Isn't this confusing the fact that in general any mean of transaction, can be used negatively? The nature of which depends of the nature of the currency. But that's not an argument to say bitcoin and crypto are bad as opposed to for example the dollar. Rather this only shows that criminals are much faster at understanding crypto's advantages and adopting it. The "good" use cases will follow when adoption increases and a proper legal framework is implemented.
Gemini is ok, but less volume than GDAX and I'm not sure they have a free type of orders. Also Gemini's interface is personally less interesting for day trading. But to that point GDAX's graphing interface is a bit odd and represents data differently than say trading view.
Trading view is by far the best to check out a coin, see its indicators etc imo.
Still I think it's good to diversify your funds over various exchanges, just in case of a hack.
Doesn’t Gemini have an advantage to gdax in the way funds transfers work? A friend was telling me about this but I have yet to try it, I’m still in a queue to be verified for Gemini.
"“Two years ago, I warned that we were making a serious mistake,” Pai said. “It’s basic economics: The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.”
Just reading this makes me angry. Has he ever heard of monopolies / oligopolies, or simply the place of government in regulating public utilities.
Apply his quote to water supplies and see what happens.
Demand for water isn't growing at nearly the rate of demand for bits. If communities expected their regulated water utilities to deliver twice as much water every 18-36 months, they'd be in for some tough times.
That's irrelevant, if anything in your example you should compare growth in productivity for bits and for water independently and see if they manage to meet their demands Also water is a much more finite supply.
The point of my example was that as you leave government out of the tap water market and instead of getting more of it, you get less, more expensive and of lesser quality. Economics teach that in some industries, the government and a certain amount of regulation is healthy and good for the market; leaving actors to themselves just makes them tend naturally towards monopolies which then trifle innovation. Communications is one of those markets.
The difference in demand is highly relevant: U.S. water utilities can't even attract enough investment to replace century-old lead pipes and sewers; similarly tepid investment in internet infrastructure would have left us all with dial-up still.
Economics certainly teaches that some markets are susceptible to natural monopolies and government regulation is appropriate there. But it also teaches that making a kind of business less profitable will drive investment away from that business. The question is how do you regulate to balance those competing concerns. You have to protect consumers, but you also have to figure out how to get sufficient investment into the industry.
The U.K. does a good job balancing the interests. There is a single, regulated monopoly that owns most of the last mile (BT Openreach), but the regulations are designed so that the monopoly is actually very profitable. Most state and local governments do a terrible job balancing those interests with regards to utility companies. Regulated rates keep water and sewer bills low, but dramatically limit the profitability of water utilities. As a result our water infrastructure is hundreds of billions of dollars in the red.
> The U.K. does a good job balancing the interests. There is a single, regulated monopoly that owns most of the last mile (BT Openreach), but the regulations are designed so that the monopoly is actually very profitable.
Yeah, the situation is similar in Canada, the CRTC has forced the big ISPs to lease to smaller ones. It's led to some great reductions in our costs, we used to be limited by extremely low data caps - they're now much higher or gone for a bit extra. Speeds have comparably gone up about 10x in a span of a few years.
I don't even think they'd need to be nearly as aggressive with the net neutrality laws if they could manage something similar - the competition creates a much better environment to address the problems.
It's a matter of creating a competitive market instead of restricting or destroying one.
Regarding the example of France the trend you're pointing out is out of date. After years of water privatization which drove costs up for municipalities and quality down, there's a reversal towards public management of the water supply. Privatization and deregulation pushed the market to an oligopoly of three main actors, Veolia, Suez and SAUR which eliminated competition and pushed costs up for consumers for a worse quality of water. That trend that was before celebrated (and embraced in the US, with Veolia and Suez heavily active there), is now being full on reversed, with measurable benefits for consumers and municipalities.
The US is still lagging behind on that realization and it's a common mistake to think that privatizing water supplies holds benefits for towns and consumers. Most often in these cases, deregulation brings benefits in the short term as private actors compete heavily to win public markets, but not in the long term when the market tends to an oligopoly / monopoly and private actors don't have any more incentive to push on innovation or investments.
The issue of lack of investment isn't a problem of too much regulation, on the contrary. These are markets with very high costs of entry where you need a strong regulatory framework to mandate a couple actors to a large enough market for those investments to be viable. You quote the example of communications, in France by law France Telecom had to expand its network to reach any citizen, whether 10km away from the grid or 10m at no cost for the consumer. This led to a great coverage of the territory and very high access to broadband for most of the population.
Take the example of the US, where internet access costs easily $100 a month, has just a couple actors sharing the market in each city, in a proper position of cartel, and where government regulation is nearly non-existent; and oppose this to most european countries where a 100mb symmetrical connection will cost you 30 EUR.... On the counter, what really disrupted the French Telecom market was the arrival of Free, which offered costs so low Telecoms had to find ways to match their prices.
It's a fallacy to think that these markets don't need regulation, but it's another one to think government can do everything ;)
For context, the recent move in Paris ends over a century of water privatization. The city seems to have managed fine during that time frame. The focus on consumer prices is emblematic of the problem with public water management. Water/sewer services shouldn't be cheap. Prices should be high enough to adequately maintain infrastructure. Water rates in the U.S. are less than half of what they are in France,[1] and as a result, our water infrastructure is in terrible shape.[2]
> You quote the example of communications, in France by law France Telecom had to expand its network to reach any citizen, whether 10km away from the grid or 10m at no cost for the consumer. This led to a great coverage of the territory and very high access to broadband for most of the population.
There is no free lunch. More money spent covering more people means less money invested in improving infrastructure in urban areas.
France is not a great counterpoint to the U.S. model of regulating ISPs. According to 2016 OECD data, France does have higher overall broadband deployment (40 per 100 inhabitants versus ~33 per 100 in the US).[3] But the vast majority of it is DSL rather than much faster cable. According to Akamai's latest broadband speed report,[4] France ranks 52nd in the world in average speed (page 32). The U.S. ranks 14th (page 24). The U.S. has 42% of connections above 15mbps, versus just 16% in France (pages 25, 34).
> Take the example of the US, where internet access costs easily $100 a month, has just a couple actors sharing the market in each city, in a proper position of cartel, and where government regulation is nearly non-existent; and oppose this to most european countries where a 100mb symmetrical connection will cost you 30 EUR
The fact that you can get 100mb symmetrical connections cheaply in some places doesn't reflect "most of Europe." Fiber is available in almost every U.S. city I've ever lived or worked in (Atlanta, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Washington, Annapolis--all except Baltimore and Wilmington, but even those have fiber in the surrounding suburbs). But that's not necessarily representative of the U.S.--you need to look at aggregate, not anecdotal data.
Almost 2/3 of the EU lives in: Germany, France, the U.K., Italy, or Spain. According to Akamai's data, those countries all have slower average internet speeds than the U.S. That is consistent with the OECD data, which shows that three of the five lag the U.S. in fiber deployment (counting the U.K.'s FTTN as fiber rather than DSL) and rely predominantly on slower DSL rather than faster cable technologies.
> For context, the recent move in Paris ends over a century of water privatization. The city seems to have managed fine during that time frame. The focus on consumer prices is emblematic of the problem with public water management. Water/sewer services shouldn't be cheap. Prices should be high enough to adequately maintain infrastructure. Water rates in the U.S. are less than half of what they are in France,[1] and as a result, our water infrastructure is in terrible shape.[2]
> You quote the example of communications, in France by law France Telecom had to expand its network to reach any citizen, whether 10km away from the grid or 10m at no cost for the consumer. This led to a great coverage of the territory and very high access to broadband for most of the population.
>> There is no free lunch. More money spent covering more people means less money invested in improving infrastructure in urban areas.
The point here is that the regulatory authority creates a legal framework which favors investement in the grid, resolving one of the inefficiencies of the market (no interest in paying 2MM euros to connect a person who's distant in the country side), makes investments happen which would never take place under a fully deregulated environment. This addresses issues of digital inequalities which would push actors on investing only on people or products which can yield the higher profits. At term it hurts society.
I'll take your points on the OCED and Akamai rankings, and yes I provided anecdotal evidence, not a lot of time for research :) But my sense is that if you compare speeds delivered to prices paid, consumers are still much better off in Europe. The other point which might be hard to quantify is the little choice US consumers have when choosing their ISP. It's often one or two actors who offer the same speed, price points and whose situation of oligopoly allows them to forgo proper consumer support alltogether (TWC). That is the result of no regulation and I don't see how more of that will benefit consumers.
A government fiber utility installs fiber once, just like a government water utility installs pipes once. Making it faster means replacing termination equipment. In what way is Verizon better at doing that than a public utility company would be?
Fibre is a very recent development... and there are a few kinds of it. Like, GPON, EPON, etc.
Before we had coax cable which required updates very often (DOCSIS versions) which usually required changing lots of equipment (not termination equipment/CPEs).
Before we had DSL which also saw lots of improvements over the years. (ADSL, ADSL2, ADSL2+, annexes, etc).
Also all these technologies require an uplink which needs to be updated from time to time.
These updates are very expensive, you can't imagine how much. A comparison with tap water is moot because, well, you don't need new, thicker pipes every 10 years.
The "regulate it like water" argument is less persuasive since we found out that many of our water utilities are making our children retarded because of lead poisoning.
For what it's worth, I just discovered your site and i find the overall design and experience awesome.
It's light, clean, pro, has some fun elements and a bit of a nicely integrated branding which is cool (the forking idea). Well done!
The true genius and revolution of Glass is the interaction system. It's the first large scale, consumer product which will really provide a much faster interface with our phones / computers. We have small computers that can do anything in our pockets, but the bottleneck for the past years has been passing commands onto it, typing them, taking it out etc.
Glass will provide a much more embedded experience, where you have constant access, where you never have to ask yourself is it worth taking my phone out of my pocket etc.
The scary part is what that will do to our memory, we'll slowly move towards a shared memory that sits on the net. When every question's answer is a ms away, will we still use our own memory? Maybe we'll use it as RAM :)
Anyway I'm very excited, I'm sure the interactions and seeing people with glass will be fairly odd, but the intrusive part of it will be resolved in time.
+1. I've lived in the city for 5 years and found all places but the last on CL (last was CL through padmapper). If you manage to get a good workflow you can find little gems in less than a week.
That's the beauty of its UI, the fact that's it's not so appealing puts some people off but also rewards those working hard at it. The amount and variety of offered appartements on CL is huge and much better than what most other sites would offer.
That makes for an experience whose reward can be very high and this is valuable when looking for a place to live.
> the fact that's it's not so appealing puts some people off but also rewards those working hard at it
Right... why would you want to only reward your users who work hard? That's idiotic.
Why wouldn't you want to make the site easy to use, with high-quality data, for everyone? When that really wouldn't be that hard to do.
When I was apartment-hunting, over the course of weeks, I literally learned how to recognize particularly spammy brokers by the formatting of their headlines, so I wouldn't click on them... (Four asterisks at beginning and end? Ignore. All-caps with a strange abbreviation for bedroom? Ignore. Etc.) This is a skill I deeply wish I hadn't had to learn. It's ridiculous.
it is and its not. the question you're putting fwd in the end is that of a fully transparent market or not. With cl as it is, the market for broker apts, new ones etc is fairly transparent as these are listing you'll often find on all rental sites.
The market for shares / sublets / by owners is much less transparent and in a city as NY where some places are rent controlled, other have a an amazing history / layout etc, this is actually interesting.
In a sense it gives anyone a shot at being lucky and finding an amazing place with a bit of dedication. If it was fully transparent I think the challenge to achieve the same outcome would be to continuously for long periods of time, be looking for an apt. Which right now isnt necessary.
That's it.
Nevertheless I'd be curious to see this done right and see the difference.
> In a sense it gives anyone a shot at being lucky and finding an amazing place with a bit of dedication.
What you're describing is basically anti-market. You're saying, celebrate market friction and inefficiences, so people who are time-rich but money-poor can have a shot at finding underpriced properties, kind of like a lottery.
For me, it just means that I wasted probably 20 or 30 hours of my life sifting through listings that were 99% crappy, in order to find my apartment. I blame Craig, for not improving the efficiency of the market, which would be really easy for his site to do.
+1, this reads more like corporate branding on how cool can early googlers be more than anything else. I'm pretty happy for her if she manages 130 hours a week, but this doesn't work for everyone... if any.
I don't really care in the debate of working your ass off or staying sane and mentally fresh to be productive, but Google pushing this fact is just plain sad.
What are we supposed to react? Just awe in admiration at the necessary self-destruction we're supposed to imitate?
Plus I was at the talk and it was sadly sadly corporate. If there is one thing I remember about Marissa Mayer is that she does the whole corporate PR / tough questions avoiding thing very well. In my mind this is what makes her so successful..
Do you think it's part of some larger corporate effort on their part?
Seems like they need to talk to the employees who posted contrary statements in this thread. They don't seem to be on-message.
> Plus I was at the talk and it was sadly sadly corporate.
Wouldn't you expect someone highly successful in a corporate environment when asked about work environment issues to give you a very successfully-minded corporate type of answer?
The surprise to me would have been if she had given an answer like, "I only work 3 hours a day, then I exercise, meditate, spend time with my family, and get a good 10 hours of sleep. That's the kind of work-life balance that everyone can have and be filthy rich like I am!"
That would have been a great deal more surprising and interesting. Sadly, reality marches on and acts all boring and serious like reality tends to do. Work hard, eat your vegetables, stay in school, don't do drugs... totally boring. :)
I don't think its a conscious decision on Google's end. They have grown, and as it becomes larger as an organization it faces different challenges. PR and communication becomes naturally very different for a large organization, it is much more scrutinized, subject to easy criticism etc. So some sort of party line attitude is necessary.
It's a thin line to walk, between honest truthfulness and too much marketing bs. I think Google is a bit too much in the latter these days, but I still have good faith in it.
