Stanleyc23

Does that study account for the potential confounding factor of affluence? At least in the US, where I am, eating organic also correlates to being more wealthy. And being rich tends to help you avoid lots of these diseases and cancers just based on lifestyle factors.

overall impressive. noticed a weird quirk of reading $100 million as "one hundred dollar million" instead of one hundred million dollars

Please do!

Why not? I’m no statistician, so my basic understanding is you should always prefer bigger sample sizes to ensure statistically significant findings.

why is being self-created relevant? The thesis of the bill is that m&a helped big tech accumulate market power, which was later misused anticompetitively, so the government should limit tech companies of a certain market cap from inorganically growing market power to mitigate further abuse.

IMO that logic is very flawed, but it’s still pretty trivial to find examples of how m&a has fueled market power expansion e.g. fb and instagram or google and doubleclick. Anticompetitive behavior is perhaps harder to pin down legally, but we’ve clearly not yet achieved some tech utopia.

Just a stock noob, but they are an investment company which markets things like ETFs for buying baskets of stocks. They are known for being big proponents of Tesla stock before it blew up. Now they seem to be considered thought leaders on what is the next tech stock to achieve Tesla-like returns.

would need to consider the lag in time between them making the trade for themselves and the them disclosing it. I expect that would probably wipe out most of the alpha.

I believe they are contrasting the supply of property used for real estate sales vs for rentals. Owners that would have put their properties on the market are supposedly holding off on selling and instead listing them as rental units. An increase in availability of rental units would drive down the price of an apartment.

is there a place to check which airports and which airlines have implemented this? I traveled over the holidays and didn't even notice the face scanning.

perhaps paid to do the former but believes in the latter?

but the type of user who uses Linux was not the same type of user who were most vulnerable to getting viruses back before walled gardens. linux users would be less prone to malware regardless of whether there's a walled garden because they are more likely to have the tech literacy.

hi I actually grew up in STL (now doing tech in SF) so its very exciting to hear your company is doing well over there. How's the tech community in st Louis these days?

Imo it's not that the traditional OSs can't be the OS of the future. It's that the future OS needs to be developed from scratch without carrying over the assumptions and obligations to older design principles. Historically, this has been very difficult. E. G. Cocoatouch (ios) has significant differences to its cocoa (osx). Bottom line is you have to go all to do it right, but its risky for those big companies that have a financial interest in squeezing out as much value as possible from their cashcow OSs

Designing something people want to buy at scale is high skilled work, sure

but the problem is that you need to properly resolve base cases before starting on edge cases. The fact that base case scenarios are not properly solved hints at major problems in execution.

I don't have kids, but I'm curious - you're finding that children don't blame the parent for putting the internet-limiting software on their device in the first place?

should have started that 2 years ago

FYI China has had a similar concept for a while now https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_rice_bowl

a utility to automatically turn my email threads into a todo list of emails I need to follow up on.

does it work that way for non-monotheisticly based ideas of religion/God like the paganism or Buddhist varieties?

I get your point but also want to point out that dictators ban religions because it usually tells people there is something more powerful than the dictator.

IMO signing exclusive artists seems like a strategic red herring because such deals would not be done in a vacuum. I think the transition period in building up substantial leverage with exclusive artists means theres quite a bit of time for the record labels to retaliate.

My pie in the sky recommendation would be to figure out a way to offer a record label's services for free without exclusivity. Then existing labels will have nowhere to turn.

thanks for the intuitive explanation

hmm, I would have assumed the writer's guild rules would still apply even if you're doing an indie film.

the pathos of trump was basically covered in that episode with Waldo that blue bear. fun fact: it predates trump's presidential run by several years.

if they are at fault they should be punished, but you do realize that the expectation for self driving vehicles is not to eliminate all car related deaths, right?

edit: wow this triggered some people. somehow 'if they are at fault they should be punished' got interpreted as 'they are not at fault and should not be punished'

I was originally commenting on your statement from spotify's POV

as they scale up they'll have more leverage with the rights holders

My comment was making the point that simply scaling Spotify does not solve their publisher/supplier costs because the publisher scales with Spotify.

Your response basically switched to the publisher's POV in talking about how publishers are incentivized to commoditize spotify's position in the market. (which is true, but not relevant here.)

I was just casually trying to imagine a scenario from Spotify's POV regarding how would they might gain leverage against publishers. IMO anything that involves labels seems like a fail.

Spotify's only path to success might be to offer some direct to consumer mechanism that eliminates the need of a label, even their own.

At what point does Spotify hit a breaking point with leverage against the major labels? Even their current scale, the surviving music industry oligopoly could probably still crush Spotify if it tried to do jumpstart a private label. In this current ecosystem, they seem to be in this awkward codependent relationship. Maybe the only way to gain real leverage is to develop an ecosystem without any labels at all.

simply put its “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable” -- Raymond Loewy

I'm guessing its a user acquisition tactic for people who traditionally invest in mutual funds, ETFs, etc. this way they feel like they "understand" what they're buying into instead of actually needing to suffer through the learning curve of how blockchain works.

this study appears built off the assume that everyone has the same "satiation point". that doesn't seem like a good assumption to me.