l3robot

Not to mention that even the utility function of the "millenials dilemma" makes no sense here, it's not even consistent like it has to be. What it represents here?

- More wealth is better? Then 0/10 for chill/work maybe is ok, but it make no sense to have 8/8 for chill/chill. - More fun is better? Then 8/8 is ok, but it makes no sense to have 0/10 for chill/work. - More fun in the near future is better? But it is clearly stated that fun will be unachievable in the game since work will prevail as the dominant position.

It is true. It is crucial to understand any kind of growth situation which are predominent in life. For instance, one of my friends who is a teacher wanted to explain sustainable development to his highschool students by showing the effect of cutting too much trees if this doesn't match the trees growing rate. He asked me to solve the not so trivial equations with a series and found myself returning to the same maths used for the interest computation.

Not also to mention something often oversight. An autonomous car can park far away from it's user, meaning we could drastically reduce de number of space taken by parking in the city. First, giving back this spaces to the people as green parks and services places. Second, lower one of the biggest problem in our current city: urban heat island.

I think the reasoning of the Fermi paradox is that "at some point in time" a distant civilization must have been using EM wave to communicate. Now, considering the number of planets, it must exists a civilization in the universe that sits at a distance that let us sense this EM dominated past. And this even if in their own local time, they use fancy new tech. Even if they were not trying to communicate with us per se. Their own radiation should be measured.

Interesting points

Yes, that was my point: they choose one and it works fine. It is easier in that case to ensure and keep a certain mass of users and so, for a long time. That leads to the possibility of blitzscaling and monopoly I think.

To me, the problem comes when you provide a service. The service market seems much more difficult to diversify than the product market. When the need is well filled by one company, it is difficult to keep competition alive. It is obviously not binary. It depends on the service.

For instance, for the product side; Nike, Adidas, etc. are constantly trying to improve and change their products to keep up with the complex shoe market even if they are pretty colossal companies. Because the user need for a new shoe pair is coming on a really short scale and the competition is fierce.

I'm not seeing the same kind of competition with services. When you use a service that fills the need, you don't change in general. Or at least, people change on a very long scale. Some times, it even takes a cultural shift to change habits.

On the google vs bing example: Well, ok some uses bing, but in majority because microsoft makes it easy to do so on their systems ;-). There exists some very good alternatives, like duckduckgo, but it represents a minority.

On Monopoly: It has been a though I have for some time. I wonder how could they not form monopolies. Who has 4-5 taxi apps on their phone? Who has 2-3 social profiles? Who has the habits of jumping from a searching engine to another? A minority. Their product are almost natural monopolies.

They are very difficult to fight against monopolies because when they have user commitment, the need for the product is filled entirely by one company. In addition, it is very difficult to make the user change, it's part of a habbit.

I might be wrong there. Just a though I had, but interesting to discuss. Is it really possible to avoid monopoly with these products?

What a beautiful text. It just made my day. I think, for most of scientists, these previously thought impossible outcomes is as, if not more, rewarding as aligned with theory outcomes. Certainly this is one of the reasons that encourage me to continue in science. Curiosity of course, but also the feeling that impossibility is only temporary.