Bad regulation should't be reperesentaive or regulation as a whole. If you don't get it right the first time, you're allowed to try again, and that's what should be done with regulations providing bad incentives.
Gaming has already gone though a period of pushing subscription games, and most died, since people generally didn't want to pay a fee per game they played. That only left the big players in that space, while everybkdy else went back to releasing games the normal way. I fail to see why things would go a different way this time around.
The legal system is kind of like an evolutionary process. We try things, see if they work, and adjust over time. So far I think this has indeed led to a better legal system, but I can see why the set backs and injustices of the world make that difficult to assess.
Regulation also creates jobs, even bad regulation, so there's almost a Keynesian argument to be had about its relationship to our economic system.
Blanket dismissal of regulations is about as silly as a blanket dismissal of laws. Some laws are "bad", some are "good", but the point is who do they hurt, and who do they serve? Regulations are tools, like laws, and can be written to serve the needs of the people, for good things.
I'm not even saying this should be dismissed with a blanket dismissal.
First example is a reminder that regulation can be bad.
Second is an actual concern about this specific regulation. This is a concrete concern about the incentives it creates. There wasn't a single response to this comment about exactly WHY questioning effectiveness of it is irrational.
>See also car fuel economy standards that push car makers into killing the wagon market segment in favor of SUVs.
All this says is that it's possible for regulations to have negative, unintended consequences. It's about as relevant as reminding your friends that some restaurants are not very good when you're picking a place to eat. It's not relevant when we're talking about something specific and the field of things is varied.
> WRT regulation the only thing that matters is the incentives that it creates.
Sure. What are the negative incentives?
>If this is how the bill ends up being enacted, it will only push more big game developers into making their titles subscription only.
Why? What is the incentive away from one-time purchases? Is it cost? Where is that cost coming from?
> It's about as relevant as reminding your friends that some restaurants are not very good when you're picking a place to eat
Interestingly, restaurant food is typically less healthy, more expensive and less tasty than what you can make at home. Eating out should be the exception, not the rule, which plays directly plays into the anti regulation argument.
That is very far from the point, not only because what I meant was that some restaurants are not as good compared to others, but also because the connection between eating out vs eating at home and regulations is basically non-existent? I don't really understand what you're saying.
The point is saying "some regulations have downsides" is meaningless in conversation about a particular regulation, just like saying "some restaurants don't serve very tasty food" is meaningless in a conversation about "should we try that new Thai place on 3rd street?"
I suspect that's because you wrongly assume the other side is saying "some regulations have downsides". It's more likely they're saying "all regulations have unintended consequences" and thus deserve extra scrutiny when considering them.
If that is the case, then the analogy is fitting again; even "good" restaurants are often a poor substitute for eating at home, and so shouldn't be a first line of consideration.
Agreed that's what they were likely trying to do with that comment, and I'd argue the problem with it is that it fear-mongers about regulations while failing to actually scrutinize what the negative effects are.
Also, we should really drop this restaurant analogy, it's ill-fitting and clearly distracting from the main point.
I mean in a literal sense I guess it's true but only in a way that has zero connection to the post. They might as well have told me a fun fact about crickets. If it's supposed to argue against this regulation then their actual point stops being objectively true and it probably is irrational to bring up those car standards without way more justification.
They will only be added to those indexes if they are actually trading at a value that places them in the top 100 or 500 companies in the US. If they fall below that price then they will be kicked out of the index just like any other company.
What exactly is the risk to normal investors if that’s the case? If it’s all a big scam then they will trade lower and they’ll naturally be kicked out of the index.
This is a rule that will apply to all new companies. When Anthropic and OpenAI go public they will also benefit from the rule. Do you think the media/public will be just as outraged when they do it?
The goal of the S&P 500 is to keep the index representative of the US market. They have in fact changed rules in the past when market conditions have changed. These mega IPOs are an entirely new market condition, as private companies have never been this big before listing in history. So large that they immediately fall into the top 100 or 500 largest companies in the country.
There’s also the fact that Nasdaq is a private company and it now has competition from the new Texas exchange. SpaceX is actually dual-listing on TXSE and Nasdaq. Nasdaq needs to keep these giant IPO companies happy because if they don’t they will list on the competitor exchange which would be disastrous for Nasdaq (supercharging their competitor).
These things affect each other as well. Nasdaq wants to make sure they get the IPO on their exchange, so they include them in the Nasdaq 100. S&P 500 doesn’t want to be outdated by missing a trillion dollar company from their index, while other exchanges like the Nasdaq 100 include them.
There’s a real case to be made that this is just self interest on the part of the exchange and the other index providers.
This will never happen, the power dynamic between workers and employers is so skewed in favor of employers and it is only getting worse.
Don't like your job? Fine leave, there are tens of millions of H1B's who will do your job for less money and they won't complain because they can't easily leave.
Very likely declining social trust has something to do with this phenomenon.
>But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
>"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.
It was pretty dang useful when there was no alternative, and I’m sure that many people physically could not have performed their jobs without copy-pasting from it.
But yeah, I don’t know how anyone could have any affection or nostalgia for it, people were massive jerks and it was not a pleasant place.
The entire planet is energy-constrained right now, there aren't enough solar panels or batteries to power all the demand we have, and the demand only continues to grow. We are so energy constrained in fact that people are trying seriously to deploy new nuclear in the US. Even with countries like China massively subsidizing solar, we're still not going to have enough renewable energy deployed.
Why would the oil industry collapse? It seems to me that there is nearly an unlimited demand for energy on the planet. If there's extra energy somewhere, humans will find a use for it. Quality of life for humans is directly correlated with energy abundance (of all kinds, solar is included in that).
Because it’s on track to become expensive than other sources of energy. There are plenty energy sources we don’t use because they are comparatively expensive.
Burning oil directly is incredibly dirty, even though Saudi does that, it feels like a bad bet in general in terms of environmental destruction. You can refine it into gasoline, but that takes as much energy so you wouldn’t gain much.
Yes it's called zoning, it's why we have a housing shortage in the USA. It makes building new things nearly impossible. It's also why none of the homes in Los Angeles that burnt down in massive fires a few years ago are being rebuilt, and likely won't be rebuilt for decades (if at all).
What exactly is the big advantage with the overhead handling system? I see videos of it online and think that it looks pretty complicated but I don’t see what the advantage is. Why not just have the track system be on the ground? Seems like it would be more maintainable.
I believe speed was the biggest factor. You can go a lot faster when you aren't contending with traffic. Vertical = multiple horizontal planes that don't interact much.
So true. And no wonder why, just look at Thomas Massie. They just demonstrated that if any politician dares to go against the wishes of Israel, their lobby will crush that person and replace them with someone more compliant.
For example one commenter in this thread said:
>See also car fuel economy standards that push car makers into killing the wagon market segment in favor of SUVs.
This is an objectively true and prove-able statement. What is irrational about that?
WRT regulation the only thing that matters is the incentives that it creates.
>If this is how the bill ends up being enacted, it will only push more big game developers into making their titles subscription only.
This is a valid concern and a real incentive if that’s how the law works. What is irrational about this argument?
reply