Great conversation. I really enjoy Kernighan's writing, so I ordered this book. I've been learning about the history of UNIX recently, and this book sounds like an invaluable resource in that respect. It's hard to understate the effect that UNIX has had on modern computing.
Great conversation! I loved getting to know about the creators of unix and also the pre history of unix. You're both well spoken and very interesting to listen to! I'll have to order this book and read it myself. Sounds like an incredible read!
Aswath Damodaran has done some interesting analysis, questioning the logic of breaking up monopolies/oligopolies. Not all industries benefit from fragmentation and competition. It depends on the specifics of the industry. Big tech does provide cheap services to the population and is something of a win-win. Possibly regulation is a better approach to dealing with any negative externalities.
What did you find interesting about it? The unqualified assertions, the alternatively dismissive and derisive remarks about lawyers and economists, or that he arrives at a conclusion that has been reflogged in private equity media and libertarian magazines for decades?
Are you talking about the video he posted a few days ago? I found it pretty uncompelling - if we look specifically at the argument that big tech does a public good by merit of 'cheap services', I would ask - what is the value of the service that is provided, and what is 'cheap'? We're not talking about a service with a wide band of long-term users with multiplicative value like, say, high speed rail, but consumer goods or the right to access them - at that, temporarily, within arbitrary bounds that the vendor sets. And at a price subject to seller's inflation, ie, above the bounds dictated by supply and demand. He asks 'cui bono?' in the title, and, well, he doesn't outright say it, but certainly investors benefit from market consolidation, which have been shown to increase profits and stabilize markets leading to higher and more reliable dividend payouts. Throughout the video he keeps decrying ideology, at the end he says we should leave well enough alone, that lawyers and economists just don't get business, and big tech is cyclical. To me, this reeks of ideology, and I wouldn't bring that up except it happens at a precise moment when he's telling his viewers that the FTC, Lina Khan, and academics are 'true believers'. Bell Labs was not unique in its time; Ford, GE, Dupont, and Xerox all had similarly well-funded R&D divisions. Why is it not considered worthwhile to analyze what material conditions and market incentives were being rewarded at the time?
Great conversation. I really enjoy Kernighan's writing, so I ordered this book. I've been learning about the history of UNIX recently, and this book sounds like an invaluable resource in that respect. It's hard to understate the effect that UNIX has had on modern computing.
Great conversation! I loved getting to know about the creators of unix and also the pre history of unix. You're both well spoken and very interesting to listen to! I'll have to order this book and read it myself. Sounds like an incredible read!
Great content on computing history, subscribed.
19:39 Valve has/had a similar outlook on projects.
Aswath Damodaran has done some interesting analysis, questioning the logic of breaking up monopolies/oligopolies. Not all industries benefit from fragmentation and competition. It depends on the specifics of the industry. Big tech does provide cheap services to the population and is something of a win-win. Possibly regulation is a better approach to dealing with any negative externalities.
What did you find interesting about it? The unqualified assertions, the alternatively dismissive and derisive remarks about lawyers and economists, or that he arrives at a conclusion that has been reflogged in private equity media and libertarian magazines for decades?
Att was the only valid use of antitrust.
Are you talking about the video he posted a few days ago? I found it pretty uncompelling - if we look specifically at the argument that big tech does a public good by merit of 'cheap services', I would ask - what is the value of the service that is provided, and what is 'cheap'? We're not talking about a service with a wide band of long-term users with multiplicative value like, say, high speed rail, but consumer goods or the right to access them - at that, temporarily, within arbitrary bounds that the vendor sets. And at a price subject to seller's inflation, ie, above the bounds dictated by supply and demand. He asks 'cui bono?' in the title, and, well, he doesn't outright say it, but certainly investors benefit from market consolidation, which have been shown to increase profits and stabilize markets leading to higher and more reliable dividend payouts. Throughout the video he keeps decrying ideology, at the end he says we should leave well enough alone, that lawyers and economists just don't get business, and big tech is cyclical. To me, this reeks of ideology, and I wouldn't bring that up except it happens at a precise moment when he's telling his viewers that the FTC, Lina Khan, and academics are 'true believers'.
Bell Labs was not unique in its time; Ford, GE, Dupont, and Xerox all had similarly well-funded R&D divisions. Why is it not considered worthwhile to analyze what material conditions and market incentives were being rewarded at the time?