Arxiv and the internet do more for science than Elsevier. They're rent-seeking middlemen, having lost any of whatever their purpose might once have been.

I think the worst part is, Elsevier could still serve a purpose and make money by curating and leveraging reputation even if all academic research was openly published and freely accessible - they could select what they consider to be the best research, have editorial content, produce visualizations and accompany content with a high quality of journalism, like Quanta. Papers being locked, researchers and institutions paying out the nose, and the other artificial scarcity / artificial stupidity features are entirely unnecessary.

What makes it even better is that these dogs are like Malinois. If they want to get into something, they will; people have had their entire network compromised by bots they left running overnight, and any important information like account logins and so on runs the risk of being misused.

It's one thing to sandbox, maybe give the bot a temporary, limited $100 card or account to go perform a specific task, but there's no coherent mind underlying these agents.

Depending on how the chain of thought / reasoning goes, or what text they get exposed to on the internet, it could tap into spy novel, hacker fanfic, erotic fiction, or some weird reddit rabbithole and go completely off the rails in ways that you'll never be able to guard against, audit, or account for.

Claw bots seem to be a weird sort of alternate reality RPG more than a useful tool, so far. If you limit it to verifiable tasks, it might be safer, but I keep seeing people rave about "leaving it on overnight and waking up to a finished project" and so on. Well sure, but it could also hack your home network, delete your family pictures folder, log into your bank account and wire all your money to shrimp charities.

Might be wise to wait on safer iterations of these products, I think.

0-5 years commercial copyright - the author/creator has total say on any and all commercial use, fair use doctrine applies. Years 6-10, extended fair use: mandatory attribution and 15% royalty but otherwise unlimited for public use in any context, for any reason. Years 11+, goes to public domain.

Simple system. Encourages creativity, 99% of all money made on media (books, music, movies,etc) gets made during the first 5 years after publishing.

No grandfathered works, no lineages of families who had a creative relative back in the 40s getting to coast through life by bilking the rest of the world on their fluke of genetics.

Current copyright is a sick joke designed to enrich lawyers and wealthy IP hoarders, and screw the public out of money on a continual basis. We don't have to live like this.

Until it changes, pirate everything.

The idea of conflict with Greenland is kayfabe - it's all posturing and bombast. There's a significant probability that the Trump admin attempts and possibly succeeds at buying Greenland. Not usual for the last 5-6 decades, but in a historic context, fairly normal for nations to do this type of thing. There are legitimate strategic and economic arguments for it - not sure that I buy the arguments, but I can certainly entertain the ideas.

Iran is a sticky situation. It looks like the Trump admin is poised to chip in some missiles if it looks like they can tip the balance definitively for the protesters, but according to the intel accounts, the current positioning of assets means they're still at least a few days away from acting. That could be a deception and at any moment the current regime could get erased, so it's probably prudent to get the hell out of Dodge before the missiles start flying, or before the total crackdown and enforcement gets escalated, in the other direction.

I don't mean to convey that it's intentional. There's no conspiracy of cigar smoking financiers in tuxedos smoking cigars in dark rooms. It's just like the Carlin observation - there doesn't have to be a big conspiracy. They just know what's good for them.

They behave accordingly. The do things that they can, and because those things are relatively new, it's a type of information asymmetry and policy / good intentions / competence arbitrage that we haven't had to cope with before.

You might end up banning certain types of institutional participation in the housing market, because there's no way to protect against the negative consequences that doesn't have even worse consequences for either the participants or the population at large.

It'll probably have to be arbitrary, and the cost will be a bunch of firms no longer get the opportunity to make a bunch of money by leveraging their resources in that way.

And we see the influence and impact constantly, with outlandish asking prices being immediately met by institutions that have decided they want a particular property in a particular region. Or house prices being set to an outlandish level with no reduction in price over months and months on the market, because they can afford to sit and wait for the market to change. And if they can afford to do that, then all of a sudden they've got an incentive to drive prices up in that region, because local and state governments, banks, and realtors tend to use the same basic rubric to evaluate price. If a lower valued area sees home prices go up, properties in the higher valued area will be raised accordingly. There's no secret quant voodoo, it's just using a level of liquidity and staying power not accessible to non-institutional homeowners.

Supply and demand normally influence pricing feedback at much more granular levels which benefits individuals, and our policy and regulation and evaluation models are largely built around those assumptions. Without the negative feedback driving prices down, bad things happen for consumers, good things happen for those who already have lots of money and property.