I ended up going with the MSG-free variety (the sodium content was roughly 1/8 that of the standard beef stock from any other brand, and 1/4 the sodium in the "low sodium" varieties), but the free market wouldn't let me avoid corn syrup as well.
It could be argued that the free-market was working correctly as despite the product range not being ideal you were still willing to buy one of them.
The free market also prioritizes making special "varieties" of products about the same way that the general population does. Consider that you might look for some of the following: organic, low sodium, MSG-free, HFCS-free, sugar-free, low-fat, made from free-range cows, gluten-free, BPA-free, locally made, and vegetarian-friendly (vegetable-based).
It's not generally cost-effective to make, ship, store, and sell all of these varieties; mandating that they all exist would be hugely expensive. So, the free market instead serves as much of the population as it profitably can. It would be too much to ask them to operate at a loss, so this is the most you could hope for. The only way to change this is to increase demand by raising awareness of issues like BPA.
No, no. Cache is orders of magnitude more expensive than RAM, and that is why we get very little.
Partially correct.
The size of cache dictates how quickly it can be accessed. This is why L1 caches are always tiny. In fact, the smaller == faster is why you see the idea of a cache repeated endlessly in both hardware and software. Eventually, you end up with regsisters -> L1 -> L2 -> [L3] -> RAM -> [SSD] -> HDD.
The cache is typically puny because that allows it to be faster. You see cache increases for the same price when it becomes afordable to have a bigger cache without latency issues.
This. The fine should be their profits from the affected products from the time they started price fixing to the time they stopped.
Even that is not enough. Even if they are caught 50% of the time, that's still a good deal for them. You have to make the expected profit (in probability terms) negative for price-fixing. In other words, (fine * probability_of_being_caught) > profits.
That's called the Leidenfrost effect.
The Leidenfrost effect has an upper bound -- it only has maximal effect at a specific temperature. If I remember correctly, anything above ~200 C decreases the effect. So, if the ball of plasma is well over that, the effect will be minor.
Well, actually, they say 90%. From TFA:
According to research by the CIA, Bueno de Mesquita's model is more than 90 per cent accurate (British Journal of Political Science, vol 26, p 441).
Is that independent enough for you?
From TFA:
How is such accuracy possible? What Bueno de Mesquita is not doing is predicting random events such as lottery draws. Nor does he claim to be able to forecast the movement of stock markets, the outcome of general elections or the onset of financial crises - events where millions of people have a small influence, but none is able to move the market on their own.
Rather, he confines himself to "strategic situations" where relatively small numbers of people are haggling over a contentious decision. "I can predict events and decisions that involve negotiation or coercion, cooperation or bullying," he says. That includes domestic politics, foreign policy, conflicts, business decisions and social interactions.
Now, that's not to say that he couldn't make money using the predictions, but maybe he's actually more interested in the science/mathematics side of it than the business potential?
Private schools are not the answer. I went to public and private schools. The only reason private schools perform better imo was because the students in private schools were handpicked, low risk students who came from supporting homes.
I also attended both private and public schools. The "handpicked" students were not always in private school just because they were smart or wealthy; many were there because they had one form or another of a personality disorder and needed the special attention.
The quality of teaching was pretty comparable in both schools.
I disagree. My average class size was 15 students in private school. Even assuming the same curriculum and teacher quality as a public school class, the smaller size will give better results. That said, I certainly felt that both the curricula and teachers were of a higher quality than in my public school classes.
But, assuming that the kids in private schools are, on average, brighter than those in public schools, what's the problem? Bright students do better when they work with (and compete against) other bright students. Private schools can be another way to get the "gifted" classes that many of us would like to see. I know that this (currently) would be an advantage for kids from upper and middle class families that can afford it, but maybe that's where vouchers come in?
Anyway, this isn't the point I was focusing on, so these are just my thoughts on the topic.
How about hiring some charismatic, experienced teachers who will inspire the kids on a daily basis? And they won't need higher salaries - just a nice bureaucracy and politics-free workplace.
Sure, I can agree with the feel-good part of that -- but you have to pay them a higher salary. I'm not talking about $39k instead of $34k. You can make that much interning as a software developer. People who are both charismatic and experienced are already commanding high salaries elsewhere; I doubt that hardly any of them are willing to stomach that type of pay cut unless they are reaching old age.
Now, as to whether or not public schools are the best method for educating students in general, that's a different story... but currently, widespread homeschooling and private schools are unfortunately not an option.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
