I am a big Tyler Cowen fan and like his choices for guest but it is almost on listenable to me. He prepares his exact questions beforehand and tends to stick to them instead of having a conversation. It makes his delivery wooden and the interview boring.
Would consumer really be objectively worse? The small margins are only early in a generation that last 7 years. The hard core gamers will need to pay more to get a console but the consoles would quickly drop in price. Also, the games would likely be much cheaper.
Which of course is the same reason why android and ios will never show you data on how often you use your phone and allow you to send less time on your phone...
They don't want kids sending thousands of dollars. It is bad PR for pocket change for them. They already have options in the OS to prevent this. They just need to change the defaults and a few additional features.
Transparency mode works well on Airpods pro but I never walk around busy streets with both earbuds in. I strongly recommend only using one and listening to audio books or podcasts
I guess part of it is that I don't really feel a need to always be listening to some kind of soundtrack. I actually do listen to podcasts when I drive, especially on the highway. But I don't even routinely have music on in my house and don't really like working with music in the background.
Ugh, I hate that, those people with contonuous soundtracks. They don't seem to realize it's loud, makes them speak louder still and is a huge hit to their ability to pay attention.
Most normal people I know have 10+ year old laptops machines. People that buy laptops every 3 years are pros or enthusiasts that want the best performance.
This is pretty idealistic. Humans use reputation to judge everything. Even if we could bend human nature in this one area, how would it work? Who is really in a position to judge cutting edge research? Only other good researchers can really understand and judge someone's research. How do you tell who the good researchers are without reputation? How do you know how much each person is contributing to each insight? You quickly see that the same group of people need to judge each other and then you are at the whim of social dynamics and bias of the group.
The regulations that Uber and Airbnb violated were in a grey area. In addition, the violations were largely supported by the general public. The generous spirit of the regulations on taxis where to protect the general public. Uber were for the most part just as safe as taxis. The not so generous reasons for taxi regulations was to increase the income of taxi companies. In many ways, Uber and Airbnb had the moral high ground of forcing governments to remove regulations that benefit a select few at the expense of the general public.
I think this was not possible at that time. Bank business was a lot more personal back in the old days. People knew each other and you wouldn't want to be the one in the community being know for having ordered a sex toy.
I completely agree. I also think there is a racial and class bias to this. Both Rich and middle class white people are taught to complain to authority figures to get their way. Poor people assume they don't understand the system and don't have time to do research or consult with family members to let them know that they are being fucked over.
Both Rich and middle class white people are taught to complain to authority figures to get their way.
I need to see data based on the same environment and economic situation to believe that line. Rich is rich. Frankly, saying "white people are taught to complain to authority figures" is a gross generalization and untrue with specific groups in this country. Many whites are taught to respect authority figures and not question them.
Oh, and poor people don't assume they don't understand the system. They assume that they understand it all too well and it just isn't interested in their success and that crosses racial lines rather painfully.
