Exactly, it doesn't seem any different than any other new business model, where there are lots of new entrants and eventually only the best (in terms of competition) survive long term.
interesting, you are right, reading a bit on 'obligate parthenogenesis'. I guess we are stuck with these crayfish then. One interesting bit, many species have been observed to switch to parthenogenesis when acting as an invasive species, but were not so in their native habitat. Almost like a fall back mechanism.
A good point. But bacteria are notorious for swapping genes, they aren't all clones of a single ancestor. I was thinking of a predator or disease which would wipe out the population since there is no resistance due to genetic variation. Most parthenogenesis species will also reproduce sexually, depending on conditions. AFAIK, pure play parthenogenesis without some other mechanism of genetic variation is considered a real threat to species survival.
It will be interesting to see what happens. Sexual reproduction is critical for spreading favorable genes like resistance to predators, poisons, etc. Since these are all clones they aren't going to have those advantages and sooner or later will encounter some factor that wipes them out. Apple farmers face a similar problem since each variety is a single genetic variant that is grafted onto other trees.
Fair enough, *on paper* the bank cannot loan more than it has. But all those deposits don't have to come from outside the bank, as the other commenters point out. An initial deposit of $100 could be loaned out multiple times by the bank, as long as it keeps the reserve requirement in the vault on each pass.
Perhaps I misunderstand, but it sounds like you are missing the point of fractional reserve banking. That means the bank can loan out more than it receives in deposits, with only a fraction of the total outstanding actually in the vault. That's the reserve percentage mandated by the US government.
Why the heck would anyone want to meet in a rain forest? It is hot, humid, and full of foot long poisonous millipedes. Not to mention the bird-eating spiders. And any minute a bunch of bulldozers might attack.
Innovations don't happen in a vacuum, they are always built on things that came before them. Often it is one or more features that are the innovation. For example, Google didn't innovate the search engine, they did innovate the search algorithm which was far superior to anything else available. They didn't invent web-based free email, but they did provide IIRC the first offering of a significant amount of storage for free. Or something like that, people flocked to it for a reason. Typically the innovation also matches nicely with a pain point for users or customers. Nowadays even if their copycat products have some new features, they tend not to be anything worth remembering.
On the one hand, it is wrong to enslave everyone else because you have some fantasy about what *might* happen. On the other hand, things bite back and things might happen as you say, like a runaway virus or something. The problem is, how likely does the threat have to be before we can justify taking people's fundamental rights away from them? That's the catch isn't it? In this case, AFAIK, there isn't really much chance of something going wrong and affecting other people. It's not like they are making custom nanoprobes or viruses, is it?
If a business could simply raise its prices, it would already do so. If they could charge a million dollars a pop, do you think they wouldn't already be doing that? Especially if a company has competitors which are unaffected. Would the company raise their prices and the competitors don't? What would the result of that approach be?
Gets even less correlated if you account for the actual date of the lunar new year, which varies by a couple weeks over the five years in question.
I heard a joke once. An economist was walking down the street and saw a $100 bill lying on the sidewalk. He glanced at it and kept walking. A bystander saw this and asked "why didn't you pick up the $100?" The economist replied "Don't be silly, if that was worth anything someone would have picked it up already."
The point is, as you say, if there were a reliable pre-LNY dip, arbitrageurs would keep leveraging it until it went out of existence.
If all one wants is 'a computer' there are plenty of other freely configurable options. Hacking the Switch has other motivations. In some cases probably just for the challenge of it.
I always figured they are too young to know any better, whereas old folks like me hear the latest pop songs and think "I have heard this same thing a hundred times already"
Now the "pizza pirate" will follow the autonomous delivery vehicle around in order to rob the recipient who has helpfully been lured out of the house. And barefoot no less so probably won't give chase.
Slashdot Mirror
the company is reportedly considering a holiday 2017 launch
Simply amazing, not only is Google just re-doing what others have already done, they are trying to go back in time and do it at the same time!
they believe it allows them to deliver a superior level of service.
Well what is the problem then? The market will reward them if this is a level of service customers value.
Exactly, it doesn't seem any different than any other new business model, where there are lots of new entrants and eventually only the best (in terms of competition) survive long term.
interesting, you are right, reading a bit on 'obligate parthenogenesis'. I guess we are stuck with these crayfish then. One interesting bit, many species have been observed to switch to parthenogenesis when acting as an invasive species, but were not so in their native habitat. Almost like a fall back mechanism.
A good point. But bacteria are notorious for swapping genes, they aren't all clones of a single ancestor. I was thinking of a predator or disease which would wipe out the population since there is no resistance due to genetic variation. Most parthenogenesis species will also reproduce sexually, depending on conditions. AFAIK, pure play parthenogenesis without some other mechanism of genetic variation is considered a real threat to species survival.
It will be interesting to see what happens. Sexual reproduction is critical for spreading favorable genes like resistance to predators, poisons, etc. Since these are all clones they aren't going to have those advantages and sooner or later will encounter some factor that wipes them out. Apple farmers face a similar problem since each variety is a single genetic variant that is grafted onto other trees.
All depends on how the future defines "job." Our subsistence gathering days had 100% employment, but not many of those jobs are around nowadays.
A lot of cloud based security camera systems have the same problem.
Fair enough, *on paper* the bank cannot loan more than it has. But all those deposits don't have to come from outside the bank, as the other commenters point out. An initial deposit of $100 could be loaned out multiple times by the bank, as long as it keeps the reserve requirement in the vault on each pass.
Perhaps I misunderstand, but it sounds like you are missing the point of fractional reserve banking. That means the bank can loan out more than it receives in deposits, with only a fraction of the total outstanding actually in the vault. That's the reserve percentage mandated by the US government.
Why the heck would anyone want to meet in a rain forest? It is hot, humid, and full of foot long poisonous millipedes. Not to mention the bird-eating spiders. And any minute a bunch of bulldozers might attack.
If it was really Artificial Intelligence you could just say "computer, do so and so" and it would figure out for itself how to do it.
Since this headline confirms my bias I will not read TFA and just assume it is 100% valid.
A better story is the rest of TFA which has nothing to do with Google. The author's opinions on the benefits of ride hailing services in SE Asia
Innovations don't happen in a vacuum, they are always built on things that came before them. Often it is one or more features that are the innovation. For example, Google didn't innovate the search engine, they did innovate the search algorithm which was far superior to anything else available. They didn't invent web-based free email, but they did provide IIRC the first offering of a significant amount of storage for free. Or something like that, people flocked to it for a reason. Typically the innovation also matches nicely with a pain point for users or customers. Nowadays even if their copycat products have some new features, they tend not to be anything worth remembering.
Multiple exploits are available, aren't they?
On the one hand, it is wrong to enslave everyone else because you have some fantasy about what *might* happen. On the other hand, things bite back and things might happen as you say, like a runaway virus or something. The problem is, how likely does the threat have to be before we can justify taking people's fundamental rights away from them? That's the catch isn't it? In this case, AFAIK, there isn't really much chance of something going wrong and affecting other people. It's not like they are making custom nanoprobes or viruses, is it?
It isn't clearly stated, but it seems the news is some additional collaboration to vet apps in F-Droid
If a business could simply raise its prices, it would already do so. If they could charge a million dollars a pop, do you think they wouldn't already be doing that? Especially if a company has competitors which are unaffected. Would the company raise their prices and the competitors don't? What would the result of that approach be?
Also, ransomware has some positive benefits. For so many areas of computer security, the cost of poor practices is externalized onto the innocent.
Just think of it as a whole world Chaos Monkey.
Gets even less correlated if you account for the actual date of the lunar new year, which varies by a couple weeks over the five years in question.
I heard a joke once. An economist was walking down the street and saw a $100 bill lying on the sidewalk. He glanced at it and kept walking. A bystander saw this and asked "why didn't you pick up the $100?" The economist replied "Don't be silly, if that was worth anything someone would have picked it up already."
The point is, as you say, if there were a reliable pre-LNY dip, arbitrageurs would keep leveraging it until it went out of existence.
If all one wants is 'a computer' there are plenty of other freely configurable options. Hacking the Switch has other motivations. In some cases probably just for the challenge of it.
Lyrics totally devoid of meaning and a "beat" that's just kind of a cacophony of rhythm and noise.
You sound like my mom describing Jethro Tull
I always figured they are too young to know any better, whereas old folks like me hear the latest pop songs and think "I have heard this same thing a hundred times already"
Now the "pizza pirate" will follow the autonomous delivery vehicle around in order to rob the recipient who has helpfully been lured out of the house. And barefoot no less so probably won't give chase.