> “Inflation is being reported at 8.6%, but if you fill up the gas in your car, you know that it must be higher than that. No one knows the real rate of inflation, but what I do know is you cannot print more bitcoin. You can print dollars perpetually until it’s worthless like Venezuela, but you can’t print more bitcoin.”
What a silly comment inside just as silly of an article.
Last I checked, consumer fuel prices were absolutely included as components in most measures of price stability. The conclusion does not follow the premise in the slightest and demonstrates a poor grasp of macroeconomic fundamentals (i.e. inflation being a lagging metric of price change).
That said, it’s not as if bitcoin’s historical trends have shown any virtuous elements necessary for serving as a decent currency. Its volatility alone should lead all but the most deranged maximalists to shun it outright for any purpose other than market speculation.
It's been a while, but I vaguely remember an economics professor of mine stating that it's not inflation which is the core issue for people, firms, and economies, but an increased price volatility which positively correlates with high inflationary rates. The take-away was that when people can reasonably predict what inflation might be MoM, or QoQ, businesses and individuals are able to price transactions and required rates of return accordingly.
So yeah, by that understanding, inflation can be normal in a healthy functioning economy. It is uncontrolled/unpredictable inflation that's problematic.*
*Grain of salt, I'm not an economist and it's been some time since I've seriously studied the subject matter. Commenting to join the discussion
There are huge inefficiencies with high inflation, even if predictable.
For instance, if you know your dollar is worth considerably less every day, you're more likely to go spend it on things that you may not need as long as they retain value. Barter is inefficient as well. You'll be willing to wait on line as soon as you receive your paycheck. You'll fill up your tank more often. There's expenses with adjusting people's pay to account for inflation and keeping track of what a "reasonable" price should be or whether you're getting fleeced. I agree uncertainty is a huge problem, but even high anticipated inflation is a huge pain in the ass.
That's not even considering the capital controls that are often put into place that prevent you from holding stable assets. So you're stuck holding this depreciating asset or you're bending over backwards to buy as much stuff as possible to retain you wealth.
That’s the argument - higher inflation is correlated with lower levels of price stability and hampers one’s ability to predict.
Other commenters have also (rightly, I think) pointed out the ‘stickiness’ of wages in the short term being an additional reason to take seriously even moderately higher levels of inflation
No, prices and wages are stickier and often don't move as fast as you think, even with digital communication. Menu and shoeleather costs remain serious harms of inflation even if you have some system where it is predictable. Anyway, it is not, look at how many macro people say for months "inflation is transitory" but no.
Wages are “sticky”, and do not adjust as fast as prices for goods and services, and certainly don’t change much MoM/QoQ outside maybe a few niche industries.
That’s the problem with high or relatively high inflation.
The professor is correct, though, that consistent and predictable inflation is at least less bad than inconsistent and unpredictable inflation.
Good points. I think the point he was trying to make (or the one I recall, at least) was that higher inflation tends to result in more volatile price moments which damages economies more severely than that of cost increases outpacing earning power.
I do agree with you though, wages being generally sticky would make any moderate inflation, even predictable, a considerable negative on the economic fortunes of most individuals.
Perhaps I'm in the minority here given the comments thus far, but I've always been of the opinion that equivalent work should be compensated equivalently and commensurate with the value of output generated for the company.
I am a little sceptical. So you pay the same at all equivalent restaurants, the same for all cars, etc.? So if you were going to buy a thing at price $x, and someone were to tell you "Hey, here's a discount available if you use this coupon!" then (since you were going to buy it at $x it provided commensurate value) so you don't use the discount to bring it down to $(x-d)? I don't think that sounds right.
There is some value in the firm having a culture of unity, etc. but bigger companies are going to just negotiate with individuals as buyers in a labour market similar to you buying a car warranty contract.
Those examples seem somewhat contrived. The exchange is not that of physical depreciating assets or even consumable goods. A worker is not giving a coupon to a company for a one time purchase but forming an ongoing contract for knowledge services which can be performed from anywhere to (arguably) similar levels of proficiency.
Whether you believe WFH is equal in value to on-site is another matter. Google apparently does not hold this view.
Regardless, in those cases I’d still expect a competitive market to reach some price convergence, holding all other factors constant — especially when the seller knows that a buyers willingness to pay == $x and != $x-d for the same utility (say, from already getting paid $x repeatedly for the same work). If I am mistaken I’d definitely welcome the chance to adjust those expectations.
> Regardless, in those cases I’d still expect a competitive market to reach some price convergence, holding all other factors constant...
This is the crux of the problem, of course. There is no convergence because the only factor isn't that the SF engineer is competing against engineers worldwide. The price you have to pay is the minimum to prevent someone from doing the other thing. And so, even if Google is the only one in the Bay to offer higher to work there, you need to pay as much (in some terms, not just monetarily) as Google to get an SF engineer.
That makes sense to me. Local large employers can have an effect on local hiring costs, even for employers not stationed there.
It's not Baumol's Cost Disease, but there is an analogous mechanism there.
Every time an E Ink article is posted the patent defeatism is inevitable. I’m curious if there are other techniques to implement reflective(?) displays being explored that wouldn’t fall within the scope of E Ink’s defensible moat, or, if their parents are simply so broad as to stifle most hopes of accessible solutions and broader consumer/professional adoption.
Frankly, I’m quite sick of straining my eyes and circadian rhythm for 8hrs+ a day
Qualcomm are sitting on a reflective display technology "mirasol" that:
1. Doesn't hit E-ink's patents
2. Is colour
3. Has fast lcd-like refresh rates
The reviews of the few devices that were made were excellent. The main problem seemed to be the quality of other aspects of the devices that featured them. I find it incredibly frustrating that this hasn't made it into the mainstream.
I saw a device once at the Qualcomm office it really was very nice, bright colour in full sunlight. I don't think they ever made them cheaply or very large.
I realize you are mostly joking, but even having their lawyers go over the licensing contract would cost them far more than 1$. Actually transferring the knowledge of how to manufacture this stuff would probably require low 7 figures for them just to break even on the deal.
Sharp Memory LCDs are close. They are active, but so close to being zero power you could keep them running with a stern glare. They have absurd contrast, can be updated at tens of hertz or faster, and are high resolution. They’re never made in large sizes, but you will see them on things like the Play Date.
Yes there is. Sharp has their memory-in-pixel LCDs which are reflective and have less power consumption than traditional LCDs for some tasks. They've been used in stuff like the Pebble watches and the current Garmin Fenix line. I think a few of their denshi note devices have also used them. I don't think they make them in sizes big enough for stuff like monitors though.
The contrast on these screens is so low, I'd love to get little e-ink screens on the sports watches. Right now, especially in mixed-sunlight dappled forest kind of backgrounds, you really need to take a hard look at the screen to read anything, which isn't safe if you are trail running or mountain biking or something similar.
Please watch makers, put a little eink-style screen on a watch! Even if it looks like 1st Generation Kindle screens, and is only black/white, it will still be an upgrade!
Didn't at least Moderna and maybe others publicly state they would not litigate any patents related to covid vaccines for the duration of the pandemic? Or am I completely misremembering this?
Lots of things have been said - and I vaguely remember something too, but also a dispute that US pushing for relaxing of the patents and the EU not, because Moderna is german based .. in any case it is not so easy, as it is not just about the vaccines, but for the production of the vaccines to set up, you need to licence or buy a lot of other stuff ... which is why my joke was obviously a oversimplification.
Amazing, but does it stray into E Ink’s protective sphere?
No doubt there are manufacturers around the world who are exploring quality general-purpose reflective displays for consumer applications, the tech has been around for some time. I could be mistaken but it seems more a question of commercial viability rather than technical capability
> Every time an E Ink article is posted the patent defeatism is inevitable
Here, we go again. I've only read that here (repeatedly!) on HN and blogs that then cited throwaway HN posts which never respond to my requests for at least some verifiable evidence. Have a look through my comment history.
> that wouldn’t fall within the scope of E Ink’s defensible moat, or, if their parents are simply so broad
what moat? please tell me, I keep asking. To me, it looks like all of the people making these claims have no clue about the display industry. It would be the equivalent of me coming on a search engine forum and then alleging Microsoft of using a patent moat to prevent progress in operating systems, is that true? I have no clue but it sure sounds good even though I have 0 evidence. I hope my point is clear.
In the 70s, the oil companies were allegedly buying patents for 100mpg carburetors and locking them up so nobody could use them. I asked my dad (Air Force) about that, and he laughed. He said the military could desperately use such technology, as supplying fuel to the military machines was a terrible logistical problem. The military would never, ever let lil' ole' patent law get in the way of that.
History of full of example of patents slowing the deployment to technology, the latest clear example is 3d Printing which really only became affordable to the home user, and abel to be hackable by people doing novel things with it after the patents expired
I would assume the same thing would happen with eink
Normally, the person making a claim or allegation supplies some evidence. You know like if I accused Microsoft of using patents for holding back operating system development, then you as presumably a software expert would rightly ask me for evidence. Is my point somehow unclear? Commenters on HN repeatedly make this claim and if you look at my comment history, each time I ask for evidence I get exactly your kind of reply or the link to that throwaway post (also on HN) and a blog article (that refers to that same throwaway post! infinite loop!) or best of all patents.google.com/search?q=eink . That suggests to me that these comments have no basis in evidence and the authors of the comments aren't even involved at any level of the display industry to understand what they're talking about.
> I would assume the same thing would happen with eink
So you are looking for active suppression. Aka law suits?
You deny a general chilling effect that patents have on the market overall? That people will, companies, and insterors will simply avoid patent encumbered technology
You simply refuse to acknowledge that generally accepted reality
//Sidenote. Stop asking me and others to look through your comment history. I am not going to do that. Make your points here and now
> You deny a general chilling effect that patents have on the market overall? That people will, companies, and insterors will simply avoid patent encumbered technology
So I can just simply say Microsoft has patents and therefore operating systems are not progressing because of that? You realize that's what you're claiming.
> You simply refuse to acknowledge that generally accepted reality
Your reality doesn't match mine. I work in the display industry.
> Stop asking me and others to look through your comment history.
I'm not going to spend my time educating you repeatedly.
>>So I can just simply say Microsoft has patents and therefore operating systems are not progressing because of that? You realize that's what you're claiming.
In part yes... Look at the suppression of UNIX do to SCO.. I mean hell this is recorded history. I am honestly surprised I need to even debate this. SCO effectively killed Unix, and harmed Linux and BSD
Software patents have a long history of suppression innovation in software
>Your reality doesn't match mine. I work in the display industry.
This new age of dueling realities is a false. There is only one reality, and mine is based on recorded historical fact, your is based on personal experience and anecdote
Mine is actual reality, yours is a belief
>I'm not going to spend my time educating you repeatedly.
> This new age of dueling realities is a false. There is only one reality, and mine is based on recorded historical fact, your is based on personal experience and anecdote
I'm confused. What "recorded historical facts" were provided for this claim that E Ink is using patents to prevent progress in the display industry?
ten years. so just after the world collapses. it's so great that we are blocking the development of vital tech /s. i mean, imagine a world without today's level of production of laptop screens/OLED TVs/LCD TVs/phone/tablet screens. all those toxic chemicals. there's so many things we don't need a flashlight being shone in our faces for, and (as someone else in this thread already mentioned) our circadian rhythm being disrupted for.
of course e-ink tech and the health of our eyes and sleep is just the tip of the iceberg. in the larger perspective capitalist firms are suffocating the earth with their single-use, non-modular, non-upgradeable, black box e-waste. they're not even 'tools' to me because the living and breathing Silicon Valley AI is using and abusing us (the workers) through these 'products'.
i abhor the intellectual property system and monopolized vital technologies, it means capitalism makes the worst technological tools.
Skimming the uspto’s documentation, identifying the term does not appear to be a straightforward process [0]. Someone with more experience in the matter might be able to say.
This is like saying that, if you want to use a particular prohibited plant or compound, you need to first end drug prohibition and the worldwide system of cartel profiteering.
While it is most certainly a good idea to do that, you don't need to wait until the process is complete to include these items in your diet.
Then we're talking about different things, because I was thinking in terms of mass market adoption. A few instances of gray market or IP "theft" here and there isn't going to cause much of a stir. But if Samsung/Apple/other companies want to make a large scale retail offering then it won't work under the current global network of IP protection. As a result, these same companies with the biggest budgets to make progress in research won't devote those budgets to IP they don't own or can't license at a profitable fee.
Long-time resident here -- right on the money. While likely not purposeful, Adler's use of the past tense 'made' (the city so attractive) speaks volumes to the negative trends in accessibility, affordability, livability, and viability that Austin has experienced over the last decade or more. This being a weird, artsy, and affordable place to live is a meme that might have been true at one time but is fading quickly into the past, and increasingly so, given the current 'Austin is cool' cultural zeitgeist. Sadly, outside public awareness of this has not caught up and the political will for meaningful change toward sustainable growth ends at someone's $1.2mil front lawn or the amount owed on their property tax bill.
I fear this place is heading more in the direction of LA than SF -- less earthquakes and beaches; yet all the inequality, homelessness, soul-crushing driving commutes, expensive rents, drought, vapid personalities, celebrity, traffic, tech/crypto bros, etc. But, hey, your income taxes will be a little lower! You can spend that win-fall on power generation to heat/cool your home and boil water when the Texas power grid inevitably fails again.
The other sentence you called out, likely refers to the I35 expansion project proposal that is under the authority of state TXDOT officials, who can, and I'd expect will, flout the wishes of the Austin community [0]. Local organizations have developed several potential alternatives which aim to increase affordability, livability, and economic opportunities within the area but these have seemly fallen on deaf ears at the State level [1].
Just a guess, but I'd assume this is a step in that direction?
One somewhat related item -- the federal prohibition of alcohol (Amendment 18) and its repeal (Amendment 21) -- stems from the commerce clause, which enumerates the powers held by the Federal legislative branch: including the regulation of intrastate and interstate commerce. IANAL or a constitutional scholar, so grains of salt.
Fun fact: though the 21st amendment came into being in 1933, Mississippi was one of the last states to repeal a state-wide dry law in 1966. [0]
