rob_lh

I've done the exact same thing for the exact same reasons. Hurray for social validation.

I imagine the insight would reveal the disparity in the commitment to the area versus the "gold rush" aspects of the Bay Area. It has many implications on the housing market, corporate recruiting, local politics, and infrastructure development. I imagine people would behave much differently if there more space and a strong belief that they could actually raise a family in the area or if it's just a career kickstarter. There are many competing and complicating factors, but it's still very interesting information.

I think there's something to being a soldier and obviously masculinity that is universal. I would argue the American military experience - especially the modern American military - is fundamentally different from those that preceded it though. We don't claim tribute, we're not an honor society (at least not universally), we are building an empire, and ostensibly the wars of the country are the will of its citizens. Why Americans fight and American terms of victory are something different than any historical counterparts.

Yeah, the whole article, subject matter, and journey he explores is American. It's investigative at its best in that it explores why people make these decisions, and their decisions are strongly rooted in the ever-changing American society.

Tangentially, I might be alone in this, but I consider great journalism to be like great science - it's able to discern the fundamental mechanics of an issue, but they're also notoriously terrible at applying those mechanics in a constructive way. As a result, when a journalist shares their perspective, I put a lot of weight on their analysis and little weight on their solutions.

It could be a callous viewpoint, but intent certainly matters. Just going to war to use your training is wholly callous.

But take any of the recent genocides (Rwanda) or even ISIS - innocent people are unquestionably being killed. A soldier hears about this in the news, prepares every day to stop large forces like that, and instead is being asked to stand down. The media obviously plays a large role in shaping the perspective of horrors being done in the world, and I wouldn't argue war is the solution to all but a few problems. However, it is fairly straightforward and morally defensible that innocent people would be alive if other people were killed, and soldiers are prepared and ready to kill.

Unless this some academic joke flying over my head, the author's contact info is listed as "firstname.lastname@oxford-biochron.com". This report seems hastily thrown together, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the results. It'd be interesting to see others run it or comment from Google.

I think the President's proposal specifically omitted that too. The larger point made in the article about general misunderstanding of the implications of net neutrality seems accurate but may prove specious. My fear is its a bet on oligopoly.

Assuming investors are ignorant is convenient, but it may be a situation where many investors were avoiding that industry because of the regulatory uncertainty. Part of that uncertainty could be the possibility of the government encouraging competition. In fact, this legislation defines how they can operate the networks but does nothing to change the oligopoly of vendors or the barriers to entry new competitors might face. An investor, then, could reasonably view this as the entry point to an established oligopoly without the fear of future government regulation disrupting that, at least over the next decade or so.

Just curious, what's your objection to Javascript in this capacity?

I would disagree with your comments about finding options that have public support. Consider net neutrality. Who in the broad public outside those companies is in favor of the telecom companies extracting a toll from the content networks? Yet it remains a topic because politicians know they can get funding and connections from those companies if they can force through the legislation. Public support is not a core part of modern governance, partially because the public does not hold politicians on either side of the aisle accountable.

Exactly Jevon's Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

It has all sorts of implications for life/work, where it could open up options for smaller towns; however, the problem becomes one of efficiency for the rail, as it can't slow down at every small town with a minor population unless it really was a feeder to the big city. I think it just reinforces travel between hubs (metropolitan areas, which still might have last-mile problems that Google, Uber, Lyft, etc. focus on).

I think it also increases the viability of what a "local ecosystem" entails. Suddenly, a manufacturing town that's normally an airplane away is a couple hours, so it's easier to establish a relationship and coordinate between two currently disconnected sectors.