If TLS version support was materially affecting your client’s ability to integrate with your products’ APIs then the Product Manager should have picked this up and worked with the development team on a way to remove this friction.
I can think of a bunch of different ways of solving this that would take a few days to build out.
I think generalists make good Product Managers. Getting a "good" understanding of all the business functions (tech, analytics, ux/design, sales, legal & regulatory etc) is fundamental to being successful in the role and naturally fits the type of mindset that you describe.
For the sake of factual accuracy, the vaccine being “completely safe” for children should be rephrased “short term side effects outweighed by risks associated with the disease; medium and long term cost/benefit unknown.”
Either way bunk without a source, is it even true for all ages that short term side effects are outweighed by the disease? Is it still true if stratified further by known comorbidities/autoimmune issues?
I think it is necessary for the crashes to occur, to gather the data required to re-train the auto-pilot. We as a society need to decide whether we want to pay this cost of technological advancement.
No. Gathering data of human drivers braking in those circumstances would result in a perfectly fine dataset. This idea of needing human sacrifice is bonkers.
I would guess it's because your insurance pays someone's medical bills if you hit them in the US, which can be >>> the cost of replacing a car even if it's a relatively minor injury.
R0 of an infection is the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection.
We are nowhere near all people in a population being susceptible to infection with the vaccine rollout (and the people that are susceptible, it's their choice.)
> The current framework in antitrust fails to register certain forms of anticompetitive harm and therefore is unequipped to promote real competition—a shortcoming that is illuminated and amplified in the context of online platforms and data-driven markets. This failure stems both from assumptions embedded in the Chicago School framework and from the way this framework assesses competition.
> Notably, the present approach fails even if one believes that antitrust should promote only consumer interests. Critically, consumer interests include not only cost but also product quality, variety, and innovation. Protecting these long-term interests requires a much thicker conception of “consumer welfare” than what guides the current approach. But more importantly, the undue focus on consumer welfare is misguided. It betrays legislative history, which reveals that Congress passed antitrust laws to promote a host of political economic ends—including our interests as workers, producers, entrepreneurs, and citizens. It also mistakenly supplants a concern about process and structure (i.e., whether power is sufficiently distributed to keep markets competitive) with a calculation regarding outcome (i.e., whether consumers are materially better off).
> Antitrust law and competition policy should promote not welfare but competitive markets. By refocusing attention back on process and structure, this approach would be faithful to the legislative history of major antitrust laws. It would also promote actual competition—unlike the present framework, which is overseeing concentrations of power that risk precluding real competition.
So:
- I have read it.
- It was a while ago (several years?).
- I should probably read it again.
But... I didn’t think much of it the first time. I don’t think the claims are well motivated. I think she assumes “Amazon bad” from the beginning and contorts some not-very-strong arguments in favor of that conclusion.
I do remember the claim in the first quoted paragraph that there was something unique about the threat (I guess that’s how she sees it?) posed by Amazon. That had the potential to be an interesting claim, but I really didn’t see any evidence to back it up in the article.
The second quoted paragraph contains one suggestion which is just completely false: that consumer product variety is limited by Amazon. I mean, have you ever tried to wade through pages of junk to find the thing you searched for? I have. There is an absolute profusion of goods on the site. That claim does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
If the idea is instead that the fact that most consumers choose amazon instead of some other retailer is the channel by which variety is harmed, well... that also does not stand up to scrutiny in a world with Walmart and target and Etsy and a million other online retailers.
The thing in the same paragraph about the “legislative history” of antitrust is Khan’s idea to try to reorient antitrust law with (from my recollection) a specific desire to punish or break up Amazon in particular in mind. The claim that Amazon does not compete in a competitive market which is supposed to justify this does not stand up to scrutiny either.
I don’t agree (in the third paragraph) that antitrust should be reoriented away from a consumer welfare standard, but even if I did, I think Amazon does compete in competitive markets already! (Why would we orient away from consumer welfare anyway? Would we like (e.g.) all consumers to pay higher prices (lowering welfare) but have the “product variety” provided by hypothetical, post-break-up Amazons 1, 2 and 3? What would be the point of that?)
My overall impression was that the entire article was written with the conclusion “Amazon is bad” in mind.
Quoting Bertrand Russell's "Free Thought and Official Propaganda" from the 1920s:
>Legal penalties are, however, in the modern world, the least of the obstacles to freedom of thoughts. The two great obstacles are economic penalties and distortion of evidence. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living.
>It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living.
Mind you, that quote has no qualifiers, so by "earn a living," the implication is earn any living, anywhere. Please give an example of someone has been banned from Twitch for opinions which have made it impossible for them to earn any living, anywhere.
Regarding the question about how the vaccine could protect against severe but not mild infection, I think they answer that here:
> Antibodies can prevent infection, your T cell-responses ensure that those antibodies keep doing their job and they kick in after you're infected OR oh my goodness stop the presses- VACCINATED (how about them apples). In other words, while robust T-cells responses cannot protect you from a mild or moderate infection sometimes (think cough, sniffles, etc.) they can however proliferate rapidly and prevent the build up of viral load. Psst- you want this to be LOW. VL drives disease severity.
I can think of a bunch of different ways of solving this that would take a few days to build out.