RSS/Atom feeds and video files you can play with whatever video player you want seems like it'd cover most of those concerns? The relatively closed nature of YouTube isn't necessarily something you'd want to replicate.
The bigger issue would be search and discovery, especially since I can't think of any obvious way to prevent services from spoofing engagement data to influence rankings.
> RSS/Atom feeds and video files you can play with whatever video player you want seems like it'd cover most of those concerns?
Absolutely, as long as there was widespread agreement in both the distribution mechanism and important video features like closed captions.
> The relatively closed nature of YouTube isn't necessarily something you'd want to replicate.
No, but the consistency and ability to get everything in one place is pretty vital, and is something you pretty much get for free from single centralized sources. The closed nature is obviously one of the huge downsides.
> The bigger issue would be search and discovery, especially since I can't think of any obvious way to prevent services from spoofing engagement data to influence rankings.
Yep. Another big one is the cost of serving videos.
I was going to say that I think people kind of build up an immunity or aversion to those sorts of requests as they become more common, but after some consideration there's a difference between individual vs mass communication in that regard.
I've never understood why people assume that sort of investment is going to be going to the housing market in particular, especially when it goes along with complaints of absentee foreign landlords and unoccupied housing. Surely even if you're fleeing instability you still want to make the best investments you can, and refusing to rent property or investing in already overactive markets rather than somewhere else is just leaving money on the ground. I could definitely be wrong, but I suspect many people assuming otherwise have neither data nor theory to back that up.
This seems pretty cool, and being able to display charts easily is a valuable thing to have. There doesn't seem to be any fallback for people to view charts if they don't have the extension installed, however. Even just a link to something like the landing page, with the chart they're looking for in place of the US/Russia Nuclear stockpiles chart.
So what if the PETA case offers a deal that is accepted under the circumstances those families are actually in? All offers and trades are contingent on the circumstances someone's in - you wouldn't take a job with a $20/hour salary if you have the education and skills for something higher-paying than that, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal to offer wages of $20/hour.
The "more fair" solutions to the problem of surge pricing involve either Uber themselves paying out of pocket, drivers not receiving fair compensation, or neglecting to tackle the problem at all.
> So what if the PETA case offers a deal that is accepted under the circumstances those families are actually in?
Where does it stop? How is that morally different from a $denomination religious charity offering aid conditioned on your family joining the faith? I find that disgusting and manipulative.
And that's not the worst. To take another example, it's like an insurance company offering to lower your costs in exchange for having your driving and dietary habits tracked. It's all voluntary, sure. Except that ten years later, the rest of the market has taken note and it has become mandatory.
> The "more fair" solutions to the problem of surge pricing involve either Uber themselves paying out of pocket, drivers not receiving fair compensation, or neglecting to tackle the problem at all.
Random assignment would be a fair outcome, where everybody gets paid, and people get a chance of getting a ride.
I'm totally fine with pretty much any voluntary agreement between individuals. As for Uber, raising prices is the utility-maximizing choice (across riders, drivers, and Uber), so the burden is very much on the other side to show why it's a mistake.
> I'm totally fine with pretty much any voluntary agreement between individuals.
This sounds like a very naive position ignoring dynamics of power. Indentured labour was also the result of a "voluntary agreement between individuals". See also the working conditions of migrant workers in the Gulf states - again the result of "voluntary agreement between individuals".
> raising prices is the utility-maximizing choice (across riders, drivers, and Uber)
Only across riders who can afford the surge price. It's the utility-minimizing choice for the rest.
> Only across riders who can afford the surge price. It's the utility-minimizing choice for the rest.
It's really not. Without surge pricing, the people who can't afford surge pricing experience significantly worse outcomes as well. Specifically, they end up with very high wait times and cancellation rates, which ends up being a lot worse than the counterfactual world in which they saw the surge pricing and decided to take the subway instead. We have solid evidence for this: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/chris.nosko/research/effects...
"There is an ongoing surge. Rides are randomly attributed during the duration of the surge. Unfortunately, your number was not selected this time. Please find an alternative mean of transportation."
> Indentured labour was also the result of a "voluntary agreement between individuals". See also the working conditions of migrant workers in the Gulf states - again the result of "voluntary agreement between individuals".
The only problem I have with such things is when someone agrees to one thing, but winds up with something else. That probably happened at least some of the time with indentured labor.
> It's the utility-minimizing choice for the rest.
You usually can't maximize utility for every single person. Maximizing total utility is the standard, and you haven't explained why we shouldn't do that here. "Won't somebody think of the ~~children~~ poor riders?"
We keep trying to make a world that is completely fair but as long as we have freedom it won't be. I think it's more important to have freedom because it drives progress.
People don't want a chance at a ride, they want a ride. And that desire is the fuel that drives us.
> We keep trying to make a world that is completely fair but as long as we have freedom it won't be. I think it's more important to have freedom because it drives progress.
Why do you make the issue into a bizarre dilemma between freedom and fairness?
> People don't want a chance at a ride, they want a ride. And that desire is the fuel that drives us.
What does this have to with anything? Not everybody can have a ride in this situation. The question is only about the system you use to attribute rides.
Nominal GDP growth and real GDP growth are very different things, and it's the latter people are referring to. If it was only nominal that mattered, we could have a arbitrary economic growth through inflation.
Even 'real' GDP numbers are boosted by inflation (ie. the price levels of everything rising over time, not just the devaluation of currency). Real GDP is still just a number to compare output between two points in time, still measured in nominal currency (albeit inflation adjusted for say, a 15 year difference). The calculation of 'Real' GDP still is limited, only useful for comparison purposes.
Several generations ago, some of my ancestors (my great grandparents) came here and bought their farmland for $10. Now I can barely buy a beer for 10 dollars. Yet we don't measure GDP in 1900 dollars, or in year 3000BC shekels.
Regardless, in many ways, my beer today IS worth more than a farm in 1900. My beer was made because of generations of farmers growing grain, building up their homesteads, brewers buying equipment and employed generations of employees, farming equipment improving efficiency, and everything else that goes into the supply chain. Simply put, the value of technological progress is built into current price levels.
For any other type of loan, if you have more current/future income, you can get a larger loan. For student loans, you get a larger loan for having LESS current income. This is reasonable since the loans are government-subsidized, but it might help to have some correlation between the loan and your ability to pay it off (i.e. future expected earnings due to your education).
This sounds like an excellent arbitrage opportunity for a startup. Find mispriced student loans (say, some honor roll student in MIT Computer Science paying the same 7% as some fine arts student at University of Phoenix) and refinance them at 4%.
You could even securitize the debt and sell it to alumni! I know I'd buy Waterloo CS Class of 2018 Honour Roll debt at even 3%.
This happens already. There was an article linked here some time about it. The twist was that the article scolded those companies, because it meant that the rates for government loans would have to go up, because their portfolios now consisted of worse borrowers.
If you're good enough to do so I think it's more cost-effective to forgo co-op, stack on the debt, and graduate earlier so you can earn full-time salary and begin vesting stock.
The bigger issue would be search and discovery, especially since I can't think of any obvious way to prevent services from spoofing engagement data to influence rankings.