Why is “data driven” policing bad when we’re pretty much striving for “data driven” everything else in government?
The EFF argues that the methods here are pseudo scientific, but they seem more rigorous than many of the other “data driven” methods governments are implementing in other contexts.
This does the opposite actually, it forced the federal government to de-prioritize areas with worse service in favor of areas with good but not as good as 100/100 service.
There are parts of the US that don't even have access to 15/3. This reclassification would put them in the same group as people with 75 up and down.
> This crisis in Texas is also a good argument for why price gouging during a shortage doesn’t work the way anti-regulatory advocates said it would.
There's no way to make that judgement until we see some actual metrics instead of anecdotes. It's possible this could have been worse without increased prices.
I'm not sure why it's difficult to believe. Universities are more than just faculty. In the past few decades, universities have become full service institutions that provide more than just education and have added an army of counselors and administrators.
The things that have seen large price increases are things that aren't scalable i.e. they still require the same amount of human input labor to produce
Childcare is constrained by the fact that each childcare worker by law (for better or worse) can only look after so many children at once. This ratio varies by state but it's usually around 4 children per childcare worker. The result is that it has to be expensive because (short of having robot caretakers) it always takes 1/4 of a person's labor.
Education is similar, but has gotten worse in the past few decades w.r.t. labor requirements. While class sizes have remained relatively constant, there are more administrators, special needs educators, counselors, etc. servicing the same group of students.
This isn't to say they shouldn't be regulated, or that there isn't room for improvement. College tuition and textbooks could certainly use some downward pressure.
> Your comment, at face value, seems to defend the status quo.
The comment is observational, not persuasive. Few people are happy with the current situation we find ourselves in. I'm certainly not.
> The author alleges there was a deal made by Clinton to allow M&As in the defense industry - he says that politicians and financial industry are both to blame. Can you provide an alternate explanation?
The author's argument is that the lack of competition in military suppliers is due to relaxed regulatory scrutiny. I don't find this convincing. Even if U.S. regulatory bodies had aggresively enforced antitrust, many of these companies would have gone bankrupt sooner or later because demand for military assets collapsed after the cold war. This, combined with the fact that newer competitors aren't entering the market, means we'd still be in a similar position due to attrition.
It's silly to blame the financial industry because they're reacting to the incentives that the government created. It isn't the investment bank's fault iRobot is worth more as a tech company than a defense company. This is akin to blaming an engineer choosing to work for a tech company rather than a defense contractor because the tech company pays more.
> The author clearly argues that this is due to anti competitive business practices that forced Boeing to withdraw from the bid. Northrup purchased a key supplier, now refuses to sell to Boeing.
That's a fair point, but I think it's trivial in the larger picture. There were other SRM manufacturers lost in the decades prior to the Orbital acquisition. The fact that we allowed the the number of suppliers to decrease to two and didn't encourage any new suppliers is indicative of a much larger problem. We can't expect to place these companies in stasis for decades until we decide we're ready to buy from them again. People and companies move on without the proper incentives.
The "loopholes" are there for a reason. They allow the government to indirectly further their policy goals without much effort e.g. tax avoidance programs for real estate investors to encourage the building of more housing, tax credits for parents to encourage people to have more children, credits for electric vehicles to encourage the development of renewables, etc.
This is misguided criticism that lays the blame on financial entities for a decades-long trend in shifting government priorities.
Who else remembers Obama's quip in the 2012 debates equivocating buying naval warships with purchasing horses and bayonets? Politicians have used the concept of a "modern 21st century military" as the rationale for decreasing naval investment in new submarines and now those same politicians are surprised that there are fewer companies that make submarines. Similarly, w.r.t. modernizing the nuclear arsenal, how can you expect a healthy competitive marketplace to exist for a product that no one has purchased in 50 years?
The logic is wrong here. Assuming bitcoin is a deflationary asset I.e. constantly goes up, the value of any bitcoin will be worth more than the energy used to mine it.
For example, mining the first bitcoin didn’t create $50K in carbon costs.
That's irrelevant here. We have the counterfactual study (i.e. what would have happened if the SC decided the other way) that concluded that Bush would have widened his lead. Stating that Gore likely would have won is factually incorrect.
> At which side of the setup? To get the data from the neighborhood hub to my computer? To get the data from the start of the ISP's network to the neighborhood? To get the data from you to my ISP's network?
> And are you meaning actually from Netflix or from a CDN or from a Netflix node in an ISP's location or what?
Netflix has a proxy node on your ISP's network, or at least somewhere closer to it than where my computer sits. The video makes a smaller trip to your computer.
That's one optimization, among others, utilized by CPs.
> I pay my ISP for bandwidth. WHAT I choose to download with that bandwidth has no impact on their bottom line
This isn't true in reality. For example, it's significantly more expensive to deliver video traffic from say, my computer to yours, than it would be to deliver from Netflix to your computer.