Manufacturers aren’t making tires and then turning them into microplastics alone. Pretending consumers aren’t part of the problem is misleading.

We could add fees to tire manufacturers, but be honest: It will just get added to the price of the tire. That’s fine if the goal is economic incentives or funding remediation, but people start to lose interest in such fines as soon as they realize it comes out of their own pockets instead of from some imagined slush fund manufacturers are keeping to themselves. (See similar problems with conversations about tariffs, which people only like until they realize they will be paying for them.)

Hayek doesn't talk about price stability or inflation at all in this article. There's no fallacy here.

This is basically the "prices are all we need" of economics. It's written in historical context when some still economists thought that a centrally planned economy could work. Hayek writes about the price system and how it enables an economy to function in a decentralized manner, and why it can't function without it. Hayek argues that it's essential that the decisions are made with local knowledge, because every individual possesses private and unique knowledge, which is not available to central planners.

On the other hand, all the information which an individual needs from other individuals is transmitted through prices, i.e. everyone only needs to know how to make best use of the prices they see. Thus, there's no need for any kind of oracle or central entity which knows what's going on in the economy to make it function.

This is still relevant of course, in the way that most people don't realize how magical the price system is, and how humans basically just stumbled upon it without anyone understanding it.

There'll probably be discovered a class of problems which is hard and Q hard, provably and we'll be set. Something basically new to cryptography, that was tried once in the past but failed until seen through a new light of more recent maths or research fashion.

But until then it seems to me like something based on the difficulty of attacking hash functions would be a good bet for Q resistant. Totally unsure how to make a PK scheme from that, but it has a few nice properties:

- hashes are often tuneable, you can add more state and increase the keyspace/security

- good hashes don't have any weaknesses that Q can exploit

- hashes are often pretty fast

- hashes are well studied

- hashes seem to be hard in C and hard in Q

> However, we also see that for only those combinations starting with a T (that is f(n - 1))...

Why is that f(n - 1)?

   def f(s):
     assert(s[0] == 'T')
     return s[1:]

  def f_inverse(s):
    return 'T' + s

Yes, I agree, Spanish is generally more verbose.

The weird one is that Latin American Spanish is spoken much slower, but with the same information per syllable (presumably). I always wondered if the information rate would actually be the same for Spanish (LATAM) and Spanish (Spain) - my suspicion is that it's lower in LATAM. Perhaps pauses and connective words could account for the difference though?