Frqy3

Even English subtitles on English movies are often inaccurate and missing key words.

Why? Because governments like to achieve social outcomes by mandating cross-subsidies from profitable customers to non-profitable customers instead of explicitly funding the outcomes themselves.

However, like the proverbial hole in the bucket, this then requires additional pieces of legislation added over time to keep it working. In this case, to stop newer entrants from cherry picking the profitable customers.

The biggest advantage of direct explicit funding (which can be provided through competitive tendering) is that it allows competition to work better. The other advantage is that the cost of achieving the desired social outcome is explicit as a budget line item, rather than hidden as indirect costs, allowing for a more informed debate about what social outcomes the community wants.

As someone who has lived more than an extra 10 years of life due to receiving a transplant, I am very happy to take my daily immunosuppressant medication.

For context, I was in my 30s when I had the transplant. If I was 70+, then perhaps I might pass.

I hope you are never in the position of being on a waiting list for an organ donation, but it is much easier to dismiss an abstract idea of saving some unspecified life versus facing short term uncertainty about your own continued life.

And the grid is too expensive because the regulator allowed an effectively risk-free rate of return on investment that was too good to pass up.

In telecoms wholesale pricing in Australia, there would frequently be adjustments to the claimed capital costs to remove this gold plating incentive, but the energy side seemed to be much more accepting of whatever the distributors claimed.

I've heard designers talk about the business card scene in tones of deep respect.

The densification of the mobile/cellular network (greater number of cell sites and infill using smaller micro, pico and indoor sites) over the last 20 years also means that devices statistically operate at lower power levels most of the time.

For children, one advantage of having a formal diagnosis is that it allows access to funding for support resources during school. Such as having a teacher's assistant available in class to provide additional 1 on 1 teaching time.

Humans have had millions of years of system level optimisation (evolution) which then only needs a couple of additional years to train the wetware to operate the system for daily activity.

Chess has only been around a mere 1,500 years and has had an evolutionary impact on only a very minute portion of the population. Hence it takes a few additional years to specialise a human for optimal chess performance.

Are you also planning to include pregnant women in your trials?

I'm not in the health field, so I don't know where the regulations stand, but I recall talking to someone who was advocating for this a couple of decades ago to avoid future cases like Thalidomide.

In this case it is a "white bots only" sign, as it allows some bots but wants to block the rest.

Even for those who think that robots.txt should be enforceable, allowing some bots but not others makes it difficult for a new player to have the same equitable access to information as the big players.

Ignoring the specific issue in this case that the outcome appears to be pre-determined, it remains that the surface process being followed is standard for regulators.

Regulators hold public/industry consultations to gather evidence and arguments that need to be taken into account in coming to their final decision. They are not running popularity contests (which would be too easy to rig if that was the standard used). The arguments submitted are usually a mix of legal and economic (including models) based on data or clearly stated assumptions (ideally). For example, an industry stakeholder might make a legal argument that the regulator is making a decision beyond the remit of the legislation, or make an economic argument that if the proposed decision is adopted, then this will remove the infrastructure investment incentive for the stakeholder (including the data to substantiate this).

In making their final decision, the regulator should take into account all the arguments put forward, and respond to them in their final report. Submissions that are substantially the same (or sections within) will be grouped together and responded to as a single point. The regulator should explain why they reject or adopt each argument.

The criteria that a regulator uses to evaluate the different arguments and come to a final decision is set by the enabling legislation. I have not worked within the US legal framework, but I have both prepared submissions to and worked with numerous regulators in Asia and Europe. In most cases, the criteria is deals with the best interests of consumers with a consideration of both costs and benifits. Often a longer term view is required to be taken, which biases towards promoting investment in infrastructure over time rather than maximising short time utilisation of existing infrastructure.

I think it is a combination of people expecting to move up financially over time, and wanting to keep as large a gap as possible between themselves and the next rung down on the financial ladder.

With unlucky departments almost always being cost centres rather than revenue centres.

I think the right path for humanity is to remove the tendency for violence from the population pool. To this end, I have been developing in my secret laboratory a retrovirus that can achieve this.

This is the true path to world peace, nay, to serenity. What could go wrong?

Have you been tested for Autism/Asperger's?

I ask because I am on the spectrum and have a similar anxiety with how people will think of me during interactions. This stems from a difficulty in reading other people. Over many years I have developed internal scripts of standard behaviour for interacting with people in different circumstances. So long as I am able to stay on script, I have learnt to worry less about what people think.

Exactly this.

I've worked with many regulators on industry/public reviews. Submitting opinions or copy pasta achieves nothing, no matter how voluminous. It will at best end up refered to in the final report as something like "Mupltiple unsubstantiated submissions were made supporting net neutralitity."

Things that make a difference, at least to the extent that some time and effort has to be made responding to them in the final report, include:

1. Summarising similar rulings in other jurisdictions. Ideally, including the reasoning why they made their decision, and some analysis of the impact. Comparisons of market similarities (e.g. level/structure of competition) helps to show why those decisions are relevant to the local market.

2. Arguing from local regulatory context. Working from the local competition/telecoms laws and previous decisions by the regulator, construct a structured argument why the desired outcome logically follows.

3. Arguing from first principles. Often involving some market/scenario modelling showing current market behaviour and how that would/would not change under different regulatory outcomes. Most competition/telecoms legislation is framed around benefits to consumers, so the modelling should focus on the consumer impact, not just competitor impact.

Most industry submissions will utilise a combination of the above, and draw upon global experts to strengthen their case and add credibility to their analysis.

I can't speak to the FCC and this particular ruling, but I have seen regulators change their draft recommendations on the basis of submissions received during the public review process. Even when the regulator has predetermined the outcome, having the submissions and the official responses recorded in the final report provides a reference basis for additional lobbying at a later date.

This is a symptom of PR copy paste article writing.

The classic answer I recall from a maths professor was "First visualise an n-dimensional space, then simplify to the 4-dimensional case."

The phrase used in China was that women hold up half the sky, and the expectation was that males and females participated equally in the economy.

While there has been some regression on this coinciding with more exposure to Western culture, I still notice that there is a much higher proportion of women in Chinese tech companies than in Western ones, although not a 50-50 split.

What you described sounds like the modus operandi of a cult.

I have an engineering background and worked with a major telco for several years before moving to work as a financial analyst for a while.

Few of the other analysts had an industry background in the companies they covered. Mostly they had an accounting/commerce/economics background. They were good at pulling together financial models from the data and information provided to them in briefings, but they largely missed the implications that even someone with a year or two of industry experience would understand.

I am reminded of the story of Max Planck and the chauffeur and the two types of knowledge [0].

[0] https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/09/two-types-of-knowle...

It could have been physicists conducting relativistic experiments with themselves as trial subjects.

Even mining is in the process of reducing the number of people needed at the mining site by moving to autonomous control from a central office.

For example, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-18/rio-tinto-opens-worlds...

From an economic viewpoint, this also means that the brand value of the articles remains with the masthead rather than the individual authors. This commodifies the authors and makes then more fungible.

Being The Economist, I am sure they are aware of this.

Even if mobile carriers introduce truly unlimited plans and excellent indoor coverage everywhere, they will also need to open extensive APIs to enterprises if they want to entice them away from Wi-Fi.

Enterprises (including businesses with public access areas such as shopping centres and stadiums) want the extra control and information (such as the location of consumers as they move through shopping centres) they have with their Wi-Fi networks that they can get today.

Conversely, the mobile carriers will probably be wanting to incorporate the Wi-Fi access into their mobile networks as another access type. Apart from the control aspect, having combined and coordinated access to both licensed and unlicensed spectrum allows a better infrastructure cost to capacity tradeoff.

Unfortunately they have gone for the Harrison Bergeron approach to achieving equality.

A better approach would have been to build a tool that allows crowdsourcing of captions with a way for students with special needs to tag videos for prioritisation.

I never type in URLs directly. It is either a single click on the menu bar/blank tab, or else I go via a search engine to reduce the risk of landing on a typo squatter.

Wikipedia (with it's current edit culture) is an example of what bikeshedding looks like when scaled up.

A good example of this is Marjorie Rice, an amateur mathematician, who discovered four new types of tessellating polygons.

[0] https://mathtourist.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/tiling-with-pent...

The successful students do that in spite of the bad teaching. In my view, a lot more students would both enjoy and do better at maths with more appropriate teaching.