Network effect is the moat not domain expertise. Domain expertise build on network effect (for instance the knowledge of the network) yes, but just simple domain expertise is only a training round way.
This is just flat out wrong. Making it removable means making it less effective, meaning using more materials etc.
What is much more concerning is that you seem to be totally fine with the government deciding how something should be designed for not reason what so ever.
Since it's inception in 1993, not a single global top 100 company have been created by any of the EU countries so the struggle is real.
However I would strongly caution against thinking that reducing paperwork to set up your company is somehow going to magically solve any of the fundamental problems with EUs ability to create sector dominating companies. But even if we assumed it would, that just means that the bigger companies now have even more leverage.
The real problem is deeper. It's about how EU is designed and structured. EU was created as a way to harmonize and standardize regulation between member countries to make trade simpler. (Anyone remember the cucumber directive)
However as technology have improved and manufacturing started supporting a much more bespoke and customized world, the union started started looking at other forms of regulation that went deeper, each step: expanded central authority and
reduced national discretion
We've seen things like one EU Patent court, GDPR, Cookie Law, AI Act, monetary currency all attempts at improving the efficiency of the single market, in reality, none of that have changed the fact that the EU still have not created a single industry leader since it's inception.
It's simply impossible to create a SpaceX, Tesla, Uber, OpenAI, Nvdia, Airbnb, even X, Linkedin or Facebook in Europe, not because of bureaucracy but because of the following 3 things:
1. EU tries to solve problems politically and centrally that startups are much better at solving locally
2. EU utilizes the extreme caution principle on everything and thus end up creating an extreme risk averse approach to what is allowed and what isn't. In effect startups end up creating businesses that the EU allow, rather than what the market need.
3. It's very hard for anyone let alone a startup to challenge the EU regulative system. Yet anyone of the above mentioned companies have constant battles with regulation and legislation. Even those companies can't really win over the EU regulative system, now try and be a startup trying to challenge som of the regulation, good luck.
Europe have plenty of talent and plenty of problems that the startup world could help solve, but as long as the EU politicians compete with their own startup environment at solving these problems no amount of bureaucratic easing is going allow for the full potential of the European talent base.
Blockhain.art | REMOTE or San Francisco, New York | Python | Full-Time | https://blockchain.art
Blockchain.art is developing GENIUS Wallet, an NFT Wallet for the high-end digital art market.
We are looking for an experienced Python Engineer with a passion for NFTs and blockchain to join our team and to help us take this product to market.
Yes it's from 1985 and no it doesn't actually give a number either.
The fact that you can't find it and have to go to 1 article which isn't even giving you that number, should tell you that maybe you haven't gotten all the facts here.
This is exactly what started my journey from worrying about the climate to understanding it to realizing the base for all this is much much much fragile and much much much more politisized.
So in other words. You can't give me a number, not even a ballpark number. Why do you think that is? Why isn't it important to you if it's 10% or 51% or 99%?
You are missing the point. You are assuming all their assumptions are correct and apparently as the only person in the world you know how much human made emissions contribute to the total CO2 levels. As I wrote in another post. Write the Nobel Price committee if you know and you will be famous.
Edit:
"This is a complex problem, and our study is at the beginning. It's not just a matter of predicting global (outdoor) CO2 levels," he said. "It's going from the global background emissions, to concentrations in the urban environment, to the indoor concentrations, and finally the resulting human impact. We need even broader, interdisciplinary teams of researchers to explore this: investigating each step in our own silos will not be enough."
That talks about countries contributing relative to each other NOT relative to natural. Please point to the number. It's not there because it doesn't exist because we don't know.
And let me put it like this. If you know the number send it to the nobel committee and you would be getting one.
yet we dont have a ballpark number that says how much is human made and how much is natural. It doesent exist even in the IPCC report. You are welcome to prove me wrong.
Neither have i seen disagreement there. The point is that the graph is used to claim that we will get to these levels and that combustion is the reason we will reach them in 2100 and that the solution is to reduce fossil fuel combustion.
I am claiming that the research paper is not about cognitive capabilities (as that is taken for granted in the headline) but about fossil fuels effect on CO2 hence the title of the paper.
"Fossil Fuel Combustion Is Driving Indoor CO2 Toward Levels Harmful to Human Cognition"
If it was just about CO2 there would be no need to include fossil fuel combustion unless of course they know exactly how much CO2 is caused by fossil fuel combustion and how much is natural variation. There is no conclusion on that which is why you don't find an actual number of how much humans affect.
It's one thing to talk about CO2 levels and it's affect on human cognition, even that is not conclusive as is also obvious when you read the paper. But they go way way further to conclude that if we want to avoid that we should decrease fossil fuel use.
On what basis do they do that? No one knows how much is driven by humans and how much is natural
Do they have any evidence that;
1) that's without consequences,
2) it's the only way to deal with increasing CO2 if if it is harmful.
This is not research this is mixing together a bunch of different assumptions and using CO2 effect on cognitive abilities to talk about fossil fuel.