71–80 of 333 posts
I wonder, was Google Fibre ever intended to succeed in the traditional sense? Instead, perhaps it was an attempt by Google to change the industry by 1) scaring the incumbents into improving, and 2) expanding consumers' Overton windows[1] regarding what they could/should expect. Google presumably wants to ensure its services can be delivered to consumers, so this would seem towards that end. As another commenter notes…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think it is a given that Musk ever intended for Tesla's success to be an economic one. What did Musk tell investors?
I have observed a wide range of attitudes towards deception. Both deception of one's self, and of others. For example: For some people being 'a liar' is one of the worst things imaginable, but to others it is perfectly fine. The former judge the latter as being immoral monsters, the latter think the former are rather sweet (and are perhaps also glad the former exist?). Regarding deception of one's self: some people f…
Google seems to halfass a lot of their products. I really had expected it would at least be live in the Bay Area right now. It's not like Google doesn't have the money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny though. No offense and I love France, and I love Europe (really do!), but FB's and GOOG's and BABA's of the world seem to be ... elsewhere? inverse correlation?
France had Minitel before the Internet was a consumer-product. It's true that Europe does "disruptive" startups less, because people don't like being disrupted as much, but it's not true that France is a land of tech-illiterate peasants. It's just that the tech is done in large, somewhat lumbering but nonetheless profitable, megacorps. Orange, Vivendi, Airbus, Bull, ST, and so on.
I wonder, was Google Fibre ever intended to succeed in the traditional sense? Instead, perhaps it was an attempt by Google to change the industry by 1) scaring the incumbents into improving, and 2) expanding consumers' Overton windows[1] regarding what they could/should expect. Google presumably wants to ensure its services can be delivered to consumers, so this would seem towards that end. As another commenter notes…
I think it is though, but probably not in the automotive industry; ATM it still has a lead, just like Apple had for a while on the smartphone market, but I think it'll be passed left and right by the competition.
But by then, Tesla won't be (primarily) a car company anymore, but a battery company, a solar power company (= energy company), and a company with the largest recharge station network in the country. Selling energy and charge stations will be the next generation's oil industry, and Tesla's taking charge there.
This is why I'm happy to live in a country like France where the government takes part in deploying those infrastructures (by investing money in the deployment). They planned to equip 50% of the territory by 2017 (which was achieved), and 100% by 2022. Same goes for public service, profit-focused corporations can't provide the same quality of service.
The US has higher fiber penetration as a percentage of broadband subscribers according to OECD: http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/1.10-PctFibreToTotalBroadb... (11.8% versus 9.5%). The US average connection speed on Akamai’s study are also about double that of France: https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-t... (18.7 mbps versus 10.8 mbps; 48% of the U.S. has a connection above 15 mbps, versus 18%…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would help if the USA was as small as France.
It is interesting that this argument is reflexively brought up every time someone mentions infrastructure. It is not the absolute size that matters, it is density and clustering degrees. And there are some sparsely populated countries in Europe that manage to build infrastructure just fine. Population density: USA: 35.0/km² (90.6/sq mi) Norway: 15.8/km² (40.9/sq mi)
This is why I'm happy to live in a country like France where the government takes part in deploying those infrastructures (by investing money in the deployment). They planned to equip 50% of the territory by 2017 (which was achieved), and 100% by 2022. Same goes for public service, profit-focused corporations can't provide the same quality of service.
It would help if the USA was as small as France.
In the good ole USA--well we cater to the rich boys, and preserving their wad.
And yes--I had a opportunity to move to France as a young buck, but refused. I was a dumb proud American. It's been my biggest mistake on so many levels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is interesting that this argument is reflexively brought up every time someone mentions infrastructure. It is not the absolute size that matters, it is density and clustering degrees. And there are some sparsely populated countries in Europe that manage to build infrastructure just fine. Population density: USA: 35.0/km² (90.6/sq mi) Norway: 15.8/km² (40.9/sq mi)
That doesn't take population spread into consideration though; Norway has most people live in the south, like how most people in Canada live near the south / southeast and how there's huge empty / low population areas in the US compared to the more urbanized east and west coast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does the existence of mentioned companies have to do with the quality of life in a country? For their employees, maybe, but I don't think FB/GOOG/MSFT employ most of the US population?
Quality of life, of course not. But Europe taking over the world with startups and new tech? ...um I'd love it if it was the case, but it's just not.
Anyway, going on this tangent, Europe is different. We've had our share of global domination already (which was expensive and unsustainable in the long run), as well as our share of innovation-by-any-means-necessary (which resulted, among other things, in pollution and WWI). We've decided we don't really need either to live a good life. We can still easily buy whatever innovation you come up with if it proves to be safe and useful. We're happy to leave beta-testing to others.