (somewhere around $40k)
Norway, on the other hand, has a USD GDP per capita of ~$100k, so unless cost of living is much higher, BI may be much more feasible there.
The linked numbers are brilliant. Lacking the "in my head" math skills I should probably have, I regularly whip out Excel to solve the kind of use cases you can imagine from the linked numbers in the video.
[0] http://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2019/10/23/uber-ride-shari...