Interesting Links for 12-07-2019

[andrewducker]

The New York City passport office

(tags:bureaucracy newyork OhForFucksSake )

The helicopter team that films the Tour de France is one of a kind

(tags:helicopter flight France cycling )

Babies point at objects because they really want to touch them

(tags:babies viaSwampers psychology )

Artificial skin produced using nanoscale technology could improve wound recovery for patients with burns or skin grafts.

(tags:medicine Technology )

Sugary and Fruit juice drinks associated with cancer. Drinks with sweeteners - not.

(tags:sugar cancer )

What happens if Boris Johnson loses a vote of no confidence?

(tags:politics uk )

Robots Are Beating Humans At Poker

(tags:poker games ai )

The Slow Death of Hollywood "[Netflix] now routinely ends shows after their second season, even when they're still popular."

(tags:Hollywood TV movies business netflix )

The World's Only Traditional Māori Garden Was Made From Memories

(tags:history garden farming newzealand )

Comments

The Slow Death of Hollywood "[Netflix] now routinely ends shows after their second season, even when

[jack]

I feel like I understand the problems with capitalism better now I've seen several companies go through the cycle of "acquire dominant market position, squash all competition, become status quo".

Sometimes it works pretty well: they go on providing a useful service, they DON'T cut it to the bone to exploit people, they invest for the long haul. Some companies almost act like non-profit organisations in that way: they do all the X work in a centrally planned way, but they DO do it, they fund R&D and blue-sky research, and they don't just fob people off to extract as much money as possible before the tower collapses.

But sometimes it's just crap. Temporarily good for the consumer when two big companies vie for dominance and get into a price or quality war. Then one wins, and proceeds to shit over everything. "Oh, we're in charge now, so you get this. Oh, that's not what you wanted? Well, tough."

It's like, squashing techniques companies use to control the market is a game of whack-a-mole. There may be companies with a culture of stability, but there's always SOME with a culture of "eliminate competition, exploit customers", fed by investors looking for the next monopoly. And they always find some new variant of an exploit that hasn't been closed up yet, and back around we go.

I remember when Microsoft were told off for bundling IE with windows (even though all the browsers were free!) I didn't really think about it at the time. Now it's just obvious: if Microsoft control "the" browser, there's so much they can do, they can force everyone to do almost anything on the internet their way. And forcing people with windows to install their browser will do exactly that. Although it didn't turn out that way in the end. But it's a constant fight of trimming down monopolies.

I don't know if there's a better way of doing it. Do European countries do better? Scandanavian ones? Is there a way to skew the incentives towards companies that steadily do useful things instead of "own the world" ones (while allowing diversification when it's genuinely useful) without always responding on a case-by-case basis?

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood "[Netflix] now routinely ends shows after their second season, even

[skington]

As I understand it, the main difference between the US and the EU is in competition law: to summarise excessively, the EU says you can't have a monopoly, whereas the US says you can have a monopoly if that means cheaper prices for consumers. That's why the EU has been cracking down on Google for expanding beyond its traditional market of search into e-commerce and other similar areas, but the US doesn't care.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood "[Netflix] now routinely ends shows after their second season, even

[dewline]

And the US was created in some part by people who wanted to give their old countries in Europe the finger as a matter of principle. There is that subconscious, cultural motivation in play here too.

The Johnson Government...

[dewline]

...sounds like it's doomed to be "nasty, brutish and short", indeed, at this point.

[calimac]

I've noted already how, if Hammond and others stick by their determination not to vote for confidence in Boris (though, judging by Tory rebels of the past, they probably won't stick to it), he'll never become PM.

But where does it say that May is not allowed to leave office until she can confidently recommend a successor? Is that a relic of the FTPA or some other recent legislation? Because in the olden days (certainly 18C, and I think 19C as well) governments not only announced their resignations but actually left office in circumstances of chaos, leaving the monarch fumbling around for a few days, calling in various political leaders to ask if they could form a government. Sometimes they'd say no. Sometimes they'd say they'd try; sometimes it would turn out they couldn't.

In modern circumstances, with instant communication and nuclear bombs and all, it's harder to imagine such an interval, and certainly May might feel morally obliged to stick to it until the situation cleared up, though because it's dependent on Brexit, clear up is something it may never do. But where's the legal requirement? What would happen if May suddenly died? There's all kinds of rules and laws in place for the death of the monarch, but what about the PM? Aside from the presumption that the monarch would call in the Deputy PM on a temporary basis, if there is a Deputy PM which right now there isn't, I can't think of anything except reversion to consultation. The last PM to actually die in office was Palmerston in 1865; he had an obvious successor, but it was still 11 days until he was officially commissioned.

[andrewducker]

I think that bit is being over-egged a bit.
The Cabinet Manual says:
"Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government"
but it follows that up with
"It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."

So I think she _can_ leave, but that it's expected that she'll hang about until she can recommend a successor. But lots of things that are expected haven't happened recently!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cabinet-manual

[danieldwilliam]

I think our Constitution is a bit unclear about Prime Ministerial succession but my view is that the Queen can probably appoint whomever she pleases and they become Prime Minister and remain so until they lose a vote of no confidence and the Queen removes them.

Sugary drinks.

[agoodwinsmith]

Interesting that there was no distinction between high fructose corn syrup and cane juice sugar[1], and in fact a hot cup of tea with sugar in it was counted as a sugary drink. Interesting and yikes.

[1] - this is a distinction made in nutritional listings on products here.

Re: Sugary drinks.

[naath]

How would sugar in tea/coffee not be 'a sugary drink'? you literally put sugar in it.

Re: Sugary drinks.

[agoodwinsmith]

Yes, that is true. I have not seen studies include self-dosed items when considering "sugary drinks". The studies I have previously seen are usually all about vilifying high-fructose corn-syrup based soda pop. So, I was pointing out that this study was different in that respect, since I found that worthy of noting.