191–199 of 199 posts
American has an optimism problem. Or rather, optimism seems to be unequally distributed. Feels like we need some leadership to raise our eyes to all the opportunities out there, and how we can get to a better spot.
From the article Firms like Microsoft led in the innovation in creating new barriers to entry. How could one compete with a browser provided at a zero price. I think what happened to Microsoft is the perfect example of how to overcome a monopoly. 20 years ago, everyone thought that Microsoft’s monopoly was unassailable. Google barely existed, Facebook didn’t exist, Amazon was a bookseller and Apple was basically bank…
Off topic, but I was amazed/interested, so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix#Founding_and_establish...
"Netflix was founded on August 29, 1997 ... Netflix was launched on April 14, 1998, with only 30 employees and 925 DVDs available ..."
So you're technically wrong, but not far off. I thought Netflix was closer to 10 years old than 20.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe he thinks more than one company is sufficient then? But that’s still just a civil difference of opinion! It’s not insulting to be disagreed with I’m afraid.
Except in the context he is speaking of, extremely few Americans have more than one company supplying them with Internet access. It is definitionally a monopoly, and to say existing anti-trust legislation is sufficient is saying the monopolies as they exist now are acceptable and nothing needs to be done. It is a dismissive comment from the senator, he should feel insulted. It is like saying "help I'm bleeding" and t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you have is natural selection. Systemic corruption is itself a deterministic outcome/symptom when corruption is an adaptive trait. Unfortunately many undesirable behaviors are adaptive: the risk-adjusted rate of return is positive. 'Bad actors' have much more to gain from engaging in them than watchdogs have in stopping it. You will always lose the fight against corruption in the long run because as the war goes…
What you, CGP Grey and other people tend to not say is that this is not a deterministic outcome of democracy at all . Even the second link you posted has some exceptions in the article . The book that the video is based on (the Dictators handbook, great read) contains some ways out of it dilemma. It shows how and why democracy is more efficient at creating wealth for a bigger number of people, and so there is a stron…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you have is natural selection. Systemic corruption is itself a deterministic outcome/symptom when corruption is an adaptive trait. Unfortunately many undesirable behaviors are adaptive: the risk-adjusted rate of return is positive. 'Bad actors' have much more to gain from engaging in them than watchdogs have in stopping it. You will always lose the fight against corruption in the long run because as the war goes…
From the Iron Law of Oligarchy page: "no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy" I'm not sure this is proven yet. Certainly in the past, I'd have agreed, but with communication via the Internet making realtime decision-making between all members of a democracy possible, I think direct democracy is theoretically possible at least. If not absolutely direct, then at least h…
The problem is that speech isn't free (as in free beer). It's a commodity. The wealthier or more powerful get more of it. When people see messages frequently they tend to believe them [1]. It doesn't matter how direct your democracy is if people can be strongly influenced to vote as desired.
I used to believe that a sufficiently intelligent and enlightened being could lead a democracy. Rules for Rulers says this is impossible, because the altruistic entity would always lose to the practical power-optimizing one.
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-resilience/2012...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in the past, I'd have agreed, but with communication via the Internet making realtime decision-making between all members of a democracy possible, I think direct democracy is theoretically possible at least. Our current issues have nothing to do with latency, they have to do with manipulation and propaganda. The internet has so far made that worse , not better. If every single Facebook trend, or 30 second clip from…
I don't think people have come to grips with the nature of manipulation. We talk about letting everyone vote in realtime, but that doesn't solve the problem, because it's not looking holistically enough. For example, Suppose on average 1% signup for the military in high school. Next suppose we add an intervention, we add a sign in the lunchroom for military recruiting (touching on all the right emotions). The average…
Yes! In all organizations, money and power buy influence. The internet briefly changed this, but it has reasserted itself.
What do we expect the powerful to do with their influence then? Rules for rulers says they must use it to increase their power for any other decision reduces their evolutionary fitness and long term survival.
Therefore in the long run altruism is strongly selected against and we would expect to see less of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe he thinks more than one company is sufficient then? But that’s still just a civil difference of opinion! It’s not insulting to be disagreed with I’m afraid.
Except in the context he is speaking of, extremely few Americans have more than one company supplying them with Internet access. It is definitionally a monopoly, and to say existing anti-trust legislation is sufficient is saying the monopolies as they exist now are acceptable and nothing needs to be done. It is a dismissive comment from the senator, he should feel insulted. It is like saying "help I'm bleeding" and t…
I'm not suggesting their is a spoken conspiracy. But when neither side benefits from direct competition, what's the word for that?
America has a corruption problem. The ability for companies to vertically integrate and essentially make smaller businesses non-competitive can only occur when you don't have to pay the taxes your smaller competitors have to pay and don't have to obey the same laws your competitors have to obey. We have a systemic corruption problem (manifested in lobbying) coupled with greed on scales we've never seen before. Everyt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except in the context he is speaking of, extremely few Americans have more than one company supplying them with Internet access. It is definitionally a monopoly, and to say existing anti-trust legislation is sufficient is saying the monopolies as they exist now are acceptable and nothing needs to be done. It is a dismissive comment from the senator, he should feel insulted. It is like saying "help I'm bleeding" and t…
I'm not so sure monopoly captures the root of the internet access problem. Yes, in many markets there is a single provider (e.g., Comcast). There are other providers (e.g., Verizon). But neither enters the other's markets. I'm not suggesting their is a spoken conspiracy. But when neither side benefits from direct competition, what's the word for that?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(business)
In the days of Rockefeller, these things were a little more formal. Nowadays companies know better than to put such silent agreements in writing.