vannevar

76 ms·

901.
by vannevar 7y ago
When reading the section on social preference I couldn't help but think of Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process and its pairwise comparisons. Would that not satisfy Arrow's three requirements? It satisfies the first, since it f
902.
by vannevar 7y ago
So not a massive increase in demand, but a massive drop in supply?
903.
by vannevar 7y ago
So in order to drive the yield curve negative, wouldn't that mean a massive increase in the amount of money going into bonds? So that they no longer have to incentivize people to buy bonds, but can actually make them pay to take them
904.
by vannevar 7y ago
That would be a lot of savings. :-) The actual savings rate is less than 10% ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/246268/personal-savings-... ).
905.
by vannevar 7y ago
The source data linked in the article are a bit fishy. On page 36, you see where (I assume) the author derived his consumption data, though the source is by household and somewhere along the line he converted it to per-capita. In that sourc
906.
by vannevar 7y ago
History is a never ending see-saw, and we are now sawing back towards protectionism, big government, and less freedoms for the individual. The reason we are moving back toward regulation is that we forgot how irresponsible and destructive
907.
by vannevar 7y ago
I also stopped routinely using soap in the shower years ago. I shampoo my hair once a week, just because I'm very active and after a week it needs it. But I rarely use soap, other than on my hands.
908.
by vannevar 7y ago
Regrettably, that didn't stop us here in the US.
909.
by vannevar 7y ago
The "free choice" argument is a charade: the only people with the "freedom" (ie, wealth) to win that race are "people" like Goldman Sachs. On the whole, it's just another legal mechanism for pumping money
910.
by vannevar 7y ago
Noise compared to the signal actually needed for a market to function. Markets functioned nicely on much, much longer timeframes in the past.
911.
by vannevar 7y ago
Most of these efforts are aimed at taking advantage of lags in information flow, often within the very trading systems on which the trades are occurring. They are exploits, not essential market-making. Noise, not signal. What's the rig
912.
by vannevar 7y ago
It seems like we could save a lot of pointless expenditure on an ultimately meaningless arms race in flash trading if we imposed reasonable limits on the time required to hold an equity in order for a trade to be legally recognized.
913.
by vannevar 7y ago
Maybe so. But I still think if Apple had released an AppleTV with Alexa-quality voice control before the Echo came out, it would've been huge. I'm wandering off-topic, but I keep imagining an alternative universe where Apple bough
914.
by vannevar 7y ago
They don't get credit for innovating unless the product is innovative, no. Innovation is not synonymous with success, despite what appears in this thread as an overwhelming urge to conflate the two ideas. I'm observing that they h
915.
by vannevar 7y ago
It's a pretty big jump in mobility and utility from the Mac laptop to the iPhone. It's a much, much smaller jump from the iPhone to the Apple Watch.
916.
by vannevar 7y ago
The HomePod isn't working out because: a) it was way late to the market, and b) Siri's technology lags behind Alexa. Which supports my argument about lackluster innovation. I can say people won't pay $1200 bucks for a laptop
917.
by vannevar 7y ago
But it's not like nothing innovative has been released by others. There's the Echo, there's Google Glass, even the Pebble watch, which I would argue was more innovative (as watches go) than the Apple Watch two years later. Ar
918.
by vannevar 7y ago
I don't deny the Watch is a good product. And those who point out that you needed a Mac to use an iPod or an iPhone are correct. But the functionality of the devices themselves didn't overlap to the extent they do with the iPhone
919.
by vannevar 7y ago
I'm not even looking for a financial home run. I'd settle for a Newton. If Apple had released Google Glass, at least it would show creativity and risk-taking. In fairness, it was easier at the time for Google to fail with Glass, t
920.
by vannevar 7y ago
But Apple wouldn't have needed to sell them at $50-150. They're Apple. They could've sold them for $399. They couldn't make the Echo because they lacked either the market insight to see the opportunity, or the technology
921.
by vannevar 7y ago
Again, I'm not saying the Watch hasn't been successful, or that it's a bad product. I'm saying it wasn't as innovative as many of Apple's other successful products were. It's much more an extension of the
922.
by vannevar 7y ago
What does any of this have to do with innovation, the topic of the thread? There are lots of very successful companies that don't release innovative consumer products. My point isn't that Apple is a bad company, it's not that
923.
by vannevar 7y ago
I don't think you can plausibly argue that the Echo is not a success for Amazon, I'm sorry. Apple would've loved to be in that market first, they just missed it.
924.
by vannevar 7y ago
Agreed. But what are the contenders since 2008? The iPad and the Apple Watch. The iPad was really co-developed with the iPhone for all practical purposes, as the original iPad prototype inspired the phone. You can definitely make a case for
925.
by vannevar 7y ago
I'm not suggesting those were good ideas, only that they were rumors about innovative products that got a lot of attention, in part because everyone thought Apple must be up to something, because they hadn't made a big splash in
926.
by vannevar 7y ago
The Echo.
927.
by vannevar 7y ago
True. But the iPod and iPhone were functionally very distinct from the Mac. The Apple Watch seems more like a convenient extension that eliminates the need to pull your phone out, but not much more than that, at least in its first few years
928.
by vannevar 7y ago
But in both cases, the overwhelming majority of people that get them have iPhones, because there is additional and important functionality that comes with the connection.
929.
by vannevar 7y ago
I'm not saying Apple isn't successful. In fact, that's my point: they're clearly releasing solid products. But they aren't the category-killers that the company's reputation for innovation is built on. There ha
930.
by vannevar 7y ago
No, I'm not suggesting they're the same thing. But size alone is not innovation, in swimming pools or iPads. There just isn't enough distinction to say that the iPad is innovative compared to the iPhone. Internally, in fact,

More ›