I worked in the nuclear industry a long time ago. The reason some parts are expensive is the documentation (chain of ownership) and testing involved. Some parts must be flame tested (set on fire and self-extinguish in X seconds), so that 50% of the batch are destructively tested in order to meet specific requirements. It doesn't justify excessive profiteering on a setup or per-part basis, but there is reason for connectors costing $90/part.
The point of Web of Trust is to only trust keys that other people you know have also signed. Everything else is garbage until proven otherwise.
Key servers are untrustworthy because anyone can upload random shit to them.
Trying to shift WoT to a third party is trying to get something for free that doesn't emphasize solving the problem: getting everyone you know signing keys of only other people they know.
It might be tinfoil, but it makes one wonder why a significant net neutrality opponent (Verizon) is considering purchasing the largest (monetary) proponent (AOL). Granted VZN and AOL had joint ventures previously, but sealing such a deal would have a chilling effect.
Economic and environmental collapse is the frequent Tragedy of the Commons consequence of unregulated human activity (markets)... Cannery Row, Easter Island, Silphium, Raphus cucullatus, extinction of N. American megafauna.
In other words, regulation is a necessary "evil" to make unsustainable behavior illegal.
In order to be successful, as mentioned in other comments, such a project would need more end-users as active co-designers / field testers. Otherwise, it's a pure "design for design's" sake that won't get used. And that would be sad if some extra attention were the difference between a large, branded product company that would be able to reduce the damage and discomfort to millions vs. a concept on a shelf.
Bezos could refocus on DIY, hobbyists and maker culture... classes (or sponsorship thereof) would be a good direction to get the cash register filling. It's hard to compete with online, open-source, but there are some things people would pay for (and want) in-person.
An apropos quote in-lieu of comment for obvious reasons:
"Nuptial love maketh mankind, friendly love perfecteth it, but wonton love corrupteth and embaseth it." ~ someone that hailed from southern Hertfordshire about a century later than in the article
I'm an American with a passport who has lived and grown businesses in Europe. (I attended private and public schools only in the US and half-heartedly finished a top 50 uni because it wasn't a top priority.)
GWB's NCBLA further inculcated standardized testing as an official religion in American education system. It's a complete and utter failure; another in a long line of ill-informed, "top-down solutions" that cause more harm than good.
First Bogey's Books in Davis, then even Borders. :(
From what I heard at the time, Powell's (one of the bookstore others would sell their inventory to) was overwhelmed with shipments from closing bookstores and the market rate for used domestic books was quite low for a long time. Has this changed?
Yea, if there were a Go teaching site beyond Go tour http://tour.golang.org/, that would be something. Regardless of language, https://rubymonk.com is one of the nicest interactive teaching with "try out this snippet" and "solve this problem" sites out there. The issue for Go is that it probably needs a little bit more on the video explanation-side for new users (distilled from Google I/O, Gophercon) to explain features. People would probably pay to be taught backend languages (Erlang, Go, ...) and infrastructure in a https://www.codeschool.com format (irrespective of spoon-fed teaching resulting in SRE-calibre practical experience.)
Large shops have huge bull's-eyes painted on them. If they act in bad faith, they will eventually lose reputation and business, spectacularly. This is why top VC's aren't going to do things that tiny VC's might try to get away with.
Also it's worth nothing that going out-of-your way to be fair isn't just "being nice," it selfishly reduces risk of issues, especially in small, highly-connected industries where reputation is the first consideration.
So if we are to take her account at face value, it seems like WB misjudged that word would get around and then lawsuits. (An expensive lesson in hubris.)
I would argue from a productivity perspective: yes. If you were like me, you would get bogged down "in the weeds" fixing every single little bug encountered, no matter the time investment or how trivial, and wouldn't ship as much. It's productivity self-bikeshedding / developer "gold plating" in a way that I'm probably avoiding "real" work. By being semi strategically-lazy, it's possible to get more done.
So based on personal style, it's possible to get better by walking a middle path of not too crappy and not over-crafted.
(The real work is the stuff that needs doing or somehow seems "most important.")
2 Qs: How have tiger-human relations/(co/non)existence changed in the last few decades? Are there more/different interactions in rural, suburban, urban (?) settings?
From considering the demand-side point-of-view only, I would tend to agree. It gives content distributors a false sense of control at the expense of complicating the average customers' lives. ("Penny-wise, pound-foolish" like a neighborhood coffee shop that requires a key to use the restroom and doesn't put out napkins whereas the Starbucks next door making far more money does neither.)
From the supply-side point-of-view (film maker, movie theater, on-demand service), it depends. Artists can choose to release for free like The Beastie Boys are other doing, knowing enough people will still buy the retail package to keep them afloat. But to see your blood, sweat and tears shared without people paying a dime, might be tough. It's further complicated because you don't want to tick off freeloaders that can be converted to customers or whom happen to be major customers in same-brand products/services.
Both taken together, it's becomes a self-selecting, personal choice to vote with one's wallet.
Nope, Musk did http://www.whps.co.za Merely an observation that early environment shapes attitudes to life, learning, etc. which can either drive out curiosity and/or ambition or amplify it. (Excluding crucial social navigation and team dynamics, hitting most all of intelligence, ambition, curiosity, confidence (and so on) to do well, but not developing one or more of those tends to become self-limiting factor/s.) Overcoming adversity (being bullied) also helps.