> Both of these served to discover the real market value of things
- Airbnb served to discover that someone always pays the cost of negative externalities.
- Uber served to discover the above, plus that in an environment with low interest rates and significant underemployment, a company can run losses indefinitely while paying peanuts. Calculate the net wage next time you take an Uber, accounting for their cut, depreciation, and a (generous) 75% utilization. That's only feasible at a loss while using funny money to pay desperate people. The Uber app is excellent, credit them for that. They were in the right place and time and executed very well on mobile+geolocation. But they've discovered nothing about market value.
(not interested in the "blah, blah, AI, logistics company" magical thinking. People who say that have short positions in Uber. Uber is Twitter: they could have been a profitable mid-size company making an excellent living selling all sorts of mobile service provisioning; in a capital crunch they cannot afford to pay drivers a market-clearing wage and pay back their over-inflated expectations)
If a Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee presidency would change your opinion on federal control of education, perhaps you should reevaluate the underlying principles.
This. 1000 times this. It's not even about automated diagnosis. The software used by most radiologists is more than two decades behind the state of the art, lacking even basic image registration and segmentation capabilities. (source: I've worked with radiologists who review brain images at several tier-one, top-10 hospitals).
If you are lucky, some eager, tech-savvy resident will use 3D Slicer or OsiriX on their personal laptop to coregister and segment images, and do longitudinal volumetric comparison. But those basic tools are not available on the platforms used to read most images.
Major vendors are trying to catch up, but from what I've seen, demand (and thus willingness to invest) is surprisingly limited.
> Major vendors are trying to catch up, but from what I've seen, demand (and thus willingness to invest) is surprisingly limited.
You may not be able to get insurance to reimburse for it, but my impression is that there is no shortage of people ready to pay cash money, easily into 4 figures, for someone providing this service in a 'personalized medicine' context.
As far as packaging a tool-chain that actually makes these state-of-the-art measurements and applying it in this domain, it's not clear what the FDA approval / requirements would be.
Don't be daft. It might be possible to take you seriously if anyone, ever, had made the same complaint about an article entitled "The Woman Who Will XYZ". In fact, such articles are celebrated as encouraging more STEM awareness and participation by women, providing positive role models, and other benefits -- which I fully support.
this web site ( http://visadoor.com/ ) has been blocked because it has been determined by Web Reputation Filters to be a security threat to your computer or the corporate network.
In fairness they're a new company and probably only have a basic view on how they're going to make money. They just licensed their core code under 'free software' so it makes sense for them to have a CLA. It will give them some flexibility as they figure out their commercial path - though I can't actually find the CLA on their site.
Anyway, in comparison good luck finding a 'free software' license for the Gmail API, or a CLA - and that's from a company that's benefited from Open Source more than any other.
Is this viral like the gpl? Does the use of the inbox backend, hosted by me, require release of the full source to the entire app that uses the inbox backend? My brief reading of the agpl seems to say yes. Which makes this an interesting toy but nothing more...
Yes, the AGPL does require the release of the source of any code built on components licensed under it. Chances are they'll have a commercial license, though my salary disputes your assertion that an AGPL base can only be used as a toy - we have contracts with some of the largest companies in my country.
I am continually surprised that Netflix has failed to play any real hardball. Seed (ie: astroturf) a class-action lawsuit against Verizon for breach of contract. Make a big PAC donation to the attorney general in a consumer-friendly state like Washington or Massachusetts and let the dogs run. Get the city council of a largish and liberal locale like Seattle to consider a municipal internet service. Heck, cut off service to Verizon subscribers the day House of Cards comes out.
I've always thought that Netflix was in a tough spot when it comes to cutting consumers off, because (1) they'd be losing money, and (2) they'd need to responsibly refund those consumers or else they'll look terrible.
However, TV networks cut off access to cable provider customers when they can't reach a deal on price... so why can't Netflix do the same? I mean, if ISPs really want to turn the Internet into a cable-like place, they should expect that similar disputes are going to happen.
You know... that's not a bad idea. So long as they refund (or more likely extend) the accounts for people accessing Netflix from those ISPs.
Or, maybe Netflix should intentionally limit the number of people that could access their service from a given ISP so that the overall quality is maintained? If you try to access the service and you get denied for ISP capacity reasons, then you'd get that day refunded.
They need to do something to make sure that the customer knows where the problem is. But, instead of playing too rough, I think publicly shaming the ISPs is the best approach. At least for now.
Something akin to the cable companies cutting channels until deals are met might be blocking certain shows only (netflix originals for instance). As long as there was a warning when you signed up I suppose (certain networks may not be able to stream netflix originals).
I don't know, this strikes me as "real" hardball. Many of the things you suggest are also that, but ultimately this is a political problem and will be won or lost in the political arena. And Netflix is getting a lot of voters pissed off at Verizon, and no doubt other ISPs in the future.
Some of the things you suggest will affect politicians, but the ultimate one is a credible threat of sending them home to spend more time with their families after an election. It's how gun owners have moved mountains starting in the mid-80s or so (the area I'm most familiar with), and if Netflix is playing the long game, it's how they're going to win ... and overall help us win the net neutrality battle.
>Heck, cut off service to Verizon subscribers the day House of Cards comes out.
They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. That will just make Verizon subscribers mad.
They should just flash up messages every so often when the network is congested to get people to call their congresspeople and ask them to support net neutrality and firing ex-comcast lobbyists from the FCC.
Abortion ban: government-imposed restrictions on the right to terminate genetically-undesirable fetuses. Which of these criteria should not be allowed: Gender? Height? Lack of physical strength? How about, say, statistically-probable homosexuality?
All is not as it seems when you change the optics (edited, restored).
I admit, those scenarios are almost as odious as they are unbelievable. People already select for height, strength and a host of other genetic characteristics when they mate. But anyways, mother's choice. Her body, her choice. Very simple.
Sex-selective abortion is abhorrent, but it's not at all unbelievable. The others are mostly hypothetical - for now - but amniocentesis and genetic testing for specific diseases is a very real thing, and the steady march of GWAS means we will have the rest soon enough.
- Airbnb served to discover that someone always pays the cost of negative externalities.
- Uber served to discover the above, plus that in an environment with low interest rates and significant underemployment, a company can run losses indefinitely while paying peanuts. Calculate the net wage next time you take an Uber, accounting for their cut, depreciation, and a (generous) 75% utilization. That's only feasible at a loss while using funny money to pay desperate people. The Uber app is excellent, credit them for that. They were in the right place and time and executed very well on mobile+geolocation. But they've discovered nothing about market value.
(not interested in the "blah, blah, AI, logistics company" magical thinking. People who say that have short positions in Uber. Uber is Twitter: they could have been a profitable mid-size company making an excellent living selling all sorts of mobile service provisioning; in a capital crunch they cannot afford to pay drivers a market-clearing wage and pay back their over-inflated expectations)