I like that they include a cute cat as a point of reference, so I can tell how outdated IE9 is by comparing it to Peak Lolcat on Google Trends. I realize this is a bit unfair to IE9, but it's not too far off.
Finding good content is a problem for me in the sense that content consumption has become a new form of entertainment. So if you don't entirely dismiss entertainment, then, yes, finding good content I will enjoy and maybe learn something from is a problem to me. The main issue I see here is that the incentives in social networks are all wrong: we're being prodded into over-sharing because that's where the money is. As a result of that we're drowning in a shit-stream of content.
Imagine Facebook with this rule: when a user posts content, that content is rated by popularity (number of likes/shares/comments). Every user has a popularity score. Users can opt in to being ranked on a public popularity list in, let's say, up to 3 categories like Sports, Tech, Music, Politics, etc. Any FB user can check out the "top 50" lists for topics they're interested in, and subscribe/friend/follow people that are on those lists.
Oink.me.uk/.cd getting shut down made me quit caring about commercial music. And seeing how Alan was declared non-guilty later made me really really angry (the most awesome music service was killed and there was no reason or legislation to it).
Ok. Sorry my sarcasm hasn't come through. I read that. The point of what I'm saying is that I dont think that is possible.
As a back-of-the-fag-packet calculation: 1,000 beds, if you are extremely lucky and well prepared 80% paid occupancy (staff, as well as unoccupied rooms), at $1,600pcm (their website mentions this as an average). ~$15m a year gross income. Minus operating costs, of which there are many large ones listed above, salaries etc. you'd be extremely lucky to be making a couple of million a year. Considering the ship alone is going to cost you > $50m for anything servicable (let alone the fanciful designs on their website), I think you'd be lucky to pay it off in 20 years.
> " He's probably more concerned with generating publicity for the ideas than making a perfect investment."
And that's the problem. This strikes me as a Bioshock-y move - a libertarian who's sick of the "oppressive" government getting in his way, so now he's going to create his libertarian government-free paradise floating in the open seas.
... and has less to do with actually funding startups. The startups in this case seem like a means to an end, and as a startup I'd be very unsettled by that.
Not to mention, I can pay similar rent here in SF and not give up a big chunk of equity just to have office space.
... I'd much, much rather be policed by pretty much any western police force as opposed to a PMC. Heck, I'd sonner submit myself to the Chinese gongan than a PMC.
IMO private military contractors are pretty much a non-answer to the problem of policing. I'd go as far as to say that PMCs are an inappropriate solution to any problem that doesn't involve lots of people getting shot.
> Think of it as a big festival with less alcohol and run for a longer time period.
Festivals have to deal with minor security, not criminal problems. Police are still around - whether patrolling the area, or in an on-site office, or on the end of a phone call - to deal with any major problems (all the way up to rape and murder).
It's still an information asymmetry story. From my cursory reading, the contribution is to identify what kind of information asymmetry is involved in healthcare, namely that it's more about the cost of treatment than about the probability of illness.
I know that health insurance is often used to teach asymmetric information models, but it wasn't always obvious that it's a good example. Someone selling a used car might know a lot more about the car's hidden costs than anyone else, but does the typical buyer of health insurance really know more about his or her probability of illness than a sophisticated insurer with good doctors and actuaries and a lot of data?
This led some economists to argue that the problem in health insurance markets is not asymmetric information, but rather too much information—the insurer already knows you will be a bad risk. This research makes it clear that there really is asymmetric information and spells out what it is.
I don't see where he outright dismisses other people's opinions. In fact, he's repeatedly said to people who disagree with him to "point to a sentence which you think is false". You will have to be more specific than that.
It's impossible to speak for someone else, but I believe pg would very much welcome someone DH-sixing him.
Another thing to keep in mind that this is not some long lasting argument that pg has with the RIAA, it's an essay on property.