It’s much more expensive and not the same thing at all. That’s totally fine since Sococo is doing their own thing. Focusmate is entirely different though
But Uber/Lyft are not lobbying against public transit. In fact, in Denver, you can buy RTD tickets through the Uber app. There are plenty of reasons from a labor perspective to dislike rideshare companies but this ain't it.
It's the implication you and the headline are making. I have yet to see any evidence that Uber and Lyft are against public transport. They are competing with it, which is their right. That's massively different from attempting regulatory capture like the Kochs have done.
Don't know why you're comment is grayed, we absolutely need heavy monetary penalties for the worst kinds of data breaches. The abstract idea of a class action lawsuit isn't enough, even after the Equifax breach.
Is there anything about how breaches are currently remediated that might contribute to better outcomes than if we adopted a higher and harsher penalty system?
It seems like it might create some perverse incentives as the risk escalates.
Do you have a similar opinion in regards to crimes? Do you think that there will be less crime if there are harsher prison sentences? Are you in favor of mandatory minimum sentences?
If not, why do you think harsher punishments are needed here but not for crimes?
White collar crimes (like this should be) are all about making value calculations. Take the famous Ford Pinto memo. They decided the risk to their customers' lives was smaller (in terms of pure dollar amount, after potential litigation) than fixing the gas tank issue. If you penalize reckless security practices that lead to data breaches companies will be far more inclined to look after their customers. We already issue fines like this with COPPA, so it's not a new concept.
Street crimes have a far different cause and should be treated differently. I'm surprised I even have to type that, it seems obvious.
It seems like an ok reading of the history on first glance but it is the Marxist perspective. I suppose necessary to understand the heterodox viewpoint.
> So central to
capitalist reality is this motor of growth that it lies behind both imperialist conquest and the
launching of those periodic prolonged booms of which the Belle Époque and the post-war
Golden Age are the most recent examples.
This is a pretty ridiculous conclusion that is demonstrably false.
Marxist value theory basically died out in the 70s, which Freeman basically concedes in the "The Marxists Divide" section. His TSSI is an attempt to resusitate the theory, but it has found few adherents.
It is worth noting that the TSSI isn't the only one around any more, though - nor is the strictly quantitative interpretation of value theory. The TSSI was constructed as an interpretation to solve the transformation problem, but there's Dumenil's New Interpretation now and Fred Moseley's Macro-Monetary Interpretation. It is not surprising that Freeman would make such a concession as an economist rather than as a philosopher, where Marxian value-form theory flourished in Germany and Japan during the 70s and 80s and still to this day.
> I don't see this OS succeeding beyond China though.
I wouldn't be so sure. Obviously it would be an uphill battle for the OS to compete in the US or Europe, but anywhere that doesn't have clear smartphone dominance yet (ie most of India or Africa) is fair game. Huawei already has a strong foothold in both of those places, and the Chinese government is not opposed to strong-arming them into sticking with Huawei infrastructure.
Scalability is a big problem, but it's not the only problem. Money accomplishes 3 things:
1) Store of value
2) Unit of account
3) Medium of exchange
It's not really very good at any these 3 things. The scalability significantly hurts #3, but even if you fix it it's super volatile, which are bad for 1 and 2. Not only that, but it's inherently deflationary, which is quite bad in the long term, but I guess that's really a secondary concern.
