The number quoted in the article said there are only 500 taxi's in SF right now? That seems super low and not significant - since all the estimates I can find for SF ubers in the area are in the tens of thousands.
I'm sure once more people will become drivers if surge continues - and people will be looking for work again
The article uses the premise that we have 15 years to avert a runaway crisis - and points out that nuclear won't be able to scale by then.
That second part is entirely true. But most people don't actually think the world will stop existing then even if a few points are knocked off of GDP. Clean energy production will still be important 50 years from now.
I think the discussion misses the most important part:
The goal of the Netflix prize wasn't to come up with the best algorithm - it was to make the Netflix brand exciting and legitimate to engineers. At the time, Netflix wasn't super high-tech and I'm sure it was hard for them to get the top talent they needed. It seems silly in retrospect now, but I'm certain the reason this was approved was because they wanted the free advertising this would provide within graduate classes and academia in general.
I'm not even sure if he would argue that this is a bad thing?
I 100% think a society with a stratified lower caste could be more stable than one where everyone has equal resources - but I don't think that makes it better.
I'm fairly certain that Tesla's are way cheaper than the model T was.
It isn't like families could afford multiple cars back then. They were selling less than a million model Ts a years - which would have represented a large segment of the car market.
Could someone with more knowledge explain to me "urgent care" and if there could be a case made to expand it?
I got injured (not too bad) and went to urgent care - my wait time was about 10 minutes. It costs me nothing, seems like a good system that would catch a lot of these borderline ER cases we hear about.
In my case, my insurer runs the hospital so it seems like they have an incentive to keep costs reasonable. But maybe, if you're a hospital and you are running numbers on adding ER or Urgent Care you default more to ER since you know you can just bill the insurance 10% over cost (or whatever) no matter what.
The thing about your hunting theory is that lots of other animals use coordinated social attack on prey. They have to do risk/benefit based on how many other of their kind are there and how many other of the other kind. I also don't think charging an animal has a small amount of optionality - they have to decide how
That being said I believe the freeing of the hands was probably crucial to brain development. The trade-off of sending so much energy to the brain became worth it once you had the physical means to build tools and such.
I agree. I also think discussions like this article assume that running a company is unique from other similar choices.
Is trying to become a singer/actor becoming an entrepreneur? Its fairly similar in terms of entering a winner-take-all field where you'll face a lot of adversity at the beginning.
Is switching careers to something your eduction is not in the same type of decision that an entrepreneur makes? Even if you are just switching to another 9-5?
Is someone who leaves a salary job to one that is paid mostly in sales commission an entrepreneur? Even if you are working for a company?
I don't think any of these situations are identical - but if you are trying to figure out "is this cultural or genetic" it seems worthy to think of your definition. After all, being a tech CEO is not something everyone wants to do.
I disagree. They have a couple hundred students there at any time and the percent of people who will make an actual career from it is still relatively low. Way better than moving to Hollywood with no connections but it is still extremely winner take all.
I still don't get how this solves any major issues. Neither major companies or the vast majority of people need to wire money at 2am. The main utility of banks (and the main profit center) is giving users the ability to spend money on credit.
Crypto doesn't solve that. I feel like everything you said about the upside of crypto would have applied even more so to the invention of 24 hour ATMs. Was it a huge upside to users they could get money at 2am? Yes. Did it change banking - no. Will faster transfer be upside for consumers? Yes. Will it change banking - probably not the existing banks will just get faster at it and things will be marginally better. I can already use zelle to transfer instantly.
The number quoted in the article said there are only 500 taxi's in SF right now? That seems super low and not significant - since all the estimates I can find for SF ubers in the area are in the tens of thousands.
I'm sure once more people will become drivers if surge continues - and people will be looking for work again