th0raway

Being thorough and accurate might make you a lot of money in the stock market, but it's not a good way to get any media presence, because that demands being in front of people quite often, and basically nobody can be insightful and well researched in all topics of the day. Once you become a pundit, whether on politics or tech, and rely on eyeballs to feed you, you are going to be throwing stinkers. And at that point, you might as well just align with an audience and not care too much about whether you are predicting anything accurately.

We have people telling us the next recession being imminent all the time. Others told us that NFTs were key to the future of art. That's the pundit way. If you want accuracy, you become like Charlie Munger, have maybe 2, 3 really good insights througout your career, and hope do to well using the insights yourself, not by being a pundit

The wonders of American healthcare really mean that it's all more expensive, and at the same time, more is consumed, because so much of what is paid is done past deductible. If you look at so many standard of care situations vs, say, Spain, the American system will do a whole lot more. Even for preventive care: For instance America wants colonoscopies every 10 years from 45. Spain will give you a non invasive fecal test every 2 years, and only consider colonoscopies after the test is positive. Every time I send my american prescribed intervention list, given my symptoms, to my family members working in the Spanish public caresystem, they look at it with their hair on fire. Very different standards. You might think US insurance is restrictive regarding what needs to be done, but most public care system are significantly more restrictive than that. It'll be for better reasons, instead of defaulting to no on everything, but ultimately still far more cautious regarding their spending.

So we fail both ways at the same time: We avoid interacting with the medical system, but when we do, far more is done, at far higher price per intervention, so we end up with more interventions for the same outcome, even though we avoid doctors more!

No system that saves money can pass in congress: that's the real problem that we cannot actually avoid. Forget pressure from large companies: So many of US costs come from very high salaries, and a lot of bureaucratic positions that don't exist elsewhere. Every dollar we pay goes to someone, and it's not just some random mogul here or there that will be OK anyway. Reform that really lowers prices means loss of jobs, which them will be blamed on the politicians who signed the bill into law.

Most of the problems of the US system aren't really a matter of who pays, but the fact that so much is paid for services, at every level. Any really significant savings, cutting bureaucracy and pressuring providers to make costs resemble those of other developed countries, are taking money out of someone's pocket. Many hundreds of thousands of them, if not millions. This makes any significant reform very difficult, as those people vote, and will know exactly who made them worse off, even if the country in general was made much better off.

Read The Logic of Collective Action by Mancur Olsen. It wasn't written thinking of healthcare. but anyone looking at the US healthcare system will see that what is going on is stacks upon stacks of collective action beating overall societal efficiency, over and over and over again, in such a way that it's basically in none of the decision makers best interest to actually increase overall efficiency.

It's not about the minor offenses of uninteresting people, but what happens because a change in political orientation makes you suddenly interesting. Even more so when AI automates this: Dear computer, we just got some ruling to remove citizenship of people that were not born in the country if they commit event the stupidest offenses: Go look them up.

It makes no sense for the authoritarian to anger everyone at once, but if you just convince people that complaining is bad for them, or expressing negative affect against the government, they can ge much done with little, and it doesn't take that much surveillance. We are already seeing governments that pursue their enemies to the fullest extent of the law for things that are, at best, dubious. Automation just makes this easier to do.

If by European you mean mostly British, sure! And you can see how Anglosphere metro areas resemble each other a lot. But Europe is not one thing.

I mean, I also get obsessed with their horror when, after coming from abroad, I am back at my American suburb. All this mandatory front yard and setbacks that must be lawn, even though nobody in the entire subdivision seems to use said front lawn, ever. It's not the grass itself, but the utter waste of space, pushing any chance of walkability away, as it's ultimately increasing the distances to anywhere. It's not so different from the typical giant parking lot that is never half full.

When you prefer a better environment, but said better environment means having to at least leave the state... yeah, strong feelings seem warranted to me.

On one end we have Coase's theory of the firm, but then we have the realities of the modern tech megacap company, which is 20+ companies in a trench coat, and where it's clear the alignment between the best interest of a middle manager, the company as a whole, and of the consumer have absolutely nothing to do with each other. But pointing at one working thing in an investor call seems quite valuable, so we aren't seeing investors actually demanding to spin off companies with minimal actual synergy.

So we end up with companies acting in ways that don't help themselves or the consumer, but which have no reasonable mechanisms to correct any of this. So we end up with the two best entrants in the AI space being independent companies, all while we know that, in case of significant cuts, it's the companies that are attached to other huge, unrelated sources of revenue that will have easier time surviving. Gemini can mess up all they want as long as management still has Ads and youtube sitting there subsidizing them.

What they are often talking about there is countries where the official exchange rate is very different from a real world exchange rate: This happened in Argentina quite often. That led to special black market stores where people would give you local currency for dollars at better rates, and often also had some crypto support. You are then going past the legal market either way.

Far fewer than you'd think: The vast majority of Europe is in the same boat as the US.

Whenever there's value in agglomeration (ie, all the time), the value of well placed properties just skyrockets, because growth is only going to make that land better. That's why a common recommendation is to up the tax of land as to make speculation with valuable property a bad investment: It's already price like an auction, so higher taxes cannot increase rent prices. The problem is political, as countries with housing problems have a whole lot of individuals have a big percentage of their net worth in housing. Big tax increases would make their property values drop, and they'd be quite upset. So it solves the problem while losing elections.

Instead, governments are happy providing tax advantages to existing residents, in practice making prices go up even faster.

America already has plenty of cities that aren't doing very well, and aren't getting migration, so new cities aren't going to help. There's plenty of cheap housing inventory in the US, just not in the places where the jobs are.

There's quite the history of straight out cheating in high level MtG, and yes, insufficient randomization is one of the most typical ways around it. If all you do is cut their deck, and do zero shuffles, you will find a perfect interweaving of lands and spells either way.

Also see Magic players being fond of pile shuffles, which, of course, do very little randomization, and guarantee a good mana weave. Without a few shuffles of your own, most Magic decks ever presented are not sufficiently randomized, and it's even worse in Commander, where we are talking 100 card decks.

Disney has an especially difficult problem, as optimizing for revenue for an org might actually lower total revenue for the entire company. See how many movies do badly because people expect them to see them in D+ quickly. A company this complicated need a very special kind of leadership, along with creative teams that reliably deliver hits. Now the batting average is way worse than it needs to be, and a lot of the leadership is just uninterested on the bigger problems, and more focused on personal strip mining. How many RSUs you get becomes more important than making sure the stock ever goes up (and it's not going up)

The shareholders have little to do with this, ultimately. You see the same rot happen in private companies where the main investor really has full control.

It doesn't take much time seeing companies grow to see the cultural differences take hold when a company goes wrong. You end up with execs and middle management that do not want to rock boats, and where any disagreement is clearly career suicide. At that point, people push for what is good for them and is not good for the company, and people realize that letting things decay is in their best interest. Once your org has enough levels of management, anyone that is part of the big decisions and isn't a team player has already been filtered out, so you see large meetings where hundreds of millions are supposedly distributed, yet not one person is ever going to complain about obvious grift, or decisions that will harm the company in the long run. Open discussion is too dangerous, and coordinating action against bad behavior becomes more and more expensive. Therefore, the company just naturally erodes.

You can get there too with just a bad enough leader that values sycophancy enough... and after enough billions, basically every leader ends up having a lot of trouble accepting news of bad behavior from their advisors.

Ridiculous tracking happened before AI too. Go read the book about Bridgewater, describing, among other things, how internal security worked when it was led by James Comey (yes, the one you know from the news, and was later FBI director)