Isn't part of the problem assuming that there is a single global optimum?
It seems there are at least two, such as in the case of utilities: best services or best profits for the shareholders. Again in the case of utilities we see time and again that these are mutually exclusive optimums as a privatized utility makes cuts to investment, build out, maintenance, customer service, or other aspects of the business in the goals of increasing profits, to the detriment of the quality of their service.
Yes, although usually when people are making these arguments they're imagining optimization across different entities and through time (relative to foreseeable events / probabilities). It then becomes much easier to write off conflicting higher-level subjective goals as not being actually valued in some imagined universal sense. The fallacy is rejecting the stickiness of human-made structure, even though that structure is all around us.
It's hard to argue that as a society we should construct systems that have any goal that isn't optimising (in this example) services. If that aligns with maximising profits for shareholders, then great, if not then the system is not working as it needs to. IMO it's never really about free markets per se, but about competition. If the market is not delivering effective competition, then it should be made to do so. Competition is what aligns shareholder interest with customer interest.
I recall reading before that as yields improved over process maturation Intel has ended up binning faster passing chips as lower SKUs just to meet demand.
I'm left handed myself and have always loved and excelled at reading (according to various tests or programs in school anyway), not that anecdata is much good but there it is
Virtual Channel Numbers let a station pretend to be on a particular channel number. The actual RF channel number doesn't need to match. But the channel number you key in using your TV remote does need to match the virtual channel number.
To be fair helicopters are held aloft by man's engineering hubris and blatantly flaunting gravity. Taking a drone to the tail rotor may not be entirely healthy to the crew of the chopper.
Oh, my understanding was that they manage to fly because they’re so ugly that the ground wants nothing to do with them and pushes them away. I stand corrected :D
"He made it up" certainly seems more likely than Iran, what, retrofitting one of their old Kilo class D/E subs to be a drone mothership that's just lurking off the coast?
As most of the heavy construction and earth moving equipment you'd use to bury the wood will be burning diesel and releasing carbon the entire time, you enter some new Tyranny of the Rocket/Wagon equation.
It seems there are at least two, such as in the case of utilities: best services or best profits for the shareholders. Again in the case of utilities we see time and again that these are mutually exclusive optimums as a privatized utility makes cuts to investment, build out, maintenance, customer service, or other aspects of the business in the goals of increasing profits, to the detriment of the quality of their service.