I'm going to assume this will end somewhere between a net effect of zero and a problem that's 1,000 times worse than what they're trying to solve.
Why is this rated 5? Yes, paying drivers more *might* slightly increase supply but my guess is that the number of drivers is somewhat
You guess? Well lets just throw out the Iron Clad Law of Supply & Demand, on which almost all of the worlds productive economy is based, because you guess.
fixed so without also charging passengers more you do nothing on the demand side. The point of demand pricing is to reduce demand
so that you don't overwhelm the relatively fixed supply. If your goal is to always have cars available, then increasing the price while
paying the drivers the same would actually be a better solution than increasing the pay while charging the same but that would also be
You cannot look at one side of the equation.
When demand is up, there are only two options. Option number one is shortages (of supply). Option number two is that supply must increase.
When supply is down, there are only two options. Option number one is shortages (of demand). Option number two is that supply must decrease.
In either case, the solution is price elasticity. When the price drops, because supply is too high or demand is too low, drivers will drop out of the market. When the price raises, because supply is too low or demand is too high, drivers will enter the market.
Uber has a flexible work force, and it is no way fixed. They also posses 100% more information about the market and their drivers than you do, or the AG does.
This is the case of government using consumer protection laws in a way that will hurt consumers. Economics and the market are not friendly, but they do produce desirable outcomes. If the desirable outcome is fairness, than what the government and AG are doing will produce a fair outcome - everyone regardless of ability to pay will have an equal chance of getting or not getting a car, based on random luck, your skin color, or whatever else motivates you.
If the outcome is to provide as many rides possible, this requires a market with supply and demand efficiency. By curbing supply efficiency by limiting price elasticity, you provide fewer rides than the market will optimally support. If you are frequent driver, you know that by going to where the demand is, to when the demand is, will produce more and more profitable rides. If you are a rider, you know that by relying on Uber during exceptionally busy times, you will only be able to get a ride by paying far more than you would otherwise.
This is really a great case of the nanny government stepping into a situation which is drastically over it's head, in the name of "fairness". Fairness is not an economic goal, it's a social goal, and it's stupid to try to enforce a social goal like this on the very tail end of the policy stack.
One or two shots to a subject wearing body armor is typically enough to incapacitate them. That second shot can even be fatal, depending on the armor, the round, and the shot placement. Armor is there to prevent penetration and dissipate as much of the bullet's energy as possible. However, that first shot is going to do enough damage to leave at least a good amount (if not a ridiculous amount) of bruising around the impact zone. At that point, the body armor is compromised (not useless, but no longer fully capable). Another shot will do anything from leave a lot more bruising to fully penetrate. The most likely case is where you'll start getting ribs cracked. All subsequent shots increase the damage to the subject and each carries a rapidly increasing risk of penetration of the armor and death for the subject. Even without penetration of the armor, the human body can only handle so much kinetic energy.
In any event, it would be uncommon for an individual who's taken two shots to the chest to be combat effective. More commonly, they'd be lying on the ground in a lot of pain. Considering how many attempts it takes to get a shot on target for the head versus the center of mass, you're vastly better off going for the center of mass even if you know for a fact that your target is wearing armor. And before you bring up the North Hollywood shootout, understand that there were a number of factors that allowed those guys to carry on during the shootout, not the least of which was the poor accuracy of the firearms available to the police on scene at the range at which they were forced to engage.
It's unfortunate that the man you knew died while trying to stop a courthouse shooter. However, that one incident doesn't change the fact that the odds vastly favor center of mass targeting. Getting headshots on a paper target at a fixed distance and height, with no motion whatsoever, in an unstressful situation isn't that challenging. Getting them on a real human head at variable heights and distances, full range of motion, non-targets in the way and behind the target, in the most stressful situation you'll ever face (where millions of years of human evolution are working against you to destroy your vision, higher reasoning, etc) is one of those things best left to Delta operators who train on that day-in and day-out for years and years on end. And I'll bet if you talk to those guys, they'll also tell you that a center of mass shot is the perfect starting point as you'll get a hit faster and cut down on the motion that makes the head shot nigh impossible.
Got stuck with Vipre at work for a few years. It was nothing short of a complete disaster, to the point where on some systems, it just had to be shut down completely so the systems would function. Combined with the latest ratings from AV Comparatives (lol @ 88% detection rate and huge false positives) and I'd say nobody should ever run that garbage. It's truly terrible.
ESET's NOD32 is good and Kaspersky is very good. Nothing else has been consistently good for quite a while.
When Apple's prices change (actually, has that happened in the last few years? I think the price has been steady for a while) the market doesn't reconfigure around that price.
Apple has effectively raised prices. The Iphone 5 and 6 lines both have less stuff (namely, storage) for the same amount of money. This is a price increase in everything but optics. While prices should be declining, they are actually stagnant (while adding higher price points).
Apple's control extends only to their own product
No, I don't think this is true. Cell phone sales slow and crawl for all carriers and brands before a new Apple product announcement or release. Additionally, what's unusual, is that typically if there is a constrained supply of a product, some of the unfilled demand bleeds off into other competing products. Like, around Xmas, you go to the store, Toy X is gone off the shelf. Do you give no present? Nope. You substitute a competing product. There is surprisingly little of this in cell phones. One good theory why is because of platform lock-in. In this way, Apple is able to constrain the ability to switch to a competing product effectively. It produces a magnifying effect to their market share. This is very similar to the tying claims that Microsoft go in trouble with in the 90's.
If Apple disappeared tomorrow, the world would still have smartphone manufacturers.
This is true, but not that relevant. There's always another dog.
The only way this monopoly argument could hold water is if we decide that Android and the handsets it runs on should be considered a completely different category of product.
I don't think this is true. Android is not a thing you buy, just like iOS is not something you buy. You buy the phone, with the OS. So for comparison purposes, you can't say it's "Android v. iOS". It has to be handsets for the iPhone. Until you can reasonably buy phone OS's, really, there is no such thing as a market for Android the platform. Since the platform is so fragmented, switching between Android platforms is non-trivial.
In this regard iPhone is a huge market leader and has a greater share than competing products. And that gulf is wide enough that in other industries, combined with the market power, there is a reasonable case to be made that Apple has monopoly control of the smartphone market in the US.
As people are always delighted to point out, Apple's market share is by no means the majority. Apple isn't a utility.
I agree, but only for now. In the future, if they are running a communication service over a public utility (i.e. regulated internet access), it certainly seems iMessage is exactly like other communication services over regulated infrastructure, namely phone service. Carriers can't lock out each other from similiar over the air services, like SMS, for the same reason.
BlackBerry missed the boat about a dozen times at this point and that's their fault, not Apple's.
Yeah, BB is totally irrelevant to the meat of the discussion. They are screwed.
As far as Apple and monopoly power, it's an interest case. A company does not need to have X% of a market to have a monopoly. Companies have monopoly power with much smaller shares. In some industries, a company can have monopoly power with even 20% of the market. In terms of Smartphones, it's often seen as "Google v. Apple". But really, Google is just a small player. Just because Android runs on many smartphones, does not mean that Google is a direct actor in the market. Apple competes with partnerships of Google/Handset maker. If you were to look at share in this light, I think Apple is by far the largest player. (But I can't find any numbers. Last I found was in mid-2014, with Apple around 40% and Google around 45% and everyone else doing the rest).
The key elements of Apple's monopoly power are there though: they can effectively set prices in the market, they have the ability to raise or lower production to affect prices and availability of the good, they can suppress or increase the market by withholding or releasing products. This last one is important.
This is an interesting time to see what happens with Apple. The practices and behavior of Apple right now are not far off from where MS got itself into trouble in the 1990's. Especially with regards to bundling, tying, and price controls.
Yeah, it's close to those examples.
The phone analogy almost fits, in that after the phone monopoly was ended, they really did have to open up the service to any phone. The difference being a phone has no operating system (at the time), it was just an electro-mechnical device operating to common standard.
The wording is just really bizarre. Downloading a service.
"Net Neutrality means mandating that developers and services must create something that works on your dying platform? Does that mean that NetFlix will have to make sure it works with Symbian too? How about PocketPC 2003?"
I am not sure that's what he is saying.
Partly because he uses phrases like "downloading the service".
"Neutrality must be mandated at the application and content layer if we truly want a free, open and non-discriminatory internet. All wireless broadband customers must have the ability to access any lawful applications and content they choose, and applications/content providers must be prohibited from discriminating based on the customer’s mobile operating system."
The application layer doesn't necessarily mean code, it means making the application layer, as well as the content layer, available to outside developers, to facilitate a non-discriminatory policy of open content access.
I think there was a big leap made here from "open access" to "force app developers to write code for Blackberry".
Chen has a strong point Apple's iMessage service, which is proprietary and closed. It is odd to imagine iMessage running over regulated, public utility internet access while at the same time using patents and copyright and trademark law to prevent interoperability. If Apple is going to run a communications service over a public utility, and use monopoly tactics like lock-in and tying, why should that be permitted?
From your link, ~1.6% is the average for the year. Dec 2014 was: 0.76% hence my "these days"
Actually, these days 1.4% is probably higher than current inflation.
And it's too low given the differential risks to 4% inflation vs 0% or 0.5% deflation.
In the long run, everything will be fine.
Of course in the long run we'll all be dead.
Based on my experience in Kerbal, they're 95% of where they need to be. They've done the really hard stuff (controlled burns to bring the craft down at the right spot, slowing the descent at the right time without running out of fuel, etc) successfully. Properly orienting the rocket should be relatively easy assuming that the systems responsible for that haven't run out of fuel. The fact that the engine was able to get it that close without the fins working speaks volumes for how well the thing is operating.
Even if something else goes wrong the next time or two, they'll have a successful landing shortly. The simple fact that it hit the platform ought to be enough to let them start trying on land after another one or two similar attempts. As failures go, this was extremely successful.
I've been around long enough to know when an idea is a crock of shit.
Arrogant and self-obsessed. When you're around a little longer, you'll come to realize that you don't actually know everything. Or perhaps you won't as some never achieve significant emotional maturation.
he's too busy revolutionizing the automobile, space travel, and power industries simultaneously.
Wow, you have drunk the Kool Aid!!
First to create a workable, marketable, functional-in-the-real-world electric cars and created the first new successful car company in the US in decades to design, build, and sell them. Designed and built reusable rockets that run good reliably to the ISS for a fraction of the cost of any other solution ever devised by man. Also working towards sending people to Mars, which even world governments haven't even seriously considered. And on the Solar City side, they're making solar power so affordable to people that they've become the number 1 installer for residences in the US and the number 2 installer overall in less than 10 years of existence. 4.3 gigawatts of power produced by their installations as of 2013. They're doing all this while bumping up US manufacturing to compete directly with the Chinese. Who else is doing that successfully?
And again, I ask, what have YOU done lately besides read Wikipedia and spout off about things you don't understand? Because Musk, the guy you're criticizing, seems to be busy getting shit done.