anon98356

All of those business cases already exist in a reasonably accessible form.

>A simple business case might be interest earned by lending. Could you use traditional banking for this?

That is the basic business model of most retail banks. You lend the bank your money and they lend it out in bulk. In modern situations your "interest" is the relative security and ease of use you get from the bank storing your money instead of under your mattress. For a more explicit example: A term deposit is you lending your money to the bank and earning interest.

Banking in the developing world is definitely a problem, personally I'm not sure using a pretty volatile currency like ethereum is as compelling as using the likes of M-Pesa.

Serious question. What is the business case for trustless financial products? If there's money involved 90% of people are going to need to trust something in the process, whether that's the counter party or the middleman.

You're right it won't all be search revenue. What I guess I'm trying to say in a nutshell is:

For a competitor, the overall boost in revenue due to a much higher all round use of their search engine is likely to offset the extra costs associated with serving news content.

My understanding of the regulation is that it requires a good faith negotiation. Not Google/FB/DDG/Bing just paying what the media organisations demand. Google's posturing inherently indicates they aren't negotiating in good faith and are attempting to use their market power to pay less than what most would consider equitable (I have no figures at all or even ballpark so who knows what that actually is).

Arbitration is just that, arbitration. It doesn't mean media organisations say we demand x and that's what the settlement is. Both sides present their case to the arbitrator who decides on the price. If you're in DDG/Bing's position, you put your cards on the table and take the extra revenue from having a massive boost to market share.

It is highly unlikely an arbitrator would actually set the price at an unsustainable value. If it means the search engine is actively making a loss overall then of course they'll walk away. But for DDG/Bing, making a loss on news links may be worth it for the extra revenue in non news search. In reality it probably wouldn't even be a loss, just a much lower profit margin.

Obviously Google is going to try and pay as little as possible, any business would. The difference is market share and power dynamics. Google believe they are in the position that if they can't get the price they want they can walk away.

To the no. 2/3 player in the market it presents to a massive opportunity if google does walk away. According to the latest guardian article [1] on this, Google declared $134M in profit in Australia last year on $4.8B. That's a big incentive for player no 2/3 to pay some of that profit to the media organisations.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/22/google-threate...

[edit] fixed spelling/grammar

It also means potentially explosive market share growth. From Google's perspective it isn't that they can't pay, it's that they don't want to.

A competitor product such as DDG or Bing suddenly looking at pretty big market with no Google competition would say, yep, I'll pay you x% or x cents per result, the overall growth in my market share will make it worth it.

Did they bring it on themselves? Or where they forced to adapt to the loss of revenue? As you say it's harder to skim content behind a paywall or in a video, it's also harder to scrape it.

For every user like you that visited more sites because of Google News, there are likely plenty more who stopped visiting any sites because what Google News surfaced was all they felt they needed.

I think it is a fair characterisation. They want their content on Google because if they don't then it won't be seen. I'm not saying this was a deliberate strategy by Google but it is the reality.

I would argue most people don't want to buy newspapers because we have created an expectation that content should be free.

As to the quality of the content, a) that's subjective and b) it can be seen as natural evolution of an industry whose income source has been decimated by Google/Facebook. It's a lot cheaper to produce what you (and I do as well, to be fair) consider garbage than to produce the quality content we would like to see coming from newspapers.

Why not? Google set itself up effectively as a gatekeeper to their content (whether by design or not that is the current situation) then completely gutted their primary revenue stream.

Also, the major driver of this news is Google's attempts to get Australia to drop legislation. Australia is about as far away from Europe as you can get

A different approach is to incentivise behaviour sure, that doesn't mean it's inherently better.

A plant shutdown at 100ppm will likely result in running the plant at 90ppm to account for the risk of breaching the limit. But if I only pay an extra $100/min when run at 100ppm I'm better off running at 99ppm and just paying the extra tax when I occassionaly exceed 100ppm.

In your example, the tax incentivises you to pollute to the point you can afford. It might be cheaper to just pay the tax than actually make the required changes to your process.

However if the regulation sets a strict limit you don't have a choice, you have to make the changes necessary to comply with the regulations.

To the author's original point, it is important to look and what you are trying to achieve and why. In some cases tax incentives/penalties will make sense. In others strict limits/bans will be required.

It can be funny when coming from one IC to another IC. Which I think is the point of that sentence. Jokes that may have been funny and have hit home when you were co-workers suddenly have very different connotations now that you might actually have the power to fire someone.

Does A) matter? In terms of evaluating the value I would care about the number of shares and their likely value (now and in the future). If that is 2% of the company or 1% why does that matter?

B) is going to have a bigger impact on evaluating how valuable the offer is but as another poster said, it's almost impossible to know.

That's definitely true, and as they move away from physical media more scrutiny of what they are doing is required. But as it stands this isn't yet an issue for game consoles

That's a licensing fee and separate to the discussion about market control. As it stands (although this is starting to change) a developer can sell the game through a variety of different avenues (online, brick and mortar, the xbox store), these avenues may have different prices associated and drive where the consumer makes their purchase.

That is the relevant comparison here, if Epic want to provide Fortnite on iOS they HAVE to use the app store and associated requirements. If they want to provide it on XBox, they pay a licensing cost for the proprietary tech they leverage from Microsoft. But they can choose to sell the game on Amazon if they want.

Depends on what you define as their game store. I can purchase a game that is playable on the xbox from anywhere that sells a copy. One of these places is the digital store that comes with the xbox. But I can also go to cd-keys, or amazon and buy a copy there that will still work on an xbox.

Herd immunity is a thing, but as I heard one scientist describe it: It's not a question of achieving herd immunity or not, it's a question of how. Mass vaccination also leads to herd immunity, it's achieved by creating immunity in individuals through a vaccine instead of by contracting the virus naturally.

As an non American English speaker Excel would also format that as 1 Feb for me. It has been pretty good at picking up your locale for a long time, and is also reasonably trivial to change

To potentially reinterpret the GP, it isn't that we need to regulate scale, but that scale doesn't excuse you from being regulated.

Specifically in the case of YT, as an extreme example, if all video available online in a country had to be moderated by a human, YouTube couldn't operate at it's current scale. It doesn't have a right to skip those regulations because of it's scale.

If a company can't scale and still comply with regulations the answer isn't automatically to get rid of the regulations. The inverse is also true, if a society decides that a company operating in a given environment has to adhere to new regulations, being so big those regulations fundamentally affect your business model doesn't excuse the company from complying.

And what's to stop me creating thousands of these anonymous unregulated accounts to launder money? There are a lot of aspects to regulating the financial industry that have to account for the many different scenarios involved. The regulations for the finance industry aren't perfect but it is an incredibly difficult balance to strike.

I always chose to believe it was Just Another Friendly Aucklander. I knew I was lying to myself, but it makes you feel slightly better than acknowledging 2/3 of your fellow citizens don't like you.

Maybe, doesn't make the judgement criteria any less arbitrary though. And given how dark my corner of the room is, I suspect I'd need a pretty expensive lighting setup to make it any better :)

These challenger banks are also currently operating in relative niches. Yes Monzo has a million bank accounts, but in terms of their product offering, it isn't close to the breadth of your traditional "High Street" bank. As their product offering expands, their compliance requirements will become a lot more complex, and will lead to more compliance personnel being hired. They have also yet to experience a massive overhaul to the compliance requirements of their existing systems. I'm sure they are better placed to handle it than a traditional bank but it won't be easy.

How is subconsciously judging based on lighting, audio etc. any better than whether or not you play golf? The only spot for me to put my desk means that, in video conferences I look like an anonymous whistle blower from a news report. How is being subconsciously ignored because of how my apartment is laid out any better than being ignored because I prefer to swim than play golf?

Based on your examples, all-remote isn't an equalizer, it's changing the rules by which you are judged.

You would think so, but if you read these notices carefully a lot of them will say by either hit "Accept" or closing this pop-up you are consenting. So by hitting the 'X' you are unconditionally opting in.

Unless your talking about the 'X' to close the tab at which point, yes it is

The author uses discord as the prime example and then fails to explain the link. They talk about the large r/LoL community but then identify that Discord replaced TeamSpeak. Is r/LoL now dead? I'm failing to see in what way this actually relates to reddit. It looks more like a team identifying a poorly served market (in game chat) and making a better product that's it. Maybe they used reddit to expand their reach, I don't know. But it's a massive stretch to say that Discord is replacing a subreddit.

The main argument for non-competes comes from banking/professional services (thinks accountants or lawyers). It's to stop you taking all your clients with you when you jump ship. It's typically only enforced for partners or really senior managers and the theory is, it allows the company time to cement their relationship with the client while you're out of the market.

I have often seen it enforced as, you can go (after your notice period/gardening leave) but you have to stay away from a set of clients for the period of your non-compete.

No they are paid for with ads. How a website determines what ad to show is where it gets troublesome. There is no requirement to have 1000 trackers load cookies every time I go to your website in order to show me an ad.

Such as? I don't mean to sound facetious, but if we take the intent behind GDPR and the current state of user tracking across the web what changes, at a regulatory level, would you suggest that still fulfills the aims of GDPR that doesn't result in our current situation?

GDPR doesn't prevent a publisher charging for content, or displaying ads. What it says is, if you want to use personal data about a user to determine what ads to display, you have to get their explicit consent.

I have noticed a few of the consent pop ups couching the choice explicitly in this manner. If you don't grant consent to us/our 3rd parties tracking you we will still show you ads, they will just be less relevant.

Advertising doesn't actually require the detailed level of tracking that is used today. Physical newspapers survived with a much more limited set of data when convincing advertisers to place ads.

Yes there is a distinction between the two, but in this scenario they both needed to be considered. If you are making it more accessible to vote and that leads to a decrease in voter turnout is that a good thing? The claim of the GP was that online voting would increase voter turnout. If you only consider enfranchisement sure it would, you are making it easier to vote. But put in the wider and cultural political context of a given country my argument is that the GP's claim, that more people would vote, isn't guaranteed.

I do remember a few years ago reading (I think it was in freakonomics) that this isn't actually a guarantee. Some places that have postal voting as the primary form of voting have actually seen a decrease in participation. After an initial boost based on novelty, it now being easier to do also makes it easier to put off. Having a week or two to fill in and then post the form allows for a lot of "I'll do it tomorrow" until you can't, you missed the cutoff. If it can increase turnout great, but making something easier doesn't inherently mean an uptake in participation.

As an extra method on top of existing options it would probably help, but then you lose a lot of the other suggested benefits around faster counting and etc. which require it to be the only form of voting.