Interestingly I learned Python by creating scripts to automate certain tasks in runescape - although I kept all the money on the account as I didn't want to cheat the game, I just wanted to make a good enough program that wouldn't get caught by their bot detection system.
It's a really fun game - if you're ever bored, you should check it out again! They have an 'old school runescape' which is essentially how the game was in 2007, without the later changes. Definitely 10/10 nostalgia.
Are you intentionally ignoring the critically acclaimed pipeline of shows/movies Netflix has produced, or are you just ignorant to their actual success.
They aren't _just_ a platform for content producers. They are producers of content. Competitors need to outprice them, our perform them, and outproduce them.
The key is to find a cause to help in which you truly recognize the blessings/fortune/privilege/opportunities you have.
I've volunteered with animal shelters, geriatric hospitals, youth sports, and with veterans. Animal shelters were fun because I love animals, but they didn't humble me like working with veterans and the elderly. Every time I work with those groups, I learn more about life, and get insight into ways I could change how I'm living to be a better influence on society. I think that's the key - at least, that was the key for me.
Figuring out whether or not Bezos is doing behind-the-scenes censorship of his own media outlet ultimately depends on the internal organizational structure of WaPo and Amazon.
If the most senior leader of WaPo - the person in charge of greenlighting or pulling articles that get published - may be fired/terminated/reassigned by Bezos, or someone who Bezos oversees, then there is a conflict of interest that can't be ignored, and will always be inherent within the organizations until this is remedied.
Now, just because there's a conflict of interest does not mean that shady reporting is occurring. But, we cannot definitively say that WaPo is unbiased towards Amazon, unless there is something about the internal controls that would separate Bezos from the ultimate decision-making.
My whole comment assumes the game isn't zero sum. I recognize that globalism helps the poor. My conclusion is that it helps wealthy individuals who own these corporations more than the masses.
To break this down further, the masses gain economic value and employment. The wealthy gain political/economic influence to solidify their wealth and position.
I'm not talking about low-balling millionaires. I mean the billionaires and royalty of the world. The people who own industries, not just companies.
Globalism has allowed multinational corporations to expand their economic and political influence - since they have the economies of scale to expand globally. It's true that more people have been lifted out of poverty, but the fact remains that globalism favors wealthy owners of multinationals over everyone else.
Look at how much influence western oil/tech companies have in countries around the world. Lobbies are stronger in our political realm, it really isn't fair to say that these policies benefited the poor more than the wealthy.
That's not to say that globalism is bad. But we need to be careful because as the wealthy's influence and power grows, it becomes harder to solve the problems that will come with the age of automation.
People don't buy Tesla because of what it does (make a profit selling cars) they buy it because they're making cars "to make the world a better place," by releiving reliance on fossil fuels.
The why is more influential than the what. It's the same reason people are dumb enough to pay a 40% premium for Apple products that are equal in any meaningful metric to a PC.
You may have meant this, but I want to make sure people aren't mistaken - you can't run a government like a for-profit company, but you still need to run it like a company.
And a company only exists as long as it has money. Our current government has a tremendous amount of debt. It's awesome to consider social programs like UBI, single payer, etc, but unless it's fiscally sustainable, we're stealing from our future generations. And that would be among the most horrific things a generation can do to another.
Possible reasons:
Diet (any non-red meat eating diet for nutrient deficiencies, or too much meat due to reliance on fast food),
drug/stimulant use (YOLO culture?), More sedentary lifestyle (Desk jobs, social media for 'entertainment'),
Lack of resources to take time off from work (too many hours + high rents = no time/money to do have non-home hobbies)
The interesting statistic was the urban regions were less pronounced than the suburbs, which may indicate something either cultural or economic that may drive this change.
Either way, it's unfortunate. We're living in the best possible time in history, and many millennials are being impacted by something which - in some cases - may be completely avoidable.
After reading, the author makes some valid points, and also some not so valid points.
one of the particularly valid points is that airlines shouldn't be allowed to overbook. By offsetting this with no-refund policies, it seems like a win-win negotiation. It may not be "free market," but it makes logistical sense as it takes resources to re-route passengers and deal with the negative PR from booting passengers.
One of the not-so-valid points is the author's statement that "It makes no sense to allow airlines to charge an astronomical fare just because a flight is nearly full, and a dirt-cheap fare for an advance booking." The fundamental idea of supply and demand is that when supply is high and demand is low (when a flight is immediately listed), prices are lower than they would be when supply is low and demand is high (last minute interest in a semi-full flight). While most economic models have varying degrees of subjectivity, this is not one of them.
Ideologies are brilliant for discussion, but in practice, they fail to capture every possible variable and account for the impact when arriving at an outcome. Some amount of procedure (i.e. regulation) improves operations and efficacy. By the same token, too much regulation stifles operations.
Transportation is less of "creative" business, and more of a "procedural" business. As such, it can benefit from regulated procedures. The key is not to hide behind a wall of ignorance and ideology, but instead try to find the procedures that optimize the output for consumers and businesses.
It's an accounting term, that's relatively recent (~500 years). It's literally a "concern" about the company's ability to "go" on. A going concern. It could also reference the concerns that are ongoing - namely operational concerns - that need to be addressed.
The biggest concern I see with eliminating IP is that it effectively eliminates an incentive for innovation. That doesn't mean innovation halts completely, but if the system of compensation does not change, it can be reasonably expected that rates of innovation adjust according to the incentives available for innovators.
What I would prefer is a discounted lump sum paid out to IP owners, at the time of patent filing/copyright. For instance, instead of having to legally defend a medical patent for 20 years and overcharge hospitals/distributors during that time, receive a discounted cash flow equal to the approximate amount of value that would be forgone by pricing the innovation at competitive prices.
Of course this system isn't foolproof, and would be subject to tremendous "gaming" from patent holders and regulators, but innovators could reap the rewards of their innovative research without having to deal with pricing their products out of reach for some individuals who can't afford the price.
Again, it isn't foolproof. But there exists a "most efficient" means of balancing the risk/reward of innovation that lies somewhere between "IP rights should be forever" and "No IP at all."
Nothing is inherently "wrong" with taxi's, they're just inefficient. Just like there isn't anything "wrong" with encyclopedias, but why would you waste time looking in an encyclopedia/dictionary when you can just do a google search? That time has value, and if you choose to waste time, you're choosing to throw away money.
That being said, taxis have an advantage of being available if people don't have a phone or it's uncharged. So there is a marginal, practical use for taxis, but by-and-large mobile ride sharing is more effective.
It's a really fun game - if you're ever bored, you should check it out again! They have an 'old school runescape' which is essentially how the game was in 2007, without the later changes. Definitely 10/10 nostalgia.