330 karma · joined July 21, 2015
It's a really fun game - if you're ever bored, you should check it out again! They have an 'old school runescape' which is essentially how the game was in 2007, without the later changes. Definitely 10/10 nostalgia.
They aren't _just_ a platform for content producers. They are producers of content. Competitors need to outprice them, our perform them, and outproduce them.
If so, I'm glad things worked out for you! Well done. And if that wasn't you, congrats anyway :D
I've volunteered with animal shelters, geriatric hospitals, youth sports, and with veterans. Animal shelters were fun because I love animals, but they didn't humble me like working with veterans and the elderly. Every time I work with those groups, I learn more about life, and get insight into ways I could change how I'm living to be a better influence on society. I think that's the key - at least, that was the key for me.
I added it to my bookmarks folder ;)
If the most senior leader of WaPo - the person in charge of greenlighting or pulling articles that get published - may be fired/terminated/reassigned by Bezos, or someone who Bezos oversees, then there is a conflict of interest that can't be ignored, and will always be inherent within the organizations until this is remedied.
Now, just because there's a conflict of interest does not mean that shady reporting is occurring. But, we cannot definitively say that WaPo is unbiased towards Amazon, unless there is something about the internal controls that would separate Bezos from the ultimate decision-making.
To break this down further, the masses gain economic value and employment. The wealthy gain political/economic influence to solidify their wealth and position.
I'm not talking about low-balling millionaires. I mean the billionaires and royalty of the world. The people who own industries, not just companies.
Globalism has allowed multinational corporations to expand their economic and political influence - since they have the economies of scale to expand globally. It's true that more people have been lifted out of poverty, but the fact remains that globalism favors wealthy owners of multinationals over everyone else.
Look at how much influence western oil/tech companies have in countries around the world. Lobbies are stronger in our political realm, it really isn't fair to say that these policies benefited the poor more than the wealthy.
That's not to say that globalism is bad. But we need to be careful because as the wealthy's influence and power grows, it becomes harder to solve the problems that will come with the age of automation.
The first is "proper" the second is colloquial. At least that's what I thought.
The why is more influential than the what. It's the same reason people are dumb enough to pay a 40% premium for Apple products that are equal in any meaningful metric to a PC.
And a company only exists as long as it has money. Our current government has a tremendous amount of debt. It's awesome to consider social programs like UBI, single payer, etc, but unless it's fiscally sustainable, we're stealing from our future generations. And that would be among the most horrific things a generation can do to another.
The interesting statistic was the urban regions were less pronounced than the suburbs, which may indicate something either cultural or economic that may drive this change.
Either way, it's unfortunate. We're living in the best possible time in history, and many millennials are being impacted by something which - in some cases - may be completely avoidable.
one of the particularly valid points is that airlines shouldn't be allowed to overbook. By offsetting this with no-refund policies, it seems like a win-win negotiation. It may not be "free market," but it makes logistical sense as it takes resources to re-route passengers and deal with the negative PR from booting passengers.
One of the not-so-valid points is the author's statement that "It makes no sense to allow airlines to charge an astronomical fare just because a flight is nearly full, and a dirt-cheap fare for an advance booking." The fundamental idea of supply and demand is that when supply is high and demand is low (when a flight is immediately listed), prices are lower than they would be when supply is low and demand is high (last minute interest in a semi-full flight). While most economic models have varying degrees of subjectivity, this is not one of them.
Ideologies are brilliant for discussion, but in practice, they fail to capture every possible variable and account for the impact when arriving at an outcome. Some amount of procedure (i.e. regulation) improves operations and efficacy. By the same token, too much regulation stifles operations.
Transportation is less of "creative" business, and more of a "procedural" business. As such, it can benefit from regulated procedures. The key is not to hide behind a wall of ignorance and ideology, but instead try to find the procedures that optimize the output for consumers and businesses.
For more about the history of the field of accounting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Pacioli
Source: Am CPA
What I would prefer is a discounted lump sum paid out to IP owners, at the time of patent filing/copyright. For instance, instead of having to legally defend a medical patent for 20 years and overcharge hospitals/distributors during that time, receive a discounted cash flow equal to the approximate amount of value that would be forgone by pricing the innovation at competitive prices.
Of course this system isn't foolproof, and would be subject to tremendous "gaming" from patent holders and regulators, but innovators could reap the rewards of their innovative research without having to deal with pricing their products out of reach for some individuals who can't afford the price.
Again, it isn't foolproof. But there exists a "most efficient" means of balancing the risk/reward of innovation that lies somewhere between "IP rights should be forever" and "No IP at all."
That being said, taxis have an advantage of being available if people don't have a phone or it's uncharged. So there is a marginal, practical use for taxis, but by-and-large mobile ride sharing is more effective.
We won :)
When I started thinking long term, I realized that people everything an MBA teaches you can be learned online and through a few books. Excel modeling, financial analysis, case studies, it's all readily available.
And I came to the unfortunate conclusion that one doesn't need an education to teach you how to be a good manager. Good managers are competent in both the technical skills required of their subordinates and also in the interpersonal skills required to communicate and understand their subordinates. So the question for me became how do I learn technical skills? And the solution was to study technical fields.
We're at the start of a transition period, where companies no longer outsource their leadership to individuals with alphabet soup after their name. As innovation and expansion occur more rapidly, people left asking "is it better to be the technical or the non-technical co-founder" will lose to technical founders with a desire to lead.
For myself, the consistency was awesome. I applied it to work, leisure, studying, socializing - everything. Before this, I would binge. Go out for hours at a time, play games for hours at a time...I didn't track/measure anything.
I started having more time to accomplish my goals (because I was deliberately making time to do so) and I also got my hobbies/leisure activities under control.
But about a year ago, I would get frustrated when I would be getting into my state of flow just about when the timer went off. I decided I wanted more time in my flow state, so I decided to not follow the technique when I was doing work-related things.
Now, I only use it when I know I'm going to do something leisurely - mostly video games. It now serves as a way for me to avoid getting into the "flow" for things that I really should be cognizant of, while freeing up time to be in the flow of things I'm passionate about.
Or should we be saddened that most of society fails to provide similar value, despite having similar access to education, ability, and capital?
This is why delegation is so important. As an organization grows, it literally becomes impossible to manage everyone by yourself. But enlisting talented managers who understand these concepts helps to alleviate this issue.
To answer your final questions, maintaining energy requires deliberate planning of the energy you expend in other areas. For me, I rarely drink because alcohol has undefined impact on my energy levels (I get tired, and it's not like a video game that I can flip a switch and be awake and ready). But more importantly, organizing your activities between <energy consuming> and <energy restoring> has been particularly helpful for me. Once I took the time to understand what takes energy from me and what restores it, I was able to experiment with planning my days to ensure that I have enough energy to expend, while maximizing the energy I do expend.
I don't know how valid this is, since I've only spoken with a handful of Lispers, but it seems that they appreciate the freedom and lack of boundaries/rules/limits that Lisp provides. They talk about it like a language that can do anything, because it has no rules on what it can or cannot do.
But at the same time, my friends also remind me that the lack of limits means that they are more accountable for every line of code, and that as a beginner, it'd be best for me to use something more structured (they always say Python) until I'm comfortable taking off the training wheels.
Can anyone share their thoughts?
The economic reason that internet hasn't spread to every rural household is because there isn't enough demand (in terms of money, not general interest) to pull suppliers out there. If we're going to assume that privacy has value, then allowing providers to have access to consumers' privacy would increase the demand and could help reduce the burden on municipalities or companies to extend broadband. But if we're going to begin every discussion with privacy being protected by default, then costs are going to be higher since the customer will be forced to absorb the costs.
If we generously assume the latter, it's important for you to know that the sort of thinking that let Trump win the white house is echoed in your entire comment. Congratulations!
I've got to run, but in the meantime, perhaps you can educate yourself on some of the potential shortcomings associated with regulating the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Reduction_in_in...
Edit: Oh look! Downvotes for observations. What an amazing display of irony.
If the commentor whose comment you're posting to is anything like me, he's probably incredibly mad that such a largescale fraud has happened, but more importantly that someone who represented a new hope in the tech space (Elizabeth Holmes), turned out to be just as scummy as most VC/tech sterotypes.
Theranos had the potential to truly revolutionize blood testing. Not in a super-profitable-startup-tries-to-revolutionize-world kinda way, but in a Tesla success-at-any-cost or Genentech Innovate-or-die way. And Holmes was an unconventional, relate-able, underdog character leading the charge. A lot of us put our faith in her - she would have been one of the best success stories to pass on to our daughters to help inspire them to pursue opportunities in tech. But she abused the opportunity, and it's incredibly heartbreaking. Plus, all of the patients who had been put their faith in Theranos to protect them/their loved ones have been misguided for years now.
What Holmes did is despicable. And she's hiding behind lawyers and money to maintain the charade. It's infuriating.
[1] www.wired.com/2016/05/everything-need-know-theranos-saga-far/