ffgjgf1

10 ms·

91.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
Free markets almost never can survive longterm without (sometimes extensive) regulation. Historically there might have been a few exceptions to that, but basically always you have a few good years and then the winner(s) who emerges starts a
92.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
It’s the opposite. In the 60s and 70s many western countries were semi-socialist. Just look at Britain, the state owned a significant proportion of the industry, housing etc. the unions were extremely powerful (by modern standards). Same i
93.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
Unless you’re deemed to be an unfair monopoly and abuse your position to harm consumers interests. You don’t even need >90% market share for that to be the case. e.g. Standard Oil only controlled 64% of the US market at most, it was stil
94.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
The had no issues unnecessarily dying entirely for Stalin’s political ambitions? One might say that being one of the aggressors who started the war and by playing a massive part in the successful German invasion of France (it’s hard to imag
95.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
This is hourly/etc. though? The one I posted was the yearly average which I think is a much better way to look at this (maybe monthly would be better though). > < 20 p/ug ~ 20 seems quite high (IMHO) > so almost no one
96.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
> I can't speak for current Russian doctrine, but Soviet "human wave" attacks during WWII are mostly German propaganda Also Western (considering silly movies like Enemy at the Gate). They had more than enough equipment out
97.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
Also the same Stalin who literally bankrolled the German invasion of Norway and France https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commer... Germany had no oil after invading Poland. Almost all of it was impo
98.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
> extra losses would you expect Soviet troops take in an unprepared operation Not more than usual? Trading massive amounts of casualties to sped up their advance was a core aspect of their military doctrine. Soviet military leadership ha
99.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
The main reason why’d never want to live in Poland longterm are the extreme pollution levels. Compared to some other places you can’t even escape it by moving to the suburbs/etc. The only place worse/as bad in the EU is Northern I
100.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
Also presumably various other facial features that are more or less immutable.
101.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
Seems like a strange way to express that point? Why mention underwhelming support for AI/ML if it’s the same on both? (if we’re talking about desktop chips I don’t even understand what’s that supposed to mean).
102.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
> It's even worse with their p vs e cores that creates issues in many games. Didn’t AMD also have issues with different cache types/sizes on dual CCD chips? Meaning that it basically didn’t make any sense to buy anything more e
103.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
> Couple that with the underwhelming software support for AI/ML on their own hardware for about a year after CPU and GPU launch, and I wish I'd just stuck to AMD. What support did AMD have?
104.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
> AMD technically has had a better product for decades if you exclude the power consumption metric And single core performance. And some other stuff which obviously didn’t matter during the period in question but suddenly became very imp
105.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
To be fair IP law initially and too a large degree still were mainly meant to prevent your country’s citizens from stealing from other citizens/residents. Presumably that would result in lower overall productivity. Stealing IP from oth
106.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
No, the barriers to entry in this case are extremely high. Higher or about as high as they ever were. You’d be trying to compete against products into the development of which two of the biggest global corporations have invested billions ov
107.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
Possibly not, not all of them at least.
108.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
It leads to unnecessary inefficiencies. e.g. different insurance companies might end up paying different prices which affects premiums. Insurance companies are inherently incentivized to maximize their costs which is one of the (if not the)
109.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
How is it good? How do the insured benefit from the complete lack of price transparency besides having to pay significantly higher premiums than they would otherwise?
110.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
> It is but it's the government paying for it. Basically all new novel drugs relied on public research funds [5 The fact that it was partially government funded doesn’t mean that the drug companies didn’t have to put it in a signifi
111.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
> How do you do 'anything' as a society? Usually by outsourcing it to some government regulatory agency > that wouldn't mean normal people would understand That’s fine, some people would and be able to explain it to ot
112.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
Hunter gatherers who are killing Rhinos only to sell their grounded horns to some idiots in China/etc.?
113.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
> 30%-50% of monthly salary That and usually manufactured in such low qualities that most people couldn’t even buy one even if they could afford it. A lot like cars which were relatively even more (extremely) expensive but you still had
114.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
> getting that 2% figure from It’s a rough not very educated estimate of what proportion of their global revenue Apple might lose by complying with the regulations ( I’d personally bet it’s significantly less than that). Do you have a be
115.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
> If EU fines exceed EU revenue They won’t. Also you’re assuming that Apple’s management is irrational and petulant, because if not it should be “if the cost of compliance with EU regulations exceeds their EU revenue/net income” whi
116.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
Good thing the fines are optional and can be negotiated down when apple starts complying with the regulations. > EU wants to fine companies like Apple a much larger percentage They could do that, that in no way means that they are planni
117.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
> They would directly lose ~40% of profit How did you come to that conclusion. Doesn’t “services” include the $20 billion get from Google per year which is basically pure profit? Also Apple care, icloud etc etc. how would that be impacte
118.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
> If that were true, Apple wouldn’t care to poke the bear They are just searching for the optimal way of complying with the regulations while maximizing their income . you do have a valid point about services being a larger % of their ne
119.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
Why would Apple willingly choose to lose 20% of their revenue instead of 2%? That’s simply not rational i.e. absurd
120.
by ffgjgf1 2y ago
> they won't have any official presence, period. So they’d lose 20% of their global revenue just out of spite? Can you name a single rational reason why’d they do that? > Or bypass How? They won’t be able to sell directly to EU c

More ›