I heard somewhere that the chances of you buying a winning ticket in the NY lottery are the same as you finding that a winning ticket in the gutter.
I'm not sure how this would be the case. Sure the chances are the same if you find a discarded lottery ticket before the drawing. But the odds of finding a "good" lottery ticket of any kind is low. I've found lots of discarded lottery tickets but they have always been discarded after they were known to be bad. The odds of finding a "good" lottery ticket is likely similar to the odds of finding a $20 on the ground. People don't usually discard something of potential value. So once you have found a good lottery ticket then your odds are the same but you obviously have higher odds if you buy a lottery ticket than if you wait for the very unlikely event of actually discovering an unused lottery ticket.
Liquidity + Scarcity = Value. Whether it's shells on a beach or stone wheels or photographically signed tokens, it doesn't matter.
Which one(s) remains to be seen but I'm betting that the winner(s) are already out.
Both of these statements can't be true. Cryptocurrency advocates claim artificial scarcity because of the mining which is kindof true. The problem is that the currencies themselves are not scarce. It's free to create your own currency and you only need a minimal amount of liquidity and they all become equivalent. You can't pick a winner because there likely won't be a single winner. Any and all currencies that reach minimal viability will likely all hover around the same dollar amount. My guess is that we will eventually have several hundred currencies and they all will be worth something in the double digits.
This wasn't hedging, he had sold the initial bitcoin, he left an open position with options. No Hedging, that isn't hedging It is gambling.
Apparently you don't understand what hedging is. He sold his bitcoin and with some of the profits bought the option to buy them back in the future if they continued to go up. This is pretty much the definition of hedging. Basically it's a form of having your cake and eating it too. In this case he set himself up to get profit while selling while also having the potential to have a profit like he never sold.
Hedging is common. The buyer of this option likely expected that it would expire worthless when he bought it but wanted an insurance policy in case bitcoin really did take off.
But that particular buyer might be an idiot. The bank needs to know if there are any *other* buyers out there who would pay X for the house.
A computerized appraisal with a simple home inspection that shows the condition of the house would be more than enough to catch this. I've seen appraisals and comparative market analysis reports done and honestly, I think a computer algorithm would likely be just as accurate if not more accurate. There is no reason for a manual $400+ appraisal for most properties when a computer appraisal and a 5 minute walk thru to make sure the house is in the condition claimed would be enough.
Sure, but banks need to know that what they're paying (loaning out) makes sense. Thus a requirement for an appraisal. This is even more important if it's a government-backed loan -- i.e. public money.
But appraisals are somewhat worthless. The buyer and the seller both obviously think that the house is worth X or they wouldn't be doing the transaction. The only thing the appraisal does is shows that the last few buyers and sellers of similar properties came to the same conclusion. At the end of the day, a house is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it and averaging out the last few dozen sales to come up with an appraisal value does nothing to prevent bubbles or bad investments.
The rest is. Seriously. I want to know who is asking for employee social media accounts. Tell us. Please.
I doubt there is any one company doing all of it. biometric scanners are relatively common although most probably stay in a local database. Googling someone and looking a potential employee up on facebook is pretty common and it wouldn't be too far of stretch for an employer to request that you friend them before they offer you a job but asking for their password is just weird but there have been a few cases of it happening reported in the news. Giving fitness trackers to employees is relatively common and giving incentives like progressive does with driving doesn't seem like a very big leap. Basically, if presented the right way with the right incentives, people will voluntarily agree to all kinds of crazy stuff that individually seem mostly harmless but combined is kindof scary.
Another good example is this year's Nobel Prize winner: https://www.wired.com/story/me... From the article: "He hadn’t asked permission, he didn’t write a protocol, nothing. He simply shot from the hip." It's amazing the amount of scientific discoveries that are discovered like this. Likewise, just like with education, money isn't everything, and many times some of the best results come from underfunded places with shoestring budgets or places where the scientists are "forgotten" and left to their own devices.
Many of the great discoveries and inventions, from the earliest times to the mid-20th century, were made by independent researchers. Usually gentlemen of independent means, or famous scholars patronised by monarchs or nobles.
This gave them the independence to study whatever they thought interesting. No grants, no grant applications, no having to publish 200 papers a year just to stay employed.
A friend of mine, who knows far more about science and mathematics than I ever will, once told me that even the greatest scientists and mathematicians do well to make two or three big breakthroughs in a lifetime.
Not only were many scientists independent, many of the greatest discoveries were discovered by accident or happenstance. Being versed in multiple sciences and knowing when something is unusual helps too. If you're siloed and paid for doing a specific thing you are less likely to follow an interesting tangent.
It basically means that, in the event of IRROPS (primarily weather delays and cancellations) it takes a very long time for your route network to recover - meaning long days and very unhappy customers (and, depending on the cause, potentially on the hook for food and accommodations). Time to recovery from IRROPS goes parabolic as you get your average daily load factor much above 90%.
I would think that airlines would have a few backup standby planes that could swoop in during an emergency. I realize that this adds to the cost to have a few "idle" planes but if they were centrally located, I would think the added cost would be minimal compared to having to keep capacity available for cancellations.
Almost everything on YouTube is there with the blessing of their owners using the monatization scheme the owners request.
Um, not even close. You can find most TV shows as well as most movies. When you start typing a movie name, youtube even helpfully suggests appending the words "full movie" onto the end and in most cases you can easily find the full movie of most movie on youtube.
Youtube is a cesspool. Google is one of the leaders in AI but has made almost no attempt to clean up, categorize, or filter the stuff on Youtube.
Somebody's going to be paying for that, so it comes at the cost of legroom.
And yet it's rare to be on a full flight. How much extra are they really making?
It seems that I'm on full flights a lot more than I used to be. I would say about 80% of my flights are full with many having waiting lists and/or paying people to voluntarily deboard. Airlines overbook and run at about 85% capacity. They can't increase that much more than the 85% because additional overbooking runs the risk of having too many flights where too many people can't get on the plane they paid for. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/1...
Maybe I wasn't clear. The whole concept of value is man made. Those applications are for human benefit. There is no intrinsic (which implies natural) 'value' to gold or anything else.
The value of everything is manmade. Even food only has intrinsic value because humans can eat it to get energy. Most stuff eventually comes down to "can I use it to get food". Gold will continue to be useful to get food as long as it has industrial and electrical uses. Does scarcity and hoarding affect the price, probably, but there are still plenty of marginal industrial uses of gold that would prop up the price if it started falling too much.
Gold has a ton of practical applications and if gold was more plentiful (and therefore less costly), it would have a ton more practical applications. Most of the stuff we use copper for (like wiring in houses), gold actually works better, it's just too expensive to use for those applications. Because of the high price of gold, we instead use it sparingly and only where we absolutely have to, but even if the investment and jewellery applications of gold disappeared tomorrow, gold would still have considerable value.
Where I live in the USA stores most stores already have seasonal hours including big chain stores like home depot. Believe it or not, chain stores actually know when people shop and when they might get extra sales by staying open a little longer during spring planting, or when itâ(TM)s a waste of money to have the store open.
It does not appear that team Tsinghua-U have gotten to the part where their nano tube can self heal. Right now we are looking at an example to put next to Cold Fusion technology. I figure the experts, and team Tsinghua-U are going to get a hard lesson in the "Art of Tether"
It wouldn't have to self heal in the sci fi magical way. Even something as simple as non-destructively breaking into sections, coiling up, and floating down to earth would be sufficient. If we are talking geostationary orbit, we are talking around 22k miles of cable. It would likely be cost prohibitive to replace it not to mention that it would wrap almost entirely around the earth and if it had any weight or speed could cause significant damage.
"It made it clear that a passion for art-house and classic film was not exclusive to old white men"
WHO CLAIMS THIS?
I thought the same thing when I read this. I would venture to guess that of the people who frequent art houses and frequently watch classic films, the gender is predominately female (or females dragging their males along for the ride) but saying "passion for art-house and classic film was not exclusive to women" doesn't gain you any points in today's society.
It is better than just sneaking something small past an Asemi-I. Sneak something big past. Something that no human would ever let through. Like the surety being the first born child. Or possibly something more enforceable.
This happens to simplistic AIs that mark English essays. Well written gibberish can get high marks. The sad thing is that the AIs generally do a better job than human markers, which is probably more a statement about the humans doing the marking than the AI.
AI and humans work better together. AI to catch common mistakes and humans to make sure it is sane. Almost all of the AI in recent years can be easily beat by AI and humans working together. We should stop thinking of it as an either/or and instead let the AI do what it is good at and humans do what they are good at.
Iâ(TM)ve always though that the only way a space elevator would work would be some sort of modular self healing system. Something where a section could be destroyed and then quickly replaced and reattached.
"non-reasoning" is not a term used in our field, so I am going to have to ask that you please define your own terminology.
Non-conscious, means without conscious. To be conscious, a being must be aware of itself as disinct from its surroundings and be aware that it knows that it aware of this. That second level of abstraction is critical and makes a human different from a fish, while the first makes a fish different from a sea sponge.
As far as we know, you don't have to be conscious to be able to reason. A fish or dog can make assumptions about their environment and make reasonable inferences. When we are talking about reading, it becomes even easier. AI might be able to process the paper but it can't comprehend the paper. Comprehending the paper would be having the ability to read the paper and then answer questions about the paper with or without being conscious. One step further would be to have the ability to answer subjective questions like "is this a good deal?" or "does this treat both parties fairly?" questions that any lawyer or even non-lawyer can usually make a guess at.
Yep. And my guess is that if these types of AIs start to become commonplace that the human lawyers would just figure out how to word things so that it flies under the radar of the AI. A non-reasoning AI is never going to be able to catch stuff written by a lawyer intentionally trying to obscure and deceive.
Isn't this also illegal? It seems like this would be equivalent to prank calling 911 which I'm pretty sure is already illegal in many areas. Calling in and harassing law enforcement or giving fake tips to a crime seems like something that a person should be able to be prosecuted for. I'm all for peaceful protesting and call your congressman by the thousands and complain all you want but law breakers should be prosecuted not cheered. I saw a similar article today about a bunch of graffiti all over Yale and the liberals all cheering them all. We shouldn't be cheering on people who do illegal things whether it is crossing the border, interfering with law enforcement, or vandalism. There are plenty of peaceful non destructive ways to protest that are still very effective. Law breaking protesters should be prosecuted just like anyone else.
> This assumption is only valid if that equipment is sitting idle. That $100 million isn't sitting there idle so you don't have to sell the equipment to pay the tax rather you would pay the tax out of the revenue/profits.
You realize Tesla isn't profitable, right? It's been in operation for fifteen years trying to build a car company. 5% per year for 15% years = 75%. OP's proposal is that Tesla would have sold off 75% of their equipment and other assets so far in order to pay taxes on "having equipment".
A tax of 5% per year is probably excessive, it should probably be closer to 1% per year but the fact that Tesla isn't profitable after 15 years isn't a good argument against this. It's pretty easy to make 5% per year at close to 0% risk and the goal of most investments (and the historic average of the stock market) is around 15% per year. If you are making less than 5-15 percent a year, you are better off using that capital for something else. Now you could argue that new companies should have some sort of grace period but at this point, Tesla not being profitable for 15 years has a lot of catching up to do to get back the 5-15 percent per year they could have made with a passive investment.
You propose to tax that $100 million of accrued resources at 5% per year, so every year the new company needs to sell off 5% of their equipment, building, and furniture, in order to pay the tax. You've proposed an orderly method of deconstructing a nation, of unbuilding civilization and returning to the stone age over a period of 100 years or so.
This assumption is only valid if that equipment is sitting idle. That $100 million isn't sitting there idle so you don't have to sell the equipment to pay the tax rather you would pay the tax out of the revenue/profits. The OP might be off on his percentages but the concept is sound. I think the percentage should probably be more like 1% per 100 million so a billion dollar company should have to pay a 10% per year asset tax (obviously phased in over time to allow companies to self split). Also like the OP suggested, you could do the greater of the asset tax or the profit tax so they aren't double taxed.
As market share increases, so should the tax rate on your profits. This is NOT a penalty for success, but rather an incentive to split the company into competing companies that will take the good ideas into different directions, while simultaneously giving us MORE choices and MORE freedom.
I proposed the exact same thing in previous stories about huge market caps and splitting companies up. It seems like regulators have a very hard time deciding how and when to break a company up and even when they do, like the phone companies, it only takes a few years for them to be a problem again.
It seems like the best solution is not to break companies up but to just increase the tax rate as their market cap increases and let the company/market decide how best to split the company up. Companies would also no longer gobble up competitors and even unrelated companies if they knew it was going to increase their tax rate and decrease their profits. Like any regulation, it would have side effects, once disney isn't able to gobble up starwars and pixar, and you would likely have to keep a closer watch out for collusion but overall should help prevent the megacorporations of today (and of many dystopias)
Slashdot Mirror
I heard somewhere that the chances of you buying a winning ticket in the NY lottery are the same as you finding that a winning ticket in the gutter.
I'm not sure how this would be the case. Sure the chances are the same if you find a discarded lottery ticket before the drawing. But the odds of finding a "good" lottery ticket of any kind is low. I've found lots of discarded lottery tickets but they have always been discarded after they were known to be bad. The odds of finding a "good" lottery ticket is likely similar to the odds of finding a $20 on the ground. People don't usually discard something of potential value. So once you have found a good lottery ticket then your odds are the same but you obviously have higher odds if you buy a lottery ticket than if you wait for the very unlikely event of actually discovering an unused lottery ticket.
Liquidity + Scarcity = Value. Whether it's shells on a beach or stone wheels or photographically signed tokens, it doesn't matter.
Which one(s) remains to be seen but I'm betting that the winner(s) are already out.
Both of these statements can't be true. Cryptocurrency advocates claim artificial scarcity because of the mining which is kindof true. The problem is that the currencies themselves are not scarce. It's free to create your own currency and you only need a minimal amount of liquidity and they all become equivalent.
You can't pick a winner because there likely won't be a single winner. Any and all currencies that reach minimal viability will likely all hover around the same dollar amount. My guess is that we will eventually have several hundred currencies and they all will be worth something in the double digits.
This wasn't hedging, he had sold the initial bitcoin, he left an open position with options. No Hedging, that isn't hedging It is gambling.
Apparently you don't understand what hedging is. He sold his bitcoin and with some of the profits bought the option to buy them back in the future if they continued to go up. This is pretty much the definition of hedging. Basically it's a form of having your cake and eating it too. In this case he set himself up to get profit while selling while also having the potential to have a profit like he never sold.
Hedging is common. The buyer of this option likely expected that it would expire worthless when he bought it but wanted an insurance policy in case bitcoin really did take off.
But that particular buyer might be an idiot. The bank needs to know if there are any *other* buyers out there who would pay X for the house.
A computerized appraisal with a simple home inspection that shows the condition of the house would be more than enough to catch this. I've seen appraisals and comparative market analysis reports done and honestly, I think a computer algorithm would likely be just as accurate if not more accurate. There is no reason for a manual $400+ appraisal for most properties when a computer appraisal and a 5 minute walk thru to make sure the house is in the condition claimed would be enough.
Sure, but banks need to know that what they're paying (loaning out) makes sense. Thus a requirement for an appraisal. This is even more important if it's a government-backed loan -- i.e. public money.
But appraisals are somewhat worthless. The buyer and the seller both obviously think that the house is worth X or they wouldn't be doing the transaction. The only thing the appraisal does is shows that the last few buyers and sellers of similar properties came to the same conclusion. At the end of the day, a house is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it and averaging out the last few dozen sales to come up with an appraisal value does nothing to prevent bubbles or bad investments.
The rest is. Seriously. I want to know who is asking for employee social media accounts. Tell us. Please.
I doubt there is any one company doing all of it. biometric scanners are relatively common although most probably stay in a local database. Googling someone and looking a potential employee up on facebook is pretty common and it wouldn't be too far of stretch for an employer to request that you friend them before they offer you a job but asking for their password is just weird but there have been a few cases of it happening reported in the news. Giving fitness trackers to employees is relatively common and giving incentives like progressive does with driving doesn't seem like a very big leap. Basically, if presented the right way with the right incentives, people will voluntarily agree to all kinds of crazy stuff that individually seem mostly harmless but combined is kindof scary.
Another good example is this year's Nobel Prize winner:
https://www.wired.com/story/me...
From the article: "He hadn’t asked permission, he didn’t write a protocol, nothing. He simply shot from the hip."
It's amazing the amount of scientific discoveries that are discovered like this.
Likewise, just like with education, money isn't everything, and many times some of the best results come
from underfunded places with shoestring budgets or places where the scientists are "forgotten" and left
to their own devices.
Many of the great discoveries and inventions, from the earliest times to the mid-20th century, were made by independent researchers. Usually gentlemen of independent means, or famous scholars patronised by monarchs or nobles.
This gave them the independence to study whatever they thought interesting. No grants, no grant applications, no having to publish 200 papers a year just to stay employed.
A friend of mine, who knows far more about science and mathematics than I ever will, once told me that even the greatest scientists and mathematicians do well to make two or three big breakthroughs in a lifetime.
Not only were many scientists independent, many of the greatest discoveries were discovered by accident or happenstance. Being versed in multiple sciences and knowing when something is unusual helps too. If you're siloed and paid for doing a specific thing you are less likely to follow an interesting tangent.
It basically means that, in the event of IRROPS (primarily weather delays and cancellations) it takes a very long time for your route network to recover - meaning long days and very unhappy customers (and, depending on the cause, potentially on the hook for food and accommodations). Time to recovery from IRROPS goes parabolic as you get your average daily load factor much above 90%.
I would think that airlines would have a few backup standby planes that could swoop in during an emergency. I realize that this adds to the cost to have a few "idle" planes but if they were centrally located, I would think the added cost would be minimal compared to having to keep capacity available for cancellations.
Almost everything on YouTube is there with the blessing of their owners using the monatization scheme the owners request.
Um, not even close. You can find most TV shows as well as most movies. When you start typing a movie name, youtube even helpfully suggests appending the words "full movie" onto the end and in most cases you can easily find the full movie of most movie on youtube.
Youtube is a cesspool. Google is one of the leaders in AI but has made almost no attempt to clean up, categorize, or filter the stuff on Youtube.
And yet it's rare to be on a full flight. How much extra are they really making?
It seems that I'm on full flights a lot more than I used to be. I would say about 80% of my flights are full with many having waiting lists and/or paying people to voluntarily deboard. Airlines overbook and run at about 85% capacity. They can't increase that much more than the 85% because additional overbooking runs the risk of having too many flights where too many people can't get on the plane they paid for. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/1...
Maybe I wasn't clear. The whole concept of value is man made. Those applications are for human benefit. There is no intrinsic (which implies natural) 'value' to gold or anything else.
The value of everything is manmade. Even food only has intrinsic value because humans can eat it to get energy. Most stuff eventually comes down to "can I use it to get food". Gold will continue to be useful to get food as long as it has industrial and electrical uses. Does scarcity and hoarding affect the price, probably, but there are still plenty of marginal industrial uses of gold that would prop up the price if it started falling too much.
What intrinsic value does gold have?
Gold has a ton of practical applications and if gold was more plentiful (and therefore less costly), it would have a ton more practical applications. Most of the stuff we use copper for (like wiring in houses), gold actually works better, it's just too expensive to use for those applications. Because of the high price of gold, we instead use it sparingly and only where we absolutely have to, but even if the investment and jewellery applications of gold disappeared tomorrow, gold would still have considerable value.
Where I live in the USA stores most stores already have seasonal hours including big chain stores like home depot. Believe it or not, chain stores actually know when people shop and when they might get extra sales by staying open a little longer during spring planting, or when itâ(TM)s a waste of money to have the store open.
It does not appear that team Tsinghua-U have gotten to the part where their nano tube can self heal. Right now we are looking at an example to put next to Cold Fusion technology. I figure the experts, and team Tsinghua-U are going to get a hard lesson in the "Art of Tether"
It wouldn't have to self heal in the sci fi magical way. Even something as simple as non-destructively breaking into sections, coiling up, and floating down to earth would be sufficient. If we are talking geostationary orbit, we are talking around 22k miles of cable. It would likely be cost prohibitive to replace it not to mention that it would wrap almost entirely around the earth and if it had any weight or speed could cause significant damage.
"It made it clear that a passion for art-house and classic film was not exclusive to old white men"
WHO CLAIMS THIS?
I thought the same thing when I read this. I would venture to guess that of the people who frequent art houses and frequently watch classic films, the gender is predominately female (or females dragging their males along for the ride) but saying "passion for art-house and classic film was not exclusive to women" doesn't gain you any points in today's society.
It is better than just sneaking something small past an Asemi-I. Sneak something big past. Something that no human would ever let through. Like the surety being the first born child. Or possibly something more enforceable.
This happens to simplistic AIs that mark English essays. Well written gibberish can get high marks. The sad thing is that the AIs generally do a better job than human markers, which is probably more a statement about the humans doing the marking than the AI.
AI and humans work better together. AI to catch common mistakes and humans to make sure it is sane. Almost all of the AI in recent years can be easily beat by AI and humans working together. We should stop thinking of it as an either/or and instead let the AI do what it is good at and humans do what they are good at.
Iâ(TM)ve always though that the only way a space elevator would work would be some sort of modular self healing system. Something where a section could be destroyed and then quickly replaced and reattached.
"non-reasoning" is not a term used in our field, so I am going to have to ask that you please define your own terminology.
Non-conscious, means without conscious. To be conscious, a being must be aware of itself as disinct from its surroundings and be aware that it knows that it aware of this. That second level of abstraction is critical and makes a human different from a fish, while the first makes a fish different from a sea sponge.
As far as we know, you don't have to be conscious to be able to reason. A fish or dog can make assumptions about their environment and make reasonable inferences. When we are talking about reading, it becomes even easier. AI might be able to process the paper but it can't comprehend the paper. Comprehending the paper would be having the ability to read the paper and then answer questions about the paper with or without being conscious. One step further would be to have the ability to answer subjective questions like "is this a good deal?" or "does this treat both parties fairly?" questions that any lawyer or even non-lawyer can usually make a guess at.
Yep. And my guess is that if these types of AIs start to become commonplace that the human lawyers would just figure out how to word things so that it flies under the radar of the AI. A non-reasoning AI is never going to be able to catch stuff written by a lawyer intentionally trying to obscure and deceive.
Isn't this also illegal? It seems like this would be equivalent to prank calling 911 which I'm pretty sure is already illegal in many areas. Calling in and harassing law enforcement or giving fake tips to a crime seems like something that a person should be able to be prosecuted for. I'm all for peaceful protesting and call your congressman by the thousands and complain all you want but law breakers should be prosecuted not cheered. I saw a similar article today about a bunch of graffiti all over Yale and the liberals all cheering them all. We shouldn't be cheering on people who do illegal things whether it is crossing the border, interfering with law enforcement, or vandalism. There are plenty of peaceful non destructive ways to protest that are still very effective. Law breaking protesters should be prosecuted just like anyone else.
> This assumption is only valid if that equipment is sitting idle. That $100 million isn't sitting there idle so you don't have to sell the equipment to pay the tax rather you would pay the tax out of the revenue/profits.
You realize Tesla isn't profitable, right? It's been in operation for fifteen years trying to build a car company. 5% per year for 15% years = 75%. OP's proposal is that Tesla would have sold off 75% of their equipment and other assets so far in order to pay taxes on "having equipment".
A tax of 5% per year is probably excessive, it should probably be closer to 1% per year but the fact that Tesla isn't profitable after 15 years isn't a good argument against this. It's pretty easy to make 5% per year at close to 0% risk and the goal of most investments (and the historic average of the stock market) is around 15% per year. If you are making less than 5-15 percent a year, you are better off using that capital for something else. Now you could argue that new companies should have some sort of grace period but at this point, Tesla not being profitable for 15 years has a lot of catching up to do to get back the 5-15 percent per year they could have made with a passive investment.
You propose to tax that $100 million of accrued resources at 5% per year, so every year the new company needs to sell off 5% of their equipment, building, and furniture, in order to pay the tax. You've proposed an orderly method of deconstructing a nation, of unbuilding civilization and returning to the stone age over a period of 100 years or so.
This assumption is only valid if that equipment is sitting idle. That $100 million isn't sitting there idle so you don't have to sell the equipment to pay the tax rather you would pay the tax out of the revenue/profits. The OP might be off on his percentages but the concept is sound. I think the percentage should probably be more like 1% per 100 million so a billion dollar company should have to pay a 10% per year asset tax (obviously phased in over time to allow companies to self split). Also like the OP suggested, you could do the greater of the asset tax or the profit tax so they aren't double taxed.
As market share increases, so should the tax rate on your profits. This is NOT a penalty for success, but rather an incentive to split the company into competing companies that will take the good ideas into different directions, while simultaneously giving us MORE choices and MORE freedom.
I proposed the exact same thing in previous stories about huge market caps and splitting companies up. It seems like regulators have a very hard time deciding how and when to break a company up and even when they do, like the phone companies, it only takes a few years for them to be a problem again.
It seems like the best solution is not to break companies up but to just increase the tax rate as their market cap increases and let the company/market decide how best to split the company up. Companies would also no longer gobble up competitors and even unrelated companies if they knew it was going to increase their tax rate and decrease their profits. Like any regulation, it would have side effects, once disney isn't able to gobble up starwars and pixar, and you would likely have to keep a closer watch out for collusion but overall should help prevent the megacorporations of today (and of many dystopias)