Some discussion (given this is IT site) use IT as analogy, but many IT world cannot be easily applied. Regulation is needed. In fact the triangle of regulatio

Some discussion (given this is IT site) use IT as analogy, but many IT world cannot be easily applied. Regulation is needed. In fact the triangle of regulation, competition vs facilitation-participation-governance has to be balanced. Here, I wonder given we are IT site let us learn from one history not gov regulation but military mandate that help - the alternative provider concept that leads to AMD survival along side of intel. (Sadly no Boeing alternative now which it should to avoid the 1 monopoly vs 1 regulator killing the other trianlge). That means e.g. there must be at least one competitor per state instead of one per state for critical sector. (Let one may add for critical sector be American 50+% and controlled by chinese, Russia, india, eu or Brazil etc. or at least buffer for say anti-biotic enough for local produce to replace any issue, like oil reserve). You know in our field, AMD survived because of this mandate and we have innovative idea. One of the issue of monopoly is not they are poison which they might be, but they do not know alternative. Organisation compete also but once settle down they do one way. And then the regulator was captured. And the facilitator, the participants (stakeholders) and the governance all gone bad. You just do not know any alternatives. Can 80x86 do 64 bit, say? No, we need another architecture. Microsoft, HP … all followed intel leads to nowhere for a decade. Windows NT has those you know. Even here alternative is there but no need. (And it comes ultimately as ARM… another story.) History now, and for novice you always wonder have i selected right - amd64. No, I use intel cpu … should I choose the non-amd option. No you should not. It is AMD told us that the x86 can have 64 bit. And the rest is history. But if we have only intel. We still are trying to switch. With a very hot cpu in 14 nm … Key is not regulation vs competition vs gov oversight/public stakeholder participation/ facilitation and helping hand. It is all. In many industry you cannot really allow free competition (everyone can be a doctor), but also undesirable to have no competition (single provider - which can be ok if there are alternatives abd competition to provide option ). Sidetrack but important, in one of discussion, Gov need to help, but not play 2 incompatible role the facilitator AND the regulator at the same time (usda vs fda as mentioned in sone post; or the Boeing incident of delegation of flight safety by Boeing as the regulator … does not really know as they are not from a different background, the so called capture). China example is the worst. They have too much competition and they break the system by ganging it. And then the regulator, media, … all forced to cover it up. The “infrastructure” for this is hard (like current Wuhan virus handling and vaccine innovation/certification etc). But the triangular relation is a must. And must be balanced.