Recent submissions

Comment · 12 years ago
Comment · 12 years ago
Comment · 12 years ago
Agreed, and this group as much as any should understand that just because the product is made of bits and can be distributed virtually free, it should not be free of cost.

Just like any good software company, the NYTimes should be thinking about their price strategy in a more complex way than cost plus. And I'm sure they are.

Comment · 12 years ago
It's not about distribution. Much like ordering a book from Amazon, buying software, or going to see a movie, distribution is typically not the most relevant cost.

I think the NYTimes is one of the best bargains out there, and lucky for those who don't pay the benefits spillover to other journalism, especially the blog/twitter world.

Comment · 12 years ago
No I don't, and that is a big pro of net neutrality. But that doesn't mean there are no cons.
Comment · 12 years ago
That is not correct. You are looking for the intersection of marginal utility of the dollars earned through work, and the marginal cost (in utility) of giving up leisure (while hungry and cold, perhaps). You are arguing that the marginal utility of those dollars earned through work are lower than the utility of that final hour of leisure.

But both of those utility functions have sharp curves, and those first dollars generate huge utility (food, shelter, etc.), while the negative utility is very modest when you've already used 167 of 168 hours that week on leisure.

Comment · 12 years ago
Mr. Stucchio isn't the first one to present this type of argument which is explicit in that people are choosing to be poor. That probably doesn't feel right to most of us, and that's because it's ridiculous. Jamming a complex social problem into a simple economic model may be fun and even valuable at times, but only if you don't buy your own BS wholesale.

I'm admittedly struggling to understand how he's drawing this conclusion, as I think he's equating utility with expenditures? If so, this is completely wrong. Your first few thousands of dollars are used for things like food, shelter, and basic healthcare, and they generate massive utility. It isn't constant.

But I also take issue with the first assumption, that each hour of leisure time provides constant utility. Is that true? Does a poor person get more marginal value from that last hour of "leisure time" on the streets? What about poor people who go to bed hungry, are they doing that because they're rationally basking in all these extra hours of leisure time?

There are many reasons people are poor, but people choosing to be poor as an economically rational decision sounds crazy, and that's because it is. Just measure the happiness of the non-working poor vs. people making 30k, and I think you can put this one to rest.

Comment · 12 years ago
I do not see the flaw. The statement in quotes, while a simplification, is correct if a private company is making the decision. If a government is making the decision (typical with roads, not with broadband), there are a ton of other factors, although in an ideal world they would also try to do a similar NPV calculation. In any case, the government doesn't own broadband.
Comment · 13 years ago
CON: The more money I think I can make by owning network infrastructure, the more I will invest to build it now.

That's not to say that net neutrality is bad or wrong on balance, but no cons at all?

Comment · 13 years ago
I didn't cherry pick any example. I just used the example that the article was written about.
Comment · 13 years ago
Not only is the slide from 2008, but it also says it requires "close access methods" and "remote installation will be pursued for a future release." In other words, they need physical access to your device. If we think that the NSA can't compromise a device after gaining physical access, well then I think we should be scared about the competence of the NSA.

I don't have the patience to watch Appelbaum's hour long talk, but unless he has something far more impressive than these documents then he's just another activist who will willfully mislead in order to advance his cause.

Comment · 13 years ago
I have no idea how accurate the 60 Minutes story was, but this article is woefully unconvincing. Calling your rebuttal "the definitive facts" is childish.

My favorite line is: "There are as many red flags surrounding the BIOS Plot as there are in all of China." Who writes this?

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton