rchive

That is a completely legitimate concern. It's important to note that even if prisons are publicly run, there's still a bunch of private actors in the prison system in the form of the people who work in it. Prison worker unions and police unions lobby for more laws already to protect their jobs. Private prisons might make that aspect worse, but it's not like it's perfect now.

Neither is obviously more efficient than the other overall, it depends on the structure and the incentives. People worry about private prisons for example. If you make it so the government sends people to prisons and you pay the prison a fixed rate per prisoner, of course you're gonna get skimping on services by the prisons. If you instead give the prisoner a voucher for a prison and make them pick where they go and prisons get money per voucher they get from prisoners, you're gonna get competition on quality so you'll get high quality prisons. Opposite outcomes with just a change to incentives.

In this case it's the definition of efficiency. Efficiency = (resources used up) compared to (resources taken in). How else would you even calculate it?

They should make batteries that swap out completely so you can load a fully charged one in in a few seconds and let your old one charge while you're off driving somewhere else. Or you just exchange the battery permanently like with some propane tanks.

Had a coworker who used MMDDYY with no dashes. Unless you knew it was very hard to figure out, since it could also just be a number that happened to be 6 digits, too. At least YYYY-MM-DD looks like a date generally.

I just dont want a monopoly.

There is no monopoly in video streaming. Not even close.

wut. Not having meetings in private places literally is making sure the 'place' accepts everyone. Do you even read what you're saying?

You're misreading what I wrote. If government unfairly has vital meetings at Private Club which not everyone has access to, the solution is not to force Private Club to accept everyone, it's to not have meetings at Private Club and have them at City Hall or something instead, somewhere that isn't exclusive.

Thanks for your question.

I see food preparation and dining rooms as separate industries, even if they don't appear that way at first. The most we can see this in practice is probably mall food courts. Web content like YouTube is the food and the web browser is the place or mechanism by which we consume "food".

Is being allowed to take tacos into McDonald's a hill I'm going to die on? No, of course not, it's just the first illustration I thought of. Lol. I could probably come up with a better example, that one was just easier and more visual.

To be clear, I'm not saying there's no anticompetitiveness happening, I'm saying that all vertical integration is basically this same amount of anticompetitiveness, and vertical integration is often very good, which is why we tolerate it all the time.

I agree the comparison to MS and Internet Explorer is somewhat similar. I also think that case was not decided particularly well, and it's not as revealing as it could have been since it ended up settling out of court, and IE ended up getting crushed by Chrome just a few years later.

I wonder, if Google made a new app called YouTube that could only watch YouTube and made it the only app that could watch YouTube, sort of like Quibi, would that be more competitive or less competitive? No one is asserting that Quibi was anticompetitive at all, correct? That would be even worse for Firefox users, they'd completely lose access to YouTube unless they downloaded a 2nd app, this time YouTube instead of Chrome, but like Quibi it would seem to dodge all these competition concerns completely. I think that shows how these concerns can be selective and kind of nonsensical.

Public services aren't efficient, but they can surely change themselves more efficiently than they can force a multi billion dollar company to change its ways.

I'm surprised you're not more worried about the government outsourcing its functions to a company you seem very suspicious of.

If the government decided to have vital public meetings only in a private venue you have to be a member of or something, the proper fix is not to force the club to accept everyone, it's to have the government stop having vital meetings in private places.

I also don't see a problem because everything of value these video streaming services offer is replaceable by one of the many other streaming services. The fact that YouTube is the biggest or most recognized does not change anything for me. The fact that there is some content that is only on YouTube doesn't, either. That's a normal thing that happens in an economy. Ford dealers only sell Ford cars, Coca Cola doesn't sell Pepsi, etc.

The efficient solution to that problem is governments using a different platform that's actually neutral. The government has full control over where they host their videos. Using that as a reason to TRY (a likely long and drawn out process) to force Google to change its policies company-wide is silly.

I'm not being disingenuous. I watch videos on a bunch of platforms. It's easy.

Because that's not how internet business works.

How does it work, then?

This is not a thing that Google invented and developed on their own.

I don't know what this is referring to or what it has to do with anything.

No, not really. Google can't do anything about my taking my Firefox browser and watching videos from somewhere else. There are countless other video streaming services.

1. How?

2. Pick a different example then. In my experience movie theaters don't let you bring food in from outside. McDonald's still won't sell a Burger King burger regardless of whether you could bring one in.