Consumer price inflation won't rise unless a relevant proportion of consumers get more money to spend. There should be enough slack behind all goods in the cpi basket that disruptions won't permanently affect the price of milk, bread, toilet paper, flat panel TVs and so on.
It is true that there is exploding inflation in asset prices brought by central bank credit, but it won't affect the price of milk and bread.
The demand for those things is fixed. Even TVs—everyone’s already upgraded to 4K. It’s discretionary items, like cars, housing, renovations, luxury appliances, and elite schools, that will experience inflation. Human wants are infinite.
Those (cars, housing, renovations, education) are things financed by debt and can continue rising. But I suspect they are conveniently down-weighted from the CPI.
For example, if they let the CPI-entry be monthly car payments instead of cash price, then CPI inflation is flat as long as rates are falling.
> They get extra visibility + traffic clicks from Google -- but also want to be paid for it?!?
Visibility is not a meaningful "reward" for established European newspapers (they are not unknown hobby bloggers.) The issue is who is capturing revenue from the work. The newspapers make money from people browsing their site (long ad exposure) or paying for subscriptions.
The news model: journalists discover "news facts" which they make into "news stories" that can hold reader attention.
If Google collects all "news facts" in one place with their own ads, they are benefiting from journalists while undercutting the newspapers.
> Visibility is not a meaningful "reward" for established European newspapers
Why? There are two ways how I would land on a newspaper's page. One is if I read them regularly, then I just go to their website directly to check what's new. That's what their loyal audience does, and Google doesn't affect that.
Another one is that I'm googling for news about a specific event or specific person - then I go to whatever pages Google shows me. That's how newspaper expand their loyal audience.
It appears that they don't want it and prefer other terms - pay me and you can use my headlines. We cannot force newspapers to accept Google's headlines-for-clicks system against their will.
No, they want the audience google brings. They just want a share of googles profits, riding the anti google sentiment, google got for other things. Classic politics.
I could be convinced that demanding to be removed from Google index is legitimate. But it's also not what newspaper want: they want to be indexed and be paid for it, no way for Google not to take the deal. That's state-supported extortion to me.
>The news model: journalists discover "news facts" which they make into "news stories" that can hold reader attention.
>If Google collects all "news facts" in one place with their own ads, they are benefiting from journalists while undercutting the newspapers.
If "news facts" is the framework for the proposed logic of compensation, it is being applied inconsistently.
Consider the final result of 2 professional soccer teams playing a game: FC Barcelona beats Real Madrid 2-1. The "facts" were generated by the players + the referee + the official scorekeeper, etc. A French newspaper reports on it:
https://www.leparisien.fr/sports/football/direct-suivez-le-c...
Using first principles of "facts generation", should the French newspaper be required by Spain to share a portion of the ad revenue to each soccer team and La Liga league? If no, why is that not hypocritical?
Same as Ryanair announces a new airline route and French newspapers report it. It doesn't mean French publishers should pay some of their ad money to Ryanair.
Likewise, if Google issues a press release saying the next "Pixel 7 phone will be available October 2021" and French newspapers report that fact, it doesn't mean they should owe Google money just because Google produced that headline.
Newspapers have traditionally benefited from headlines being generated by the entire world and they get ad money for it without paying the sources of those headlines.
If Google did include article snippets beyond the headlines, that seemed like a reasonable threshold to pay license fees to French newspapers. Otherwise, a pure headline display is a symbiotic relationship similar to the symbioses newspapers enjoyed with sports reporting, Hollywood celebrities, corporate press release announcements, etc. The newspapers want Google to pay for something the newspapers themselves don't want to pay for.
Perhaps under this logic Google should start their own newspaper, which reports the publication of every news story on every French news website. That way they are simply reporting the facts, and are no longer liable for copyright infringement!
And yet the same newspapers will protest vigorously is Google removes news completely. Google can opt out of this so called benefit without losing much. But newspapers desperately need this traffic.
Your theory that Google is benefiting more from this arrangement than the newspapers themselves isn’t true.
> And yet the same newspapers will protest vigorously is Google removes news completely. Google can opt out of this so called benefit without losing much. But newspapers desperately need this traffic.
Google can't actually. Google has been ordered to display links and snippets from French newspapers and is explicitly not allowed to remove French newspapers from their results.
That’s my point. The French newspapers need Google for traffic. And so they (unofficially) partnered with the French government and courts to complete the shakedown. The courts force the use of snippets, then the government says “well you’re using these snippets so you must pay for them”.
> Visibility is not a meaningful "reward" for established European newspapers
This is prima facie false. Google is not permitted to simply deindex these papers. The newspapers are demanding to be indexed and referenced, and be paid for it. It's pretty clear here that Google is providing a service to the papers, not the other way around.
I'm suspecting it's more important that newspapers are to receive money (for services) than that they demanding to be indexed (requesting service). It's newspapers providing service to Google here, in the form of interesting data which attracts viewers.
Google was happy to refuse the "services" these newspapers were offering, by removing them from their index. The newspapers balked at that—because they get more value from being included in Google's index than they stand to "lose" from having Google show visitors just the headlines with links to the original sites. So they brought the government in to force Google to purchase the newspapers' services whether they wanted them or not.
If the headline being the valuable content is true, it suggests there could be a business that's like a newspaper that only publishes headlines without articles.
I'm not saying this to refute your comment! This might actually be a valid idea.
When NYT references the work of The Intercept, as they have done recently, ought the NYT pay The Intercept? [1] And if I summarize the facts of a French news article, ought Google be disallowed from collecting my facts?
It's not intended to be read as instructions on how to be promoted. It is directed as much to managers and higher levels so they understand the boundaries and expectations.
One basic idea; a) recognition of level based on observed impact, as opposed to b) promotion to power as reward for effort/loyalty. With a), management is not a "final destination" of engineering careers. Old/sloppy organizations seem to devolve into b).
The instructions here seem to be written with this in mind, and directed to everyone in the org.
The reason this simulation is so inaccurate relative to reality, is that it's assuming the only basis for individuals' decisions are government policies.
In the beginning everyone was searching for information, reading articles, and sharing experiences and listening to stories. It was the main topic of conversation for months. In places where the first wave hit hard, personal experiences were a much more credible source of information, and motivator of behaviour, than random edicts from officials.
And the reason "hard" government policies are so problematic is that they shift responsibility for both actions and consequences from individuals to some faceless authority. What does a restaurant owner think after six months of lost livelihood, when they finally catch it and it feels like a cold? That's more responsibility than any random government official can bear, and why voluntary measures first is so important.
It can depend on what the agent "sees" and how many time-steps away the "consequences" are. If the ghosts are so far away that any action will take t time-steps before consequences to the agent, the actions are pseudo-random because there is no reward to optimize on.
The number of outcomes in branching_factor^t (very large) makes the action-values at t=0 (where the agent chooses between two/three actions) almost uniform random.
I experimented with different time horizons, mostly look 3-7 steps ahead.
In terms of the 'reward', that was implicit within the model - if the ghosts caught you, your ability to influence the state of the world dropped to 0.
An app with it's own icon and login is a much more "sticky" presence than a web page that the user must navigate to. It can add notices and alerts to the phone.
The total IFR is essentially an exponential function of the age and health distribution in the population. Without specifying the population further, many numbers can be correct.
When high IFR:s are presented to the public, most people (both old and young) believe it applies to them, it is misguided in both directions.
Images from an inspection show rusty water leaking out of the parking garage roof. They mention "standing water". So the reinforcement steel was in various stages of decay.
This exemplifies how housing is a depreciating consumer good, not an "investment" like owning land. But the time-scale of depreciation is on the order of human lifetimes, and since humans are generally only exposed to renovated surface layers (floors and kitchen cabinets), it is rare to get an intuitive understanding that the buildings and foundations are depreciating.
It is true that there is exploding inflation in asset prices brought by central bank credit, but it won't affect the price of milk and bread.