_Robbie

Both this blog post and the Netflix blog post it is responding to seem intentionally confusing. The core issue is that the interests of the consumer and provider are misaligned. In a normal market if the consumer wants more or better service, the provider will make more money by providing the service.

In this case the consumer wants more service in the form of more data for streaming video. In a normal market, the additional sales from the extra data would fund the required infrastructure. In reality, however, since the ISP sells a data rate, not data, they do not get extra revenue from heavy usage customers.

Both of these blog posts miss the mark by misinterpreting the probably rational consequences of this misalignment as unreasonable greed or unfairness. I assume that both of the authors know the real issue here and that these posts are meant to manipulate the public regardless of accuracy.

I think the stops would have to be very close together for this to be a factor. If a train trip is jerk limited, then the train would not reach maximum acceleration between stops. It is more likely that a train trip is acceleration limited where the train does not reach full velocity between the stops.

I did not realize that I could place 4s.

This does seem silly. According to the article, the odds of picking the correct bracket are less than 1 in 128 billion, so there is practically zero risk.

I finally beat it. This seems harder than 2048 since with 2048 a simple strategy can do well, where as with this game I had to search through more opponent AI moves. Is there a simple strategy for 8402?

I support the basic income, but I have also thought about alternatives that do not require government support. Consider e-currency with a time based demurrage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_(currency)) fee. The demurrage fees would be paid out equally to all consumers. The demurrage fee plays the same role as a job in the current economy by circulating currency from producers to consumers. Since it is an e-currency, it would be independent of governments. The good news is that if in the future wealth inequality causes economic output to shrink, businesses might be forced to accept these types of currencies in order to grow.

I have long been interested in these issues. The overarching issue is that labor is becoming less valuable in relation to capital. This is evidenced by increasing productivity but stagnant wages, a decrease in labor's share of GDP, and an increase in corporate profits share of GDP.

The simplest solutions are to redistribute wealth such as through a basic income or a negative income tax. These programs can be viewed as fixing capitalism, and are not necessarily socialist. Unfortunately, most of these redistribution programs will need to be implemented by governments.

As an alternative to governmental redistribution, I have thought about an e-currency with a time based demurrage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_(currency)) fee. The demurrage fees would be paid out equally to all consumers. The demurrage fee plays the same role as a job in the current economy by circulating currency from producers to consumers. Since it is an e-currency, it would be independent of governments. The good news is that if in the future wealth inequality causes economic output to shrink, businesses might be forced to accept these types of currencies in order to grow.

The lights can be turned off.