ebog

If you just want a sleep tracker I would recommend looking at Oura ring

The bubble is bursting from Softbank*

Tech as a sector is still doing very well, even though there are some high publicity mega failures like WeWork

I would recommend you take a look at Sococo then (disclaimer -- I don't work for them but know people that do): https://www.sococo.com/

Much more upfront about their pricing structure.

Probably a lack of good marketing.

White collar crimes (like this should be) are all about making value calculations. Take the famous Ford Pinto memo. They decided the risk to their customers' lives was smaller (in terms of pure dollar amount, after potential litigation) than fixing the gas tank issue. If you penalize reckless security practices that lead to data breaches companies will be far more inclined to look after their customers. We already issue fines like this with COPPA, so it's not a new concept.

Street crimes have a far different cause and should be treated differently. I'm surprised I even have to type that, it seems obvious.

That's true. I'm sure that the perverse incentive could be resolved with some system for self-reporting and fixing.

It's the implication you and the headline are making. I have yet to see any evidence that Uber and Lyft are against public transport. They are competing with it, which is their right. That's massively different from attempting regulatory capture like the Kochs have done.

But Uber/Lyft are not lobbying against public transit. In fact, in Denver, you can buy RTD tickets through the Uber app. There are plenty of reasons from a labor perspective to dislike rideshare companies but this ain't it.

Don't know why you're comment is grayed, we absolutely need heavy monetary penalties for the worst kinds of data breaches. The abstract idea of a class action lawsuit isn't enough, even after the Equifax breach.

It seems like an ok reading of the history on first glance but it is the Marxist perspective. I suppose necessary to understand the heterodox viewpoint.

> So central to capitalist reality is this motor of growth that it lies behind both imperialist conquest and the launching of those periodic prolonged booms of which the Belle Époque and the post-war Golden Age are the most recent examples.

This is a pretty ridiculous conclusion that is demonstrably false.

Spoken like someone who truly doesn't know the history of the economic field.

It works

> I don't see this OS succeeding beyond China though.

I wouldn't be so sure. Obviously it would be an uphill battle for the OS to compete in the US or Europe, but anywhere that doesn't have clear smartphone dominance yet (ie most of India or Africa) is fair game. Huawei already has a strong foothold in both of those places, and the Chinese government is not opposed to strong-arming them into sticking with Huawei infrastructure.

Scalability is a big problem, but it's not the only problem. Money accomplishes 3 things:

1) Store of value 2) Unit of account 3) Medium of exchange

It's not really very good at any these 3 things. The scalability significantly hurts #3, but even if you fix it it's super volatile, which are bad for 1 and 2. Not only that, but it's inherently deflationary, which is quite bad in the long term, but I guess that's really a secondary concern.

In the US at least, press freedom is greater than simply freedom of speech (according to case law), and this is by design. Information of significant public interest shouldn't be censored.

That's not entirely true. The US is good at capital intensive or high skilled manufacturing like most other countries aren't. That's why it's viable for a lot of car companies to open plants in the US. It's just that most of the supply chain requires more labor and less capital, which the US economy is not suited towards.

Having a multinational agreement between several economies that the Chinese economy is hugely dependent on would have been a great trade chip for getting China on board with Western IP laws. That was the whole point of the deal in the first place.

Maybe I don't get your point but a tariff is a tax, and US consumers pay for a lot of that tax. So this is effectively a super inefficient redistribution of wealth to farmers from everyone else in the country.

Presumably Google still has a massive Bay Area presence because it's more profitable for them to stay there than move, at least that's what is implied. Maybe they should be pushing hard for the city to build more housing. But it seems like the current residents in that area are holding their hands to their ears, closing their eyes and shouting away any evidence that more people require more housing, or things will get worse. I can see your point that Google should probably move if that's the case, but the costs involved probably make it super unrealistic for that to happen, at least in the near future.

Where would you move Google, at this point, if you were in charge? There's not a single city -- in the US, at least -- that I can think of that would be prepared, with the right infrastructure or ready to build out a lot more. That probably factors into Google's decision making process as well.

Maybe we should be going back to the idea of company towns. Or possibly have urban planners building new cities from the ground up with proper infrastructure, housing, transportation, etc. that have the ability to expand for new residents and companies. Certainly the big cities in the US don't have that capability due to our car based infrastructure and our attraction to 30 year mortgages on suburban houses.

It looks like the main problems were problems with HVAC (which wouldn't be a problem in California and probably could be more easily solved with modern building materials) and the ugliness of it. Everybody in the Bay Area would surely hate a version of the Skyrise Terrace in their city but it could be a good idea if someone could buy a large parking structure and retrofit it for mobile home utilities.

Would you rather people, jobs, and an economic powerhouse of an industry move away or just build more housing? It's not like the software industry is a monolith, it's a collection of people and companies who have decided the network effect of moving to a high cost place with a lot of engineering talent is better than the alternatives. It's hard to move that inertia somewhere else.

Then there's the serious question of where would the industry go? So many cities are so NIMBY controlled in this country (although SF is up there with the worst) that not many places are better.

In this case it seems more like someone in charge, man or woman, thought they were making things better by letting all people access any restroom. Maybe they didn't think it through, or maybe it was a man trying to do the right thing but without consulting any women first. It's clear that women don't want this.

It's interesting because the argument these NIMBYs use against studying rent control is the exact same as the one gun rights activists and the NRA used against allowing the CDC to study the effects of gun ownership rates.

These privileged "progressives" need to be put in their place politically.

People should be able to move easily because it's good for all of us. The less friction there is in the labor market, the better off the economy is. It's also very good for the sellers of labor who now have better ability to move to where their services are most wanted or negotiate better rates.

It's not super unreasonable for a city to try to protect its current residents but when an entire country of cities are all protecting their own residents that country is much worse off.

This is a prime example of the Lump of Labor fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

Our best studies have shown immigration increases overall welfare. The Mariel Boatlift studies are a good example of this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2523702?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...

This is probably a better explanation for how wages have grown. The biggest problem is healthcare costs have grown too.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where...

The person pays for the good in US dollars. Where do those dollars go? The Chinese people who now have USD either spend or invest them back in the US.