feynmanistheman

Is any objection that questions the emphasis of "modern law" on private property Marxism?

Georgism, which most people would not define as Marxist, has similar objections to the origins of land ownership, and every defendant against eminent domain claims to be victim of some Soviet dystopia. The book seems to be making a firmly legal realist critique on the implementation of these principles of private property that undergird our society, rather than attacking the principles in general.

As the article goes into, the consumer welfare standard that you mention is an interpretation of the Sherman Act, not a cut-and-dry statutory phrasing. Changes in either judicial thought or legislation could still put "big tech" in danger, even if they don't run afoul of the consumer welfare standard. I would hope that questions of competition and influence would be asked in the digital age, hopefully without the malign influence of the media and "whiny competitors."

Isn't the rise of index funds an example of rational choices in a free market leading to suboptimal outcomes?

You contend that the success of corporations maximizing shareholder value relies on active shareholder governance. Yet the rational choice for an individual in an efficient market is to simply diversify their portfolio and minimize fees through passive investments. How would a freer market fix the time frames issue that both of you agree is a problem and you suggest active long-term shareholder pressure is necessary to solve?

Revenue is how much people have paid them. Since costs > revenue, their profit is negative. The loss already takes into account their revenue.

While Damore was ostracized relatively quickly, I don't think you can say the same of Thiel. He's had his views since his days at the Stanford Review, yet that hasn't stopped him from being almost idolized (indeed, he's referenced in the parent comment as a source of this thinking). If anyone's patted themselves on the back for being a contrarian and been rewarded for it, it's Thiel.

The interview seems to support the "sommelier's talk" hypothesis, considering the doctor explicitly says that "the sativa/indica distinction as commonly applied in the lay literature is total nonsense and an exercise in futility."

You may be aware of this, but just to add to your point, the Flynn effect[0] of IQs consistently rising pretty convincingly rebuts the idea that higher SAT scores are _only_ due to the test getting easier.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Fascinating stuff. Wonder if one could decisively prove that the world matches one of Impagliazzo's possibilities if and when P != NP is proved. Question for another time, I guess, but important nonetheless.

As a high school student in the Bay Area, from what I see the problem lies within the system as a whole. Tiger moms and ridiculous amounts of APs aren't the cause, merely the symptoms. I'm not sure what you can do in Silicon Valley, when a bunch of parents who achieved success try to force their students down the same path they took. It makes logical sense for it to be Stanford or bust, when so many alumni live so close together.

Ah! Thanks, I knew there was a word for it.

The Brits seem to do it for acronyms you pronounce, i.e. Fifa or Aids, but not the ones you spell out like HIV.