HN user
I may be missing something, but if there is no competitive pressure/monopolistic market, why would these businesses need the excuse of inflation/cost increases to increase their prices? Wouldn't we expect prices to have gone up before inflation?
Or is this a specific criticism of a regulatory blind spot for reigning in market power? Monopolies can get away with price increases now, but they wouldn't normally?
Do other QM interpretations predict that quantum computers wouldn't be able to benefit from superposing N qubits over 2^N (possible) output states? As far as I understand, it's not just Copenhagen that allows for this.
Would an interpretation need to reject Bell's theorem to get there? Or could it not include superposition but still keep all of Bell's theorem?
I assume fabrication refers to semiconductor fabs, not factories assembling computers together. None of the world's most advanced semiconductor fabs are in China, and whether they can catch up to TSMC/Samsung remains to be seen.
Territorial disputes are a problem for NATO membership, especially wrt article 5. Even if Taiwan gave up any claims to the Chinese mainland or other disputed territories, China's claims of sovereignty of the island could justifiably be enough to deny membership. On top of that, NATO is explicitly a European organization, with no member countries outside the European area besides USA and Canada. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm
On my Thinkpad x13 there was an option to use "Linux sleep" or something like that in the uefi (bios?) Settings. I think this just gives it the normal sleep behavior, and definitely reduced how often my laptop would come out of my backpack hot and on low battery (running Linux)
As a poor college student, I was surprised hearing the stores I went to described as fast fashion. For me, thrift stores or hand me downs were the sensible choice for clothes, and h&m or forever21 were splurges for $30 pants or whatever. Obviously the price points and quality that these fast fashion brands output don't lend themselves to being deliberate, long term "investments", but spending twice as much on pants that I was already hesitant to buy was unthinkable.
I also think buying some chinos or button down shirts at these places made it a lot cheaper to get business casual work clothes as I transitioned from fast food/retail to actual internships etc. I think it's really good for young people or people turning their life around to have very low barriers to entry when it comes to "looking respectable" or fitting in with the workplace as they grow, and fast fashion helped do that for me (and some of this could be addressed by loosening dress codes if you're hiring college students/young people/whatever).
Housing isn't finite, if Americans are willing to spend money to increase the value of Mexican housing, Mexican builders/government can build more housing to take advantage of the increased demand. I don't see much reason why any country would need to ban foreign investment, especially when supply is artificially constrained by unjustifiable regulation (true of western US and Canada, no idea if true of Mexico)
I know anta sports (Chinese) owns Arc'teryx and Salomon (and other brands as well), which are both big deals in very niche parts of outdoors companies (mountaineering/climbing and trail running/skiing respectively) but I don't think there's any single Chinese company that owns all the outdoor brands, unless anta is owned by some other company. Luxottica, the eyeglass company gp referred to is also Italian, not French (afaik), and their stranglehold was weakening with online retailers breaking in (last I checked was ~5 years ago, this might have regressed since).
I think that's a fair description of the achievements made so far, but there are some quantum simulations that would be worthwhile or even groundbreaking to simulate (and it's possible that quantum computing is the only way to handle large quantum simulations). My guess is that we're a ways off from them, and even further off from any impressive integer factorizing/cryptography breaking quantum computers (but those predictions are basically worthless).
I'm definitely not an expert in the field, but I read lecture notes by Scott Aarsonson that referenced research by Microsoft that looked into nitrogen fixation specifically as a (potentially) achievable simulation with a (potentially) massive impact.
https://www.scottaaronson.com/qclec/29.pdf
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...
This website is incredibly helpful for quick simulation. My favorite design detail is that the circuits are stored in the url, allowing easy bookmarking or sharing of some specific circuit.
The number of rays is determined by the number of aperture blades, as well as whether there's an even or odd number of aperture blades
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/best-lenses-for-sunstars/#The_...
Interestingly, some modern photography lenses have achieved aperture mechanisms with much rounder geometry, sometimes with near perfect circles at multiple apertures. This can result in a more desirable bokeh, at the cost of well defined sun stars.
right but corporate lobbying isn't the only way in which America is unique. Concerns about concealed research results could be very true, but that's an entirely different question than corporate lobbying. My position isn't that companies don't do anything wrong or aren't trying to influence policy, I'm just skeptical how successful political donations are at subverting democracy.
Well, the American public is an outlier when compared to many other democracies in other ways as well, in general I'd guess they'd view environmental/health regulations less favorably than most other developed nations. "Just don't lick the walls lol" is something I've heard regarding lead paint here in America, which sounds insane to me, but it's the insanity of democracy, not anything else.
When I look at these health care charts, I don't see a real consensus, even when oversimplifying health care to 4 broad categories (36 20 30 6 percent respectively). I don't know who the respective corporate interests would be for each of the categories, though I'd guess that there's big corporations that favor 2 or 3 of these potential solutions, and only a third (at most) of Americans that support one of them. A third of the populace doesn't make a popular mandate, and it certainly isn't enough for a senate majority (especially for democrats).
The climate change one might be more convincing, but I actually think we've seen some real progress on this. Alternative energy is getting cheaper, there's tax incentives for installing solar panels or EV chargers in many areas, and tax incentives for buying EVs. There's certainly more we can do, and the polls were phrased to suggest that the general public thinks so too. But if the admittedly significant oil and gas lobby is trying to hold this issue back, I'm not sure how successful they've been. Finally, this isn't an actual bill or anything. Every "green" bill I've seen is opposed by conservatives based on their constituency, whether they're a red conservative from texas, or a blue conservative from west virginia. I don't know if Joe Manchin takes donations from coal companies, but he'd unquestionably support coal either way.
I may have heard of this once on a reddit philosophy post or something, I think this really isn't an example of a popular idea that's squashed by corporate interests. That's not to say it's not a good one (I have no idea), but I don't know if we'd pass this (or if there's even any corporate opposition).
Yeah, I brought up this idea in my parent comment, but the part I'm unsure of is whether or not there's broad public support for making taxes simpler. The devil is in the details here. If making taxes simpler included removing the mortgage interest deduction or maybe the child tax credit, I could imagine the proposal being extremely unpopular. I think some republicans have included simpler taxes on their list of campaign promises, but there hasn't been a swelling consensus around the issue. Finally, complicated tax deductions are a way for the govt to incentivize certain behavior or have some fine tuned controls over revenue, so there's a reasonable justification to keep some complications. tldr I agree that turbotax (and probably others) have lobbied to keep taxes complicated, but unless there's evidence that the broad public really cares about this, I'm unsure that those donations really did anything. It's easy to vote in your donors' interests when the vote doesn't matter (or if you were already voting that way!)
I'd probably support an asbestos ban for most construction (though I'm not a chemical or civil engineer, so I could have some blind spots here), and this probably comes across as pedantic, but I didn't see anything that indicated that there's broad public support for banning asbestos. Again, that's not saying that we shouldn't do it, just that I'm not sure it's a great example of the "will of the people" being overruled by a corporate interest.
I think your comment means that the "will of the people" isn't why democracy is broken, but it's the extra-democratic processes involved in making legislation that is the problem. Do you have an example of some policy that is generally popular, but not passed because of corporate lobbying?
I think solutions to immigration/health care/climate change are generally contentious and don't have a popular consensus. Something smaller like a "simpler" tax code seems more convincing, where a small industry of tax preparation software or something lobbies to keep income taxes complicated. At the same time, many deductions are quite popular, and these are necessarily complications to the tax code. I'm just not entirely convinced that lobbying is hurting us in any meaningful way, though a stronger example or argumentation might change my mind.
The point about cost ("My money reserves are finite...") seems to be addressed by Carla's superior productivity. To pay someone in your own country would definitionally cost more than paying someone in a more productive country (assuming identical output, ignoring shipping cost, etc). I think your analogy of 1 nation == 1 person is obscuring complexity as well. A country with a market economy couldn't simply _do_ something, they'd have to pay for it (with incentives, taxation, debt, etc.), even if they aren't trading with another country. In terms of your analogy, if you want to do your own "farming, mining, and homebuilding", then you'd have to pay "yourself" more than you'd pay Carla, or accept inferior output.
These points make me consider that what you mean by "money reserves" refers not to actual currency, but to something like trade deficit. If this is the case, can/should nations make decisions about their economies and trade policies based on projections of trade deficits?
I don't work in radar/military stealth, but my argument isn't that you're wrong about any of your technical claims. Rather, my argument is that the F-35 was designed and purchased by people who are at least as aware of those technical details as you are. This is an assumption, but I don't think it's a huge one. As a nitpick, the F-35 may still be operational in 50 years, just as the B-52 is operational today. The question is whether its stealth will still be useful, not whether it can get airborne. Nobody is using the B-52 for its stealth anymore (happy to be proven wrong), and the decision to lean on the F-35's stealth capabilities for 50 years won't simply be "The B-52 has been running for 69 years, nice!"
Sorry, my previous comment was probably overly dismissive. I'd argue that developers and users of the F-35 already understand that stealth gains are not permanent. Countries and military organizations that purchased the F-35 definitely hope that the stealth advances last longer than 2025, but they will pay for improvements, new planes, and new tech long before 2070. It seems comically naïve for them to take claims of "2070" at face value without verifying, but that's just conjecture on my part.
Is your argument that military technology could be described as an "arms race"?
Part of the benefit of open book tests is that it brings up the "floor" of resource access, limiting the potential differential between honest and cheating students. Obviously, this could be negatively compensated for with other factors, like having more questions or stingy grading.
On thin ice, you can watch it form in real time!
many properties of photons are quantum in nature, relying on an underlying continuous wave function, that when "measured", will output some discrete value. The wave function determines the likelihood of each possible measurement value, with the relationship amplitude^2 = probability.
I was similarly confused about which property of the photons they were measuring, it seemed they might be measuring the number of photons over specific periods of time. Because the position of each individual photon is uncertain until it is destructively measured, randomness will be generated by the "collapse" of the wave function, where one of the possible outputs is generated. Before measuring, photons can be in a "superposition" of bouncing inside the bow tie shaped chamber, or escaping out of the laser to be measured. After measuring, a photon can either be inside the laser, or outside the laser, but not the "both" of a previous superposition. Arguably, superposition isn't really a "both", but there aren't great words in English for this unfortunately. The fundamental uncertainty of measuring a superposed quantum state has been convincingly demonstrated in experimentation, but nobody really knows _why_ it happens this way. The "measurement problem" has inspired many interpretations of quantum mechanics, but many of them are unfalsifiable.
Some online services are already engaging in price discrimination, though physical retail has greater limitations in communicating prices to individual customers. I think that removing price tags entirely would be necessary for full price discrimination in brick and mortar retail (or some similarly revolutionary step, like AR vision placing price tags on items). That's not to say it's infeasible, but other changes may be necessary first. For example, in an Amazon Go location, you don't need to check out the items at the end. Customers would still definitely want to know prices of items, but I could imagine them caring less about seeing price tags if they aren't checking out immediately after. I think another system that could help would be a partial or full subscription model, where the subscription price could be an opportunity for price discrimination.
This is very helpful, thanks. I guess the part I'm still confused on is the link to bitcoin:
You know that the supply of Bitcoin is fixed. If you settled up your current account deficit in Bitcoin instead of dollars, you know that you'll have an asset that you can trade back at a later date, and that the supply of that asset will not have increased (devaluing your own holdings).
Doesn't the historic price volatility of bitcoin make it a very poor solution for these problems? Despite the supply being semi-fixed (for now), the value in USD or Yuan or whatever is the furthest thing from fixed. It's gained more than 8% in the last five days, and lost ~4% today alone. I guess if these were all very short term conversions USD --> BTC --> Yuan and vice versa, then maybe price volatility would burn users less often, but they'd still get burned eventually. In my mind, Bitcoin has inherent risk (in volatile pricing), and transactional cost (measured in either time or fees, as I understand it). As long as the (risk + fees) of BTC are greater than the fees charged by banks for money conversions, I don't expect widespread adoption.
I'm not very well informed on the modern banking system, but I remember hearing an anecdote about banks flying people with bags of checks on airplanes to handle exchanges (before the system was updated in the 70s iirc). In your example of transferring a billion dollars in cash 3000 miles, couldn't that transfer be done using the banking system for much cheaper than the armored car and guards? Is the metaphor valid only for transactions that don't want to trust some third party? Is there some reason why moving a billion dollars cash is something that anyone other than the CIA would want to do? I'm also curious about your claim:
Bitcoin's advantages in trustlessness and lack of a central authority are hugely important in international relations, where nobody trusts anybody else and there's no higher authority to appeal to.
Is this really true? I mean, what do large international exchanges use now? A majority of them certainly don't currently use bitcoin. Many large banks have a significant international presence, and most parties interested in exchanging can find a bank they both trust.
That's fair, my argument is less that reframing the context is always bad, and more that the original context of [Amazon] in [Companies] makes a lot of sense. I also think that the presented Fiat vs Ferrari is a poor analogy. Why, in your view, are universities so much better than Amazon and other top tech companies? In my view, they're often doing far more than universities on the cutting edge of research. While there are certainly some tradeoffs in a corporate model, I think that universities and tech companies are both effective research organizations, but have different focuses. To use the cars metaphor, it's like some discussion about Ferrari vs Bugatti vs Koenigsegg vs etc. and then someone starts talking about superbikes. Amazon may compete with universities for employees, but they don't directly compete with universities in market share, products, or services.
Or maybe he said "company" because Amazon is one, and isn't a university. While an interesting conversation could be had about large companies/small companies/university/individual contributions to progress and invention, Bezos isn't necessarily having that conversation, and certainly isn't obliged to contextualize Amazon's achievements that way.