Readit NewsRussia isn't going to win, it's going to slow burn to failure (again, military hardware exhaustion, parts of their economy on the brink of failure, working age demographics crisis leading to ~21% central bank rates to attempt to quell inflation to no avail), but Europe improving its military capabilities would derisk against potential tail risk aggression and losses as Russia stumbles to a failure mode. Putin will die eventually, although it is unknown who and what replaces him; Europe must manage that risk.
Europe is learning the hard way that you can't use economics to tame an aggressor (Nord Stream) nor can you rely on benevolent allies to be benevolent in perpetuity. This is objectively good, as it will force Europe to re-industrialize to an extent, and I argue manufacturing base and supply chains are of national security interest (gestures broadly at everything). Not your manufacturing base and supply chain? Not your freedom.
The trend of using discord over forums does suck though, it’s really hard to search old discussions.
I also wish we needed to explicitly take locks. In PostgreSQL at least (I think other dialects/engines too), figuring out what operation will take what lock and potentially mean downtime is left as an exercise to the reader. Force me to write WITH EXCLUSIVE TABLE LOCK when I add a non nullable column with a default!
Random saturday ramblings, sorry about that :-D
If you need certain amount of money per user for the product to be profitable, raise the price to account for Apple's cut. But please do not force me to install app stores from companies which have their lifeblood in data brokering my life. At least I have an understanding with Apple that if they go haywire with that stuff (like it was close with the whole CSAM scanning debacle which damaged my trust in Apple and I started considering alternatives) they will lose my hardware purchases as well.
I'm not making the argument from a legal perspective, but from a reality perspective, I think that's a very poor analogy to the way operating systems (and "platforms" generally) work.
The very nature of operating systems is that they have much more control than a simple store. For example, if you want to switch from Kroger to Safeway, just go to Safeway. There are almost zero switching costs. I actually was strongly considering switching from Android to iPhone solely to get iMessage access (that's a whole different ball of Apple anti-competitiveness, but I digress...) But in the end, even after buying the iPhone, I decided to give it away as a Christmas gift because I just couldn't stomach how painful switching would be after a decade-plus history on Android: I'd lose all my Android apps, I'd lose all the easiest access to things that live in Google's ecosystem, I'd lose my day-to-day familiarity with my phone, etc. To be clear, I'm not saying that's impossible, but it's just a much higher burden that deciding to go to a different grocery store.
Note the government has often developed special laws for "platform businesses", for example railroads, telecoms, etc., understanding the unique positions these companies are in when it comes to controlling the larger economy. I wish they would regulate operating system platforms in a similar manner.
The real problem is a feedback loop: large companies get cheaper capital → they can afford to hoard cash and make defensive acquisitions → this reduces competition and innovation → which paradoxically makes them even "safer" investments → reinforcing their cost-of-capital advantage.
Meanwhile, the "missing middle" gets squeezed from both ends. Small companies can access some capital through VC/growth equity, but medium enterprises ($10M-$1B revenue) face a brutal gap. They're too big for most VCs, too small for institutional debt markets, and banks are increasingly consolidated and risk-averse.
(I am so personally familiar with the missing middle in my day job)
This isn't just about market efficiency - it's about market structure. When a streaming company parks $500M in bank accounts instead of investing in content or technology, that's not rational capital allocation. It's defensive positioning enabled by cheap capital and regulatory capture. There are many many lazy companies sitting on a cash machine structure with no decent ideas on how to grow.
Some potential fixes: - Tax policy that penalizes excessive cash hoarding; eliminating the tax deduction on interest would encourage companies to hold less cash by making cash more expansive
- Regulatory limits on horizontal acquisitions above certain market share thresholds
- Public development banks focused on the missing middle (like Germany's KfW)
- Capital gains tax advantages for investments held in companies under certain size thresholds
The irony is that this concentration might ultimately hurt passive investors too - less competition means less innovation and slower long-term growth across the entire economy.
The defensive acquisitions can work on domains with gravity effects to a degree, but those are domains are far from being the total market.