Those are great points! Another related law is from queuing theory: waiting time goes to infinity when utilization approaches 100%. You need your processes/machines/engineers to have some slack otherwise some tasks will wait forever.
Yes, it’s inefficient. Yes, some people want that!
"I don't care it the climate's fucked, I want to live away from civilization and drive 100 miles a day everywhere"
Of course we shouldn't hyper-optimize everything, but sooner people realize our environment depends on not everyone getting exactly what they want whenever they want the better. Living in a (walkable) city is just one such concession towards the environment we ought to make, even if we don't "want" to.
Just whack an externality tax on fossil fuels and things like cutting down wilderness, job done.
Also, you have the mindset of a typical anti-social coastal elite who thinks “oh no big deal we can just raise the cost of living for all the poor rural types by sticking on a tax because I want to go LARP as a Victorian manor lord. And people don’t bend to my every whim immediately or live exactly like me so I want to be in total control of the 50 miles around me.”
All I'm saying is that the efficiency arguments are silly unless you are comparing like for like. If we're suggesting that people simply do less because it's more efficient, well, no-one is going to do that without an incentive.
Everyone having 50 sqmi obviously isn't realistic (there actually is not enough space on the globe), but equally, if the idea is that everyone _has_ to live in a metropolitan apartment because each person has to use (1/7billion) of the resources, you're going to see an uprising, that just won't fly with people.
The best outcome is probably to convince as many people as possible to live in a shoebox so that the rest of us can still have a decent life. It seems to be working!
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-publ...
https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawl-cancels...
So while what you're saying is true, it doesn't disprove anything. LA is much less dense and therefore has much less "stuff" available for its inhabitants. But it's still more than a rural area.
If she had 0, she ran the risk of turning customers away and losing money. Any more than 1 is excess waste. Having just 1 meant she’d served every possible customer and only “wasted” 1 slice.
Eg at Google (this was ten years ago or so), we could always spend leftover networking capacity on syncing a tiny bit faster and more often between our data centres. And that would improve users' experience slightly, but it also not something that builds up a backlog.
At a factory, you could always have some idle workers swipe the floor a bit more often. (Just a silly example, but there are probably some tasks like that?)
For example, you can assign priorities to the loads on your systems, so that you can shed lower priority loads to create some slack for emergencies, without having to run your system idle under during lulls.
I get what the article is trying to say, but they shouldn't write off optimisation as easily as that.
So you’re fixing the micro economics of the queue but not the macro. Queues still suck when they fill up, even if they fill with last minute jobs.
Eg if you are running video conferencing software, and all of a sudden you are having bandwidth problems, you typically first want to drop some finer details in the video, and then you want to drop the audio feed.
In any case, if you dropped something, you leave it dropped, instead of picking it back up again a few seconds later. People don't care about past frames.
(However, queuing instead of outright dropping can still makes sense in this scenario, for any information that's younger than what human reaction times can perceive.)
Similarly in your scenario, you'd want to explicitly communicate to people what the expectations are. Perhaps you give out deep discounts for tasks that can be dropped (that's what eg some electriticy providers do), or you can give people 'insurance' where they get some monetary compensation if their task gets dropped. (You'd want to be careful how you design such a scheme, to avoid perverse incentives. But it's all doable.)
> So you’re fixing the micro economics of the queue but not the macro. Queues still suck when they fill up, even if they fill with last minute jobs.
I don't know, I had pretty positive experiences so far when eg I got bumped off a flight due to overbooking. The airline offered decent compensation.
Overbooking and bumping people off _improves_ the macro situation: despite the occasional compensation you have to pay, when unexpectedly everyone who booked actually showed up, overbooking still makes the airline extra money, and via competition this is transformed into lower ticket prices. Many people love lower airfares, and have shown a strong revealed preference of putting up with a lot of stuff eg RyanAir pulls as long as they get cheap tickets.
There’s no room to absorb shocks. We saw a drastic version of this during COVID-19 induced supply chain collapse. Car manufacturers had built near 100% just in time manufacturing that they couldn’t absorb chip shortages and it took them years to get back up.
It also leaves no room for experimentation. Whatever experiment can only happen outside a system not from within it.
1. Firms compete
2. Firms either increase their efficiency or die
3. Efficient firms are more susceptible to shocks
4. Firm shutdown and closures are themselves shocks
5. Eventually the system reaches a critical point where the aggregate susceptibility is higher than the aggregate of shocks that will be generated by shutdowns and closures
6. Any external shock will cause a cascade
There's essentially a "commons" where firms trade susceptibility for efficiency. Or in other words, susceptibility is pooled while the rewards for efficiency are separate.
A species will specialise for a niche, and outcompete a generalist. But when conditions change, the generalist can adapt and the specialist suffers.
Something you personally (in your head) believe to be a general law, or rule, or truth (canon). It's roughly synonymous with "mental model".
A cannon is a weapon.
1. Firms compete
2. Some firms get ahead
3. Accrued advantages to being ahead amplify
4. A small number of firms dominate
5. New competition is bought or crushed
6. Dominate firms become less efficient in competition-free environment
There is an odd corollary, which is that capitalistic systems which reward efficiency gains and put downward pressure to incentivize efficiency, deal with the resilience problem by creating entirely new subsystems rather than having more robust subsystems, which is fundamentally inefficient.
Is what you’re saying that capitalism breaks down resilience problems into efficiency problems?
I think that’s an extremely motivating line of thinking, but I’ll have to do some head scratching to figure out exactly what to make of it. On one hand, I think capitalism is really good at resilience problems (efficient markets breed resilience, there’s always an incentive to solve a market inefficiency), on the other (or perhaps in light of that) I’m not so sure those two concepts are so dialectically opposed
The fundamental tension arises because risk mitigation increases input costs. Over a given time horizon, there is an optimal amount of risk mitigation that will result in maximum aggregate profit (output minus input, not necessarily monetary). The longer the time horizon, the more additional risk mitigation is required, to prevent things like ruin risk.
But here’s the rub: competition reduces the time horizon to “very very short” because it drives down the output value. So in a highly competitive market, we see companies ignore resiliency (they cannot afford to invest in it) and instead they get lucky until they don’t (another force at work here is lack of skin in the game). The market deals with this by replacing them with another firm that has not yet been subject to the ruinous risks of the previous firm. This cycle repeats again and again.
Most resilient firms have some amount of monopolistic stickiness that allows them to invest more in resiliency, but it is also easy to look at those firms and see they are highly inefficient.
The point is that the cycle of firms has a cost, and it is not a trivial one: capital gets reallocated, businesses as legal entities are created, sold, and destroyed, contracts have to be figured out again, supply chains are disrupted, etc. Often, the most efficient outcome for the system is if the firms had been more resilient.
So there is an inefficient Nash equilibrium present in those sort of competitive markets.
I don't know what you mean by reverse.
Besides, angels can't really balance on pinheads.