He actually explains it. It's due to the round trip time increasing from further away water droplets when filmed at an oblique angle. Light hitting a droplet 3m away has a 3x times longer round trip than light hitting a droplet 1m away.
Annoyingly, Ableton Push 3 Standalone runs on Linux. This means that Ableton have a working Linux version of, at least the core, of Ableton Live working on Linux. I sincerely hope they release a true Linux version soon. It's the last thing tying me to Windows.
If you use the word "Socialise" then the current trend of reactionary ill-informed is to assume "Communism". It's an argument I'm sick of having, but it's an argument that needs to be had.
> it's an argument I'm sick of having, but it's an argument that needs to be had
OP [1] is the first person to make the argument that socialising anything implies communism in this thread. The entire shtick is a straw man. It doesn't need to be argued if it's only brought up by the side tearing it down.
Calling the current US administration "commie" wan't on my bingo card. I swear most people these days have no actual concept of the things they argue against.
They are as commie as it gets but lets say heavily promoting socialism, nationalizing private companies, subsidizing farmers etc etc… and it is getting worse by the minute
If it takes a misunderstanding of communism to get trump kicked out, I'm all for it, but this is far from "as commie as it gets". What's the definition of communism as far as you understand it?
Samsung didn't copy the damn iPhone. This is revisionist history. HTC was on the scene for popular Android smart phones before Samsung, and they also didn't copy the iPhone. Early Nokia Symbian devices were on the scene before HTC and they also didn't copy the iPhone. Touch screen phones were going to happen. Apple made the first, popular one, but they were going to happen.
We’re talking about transfer of critical technologies or knowhow, and how company relationships lead to such situations. Not Apple vs Android contents or how touch screen phone were already meant to be. A lot of industrial countries fail to manufacture good phones, not because they don’t have the capacity but they lack the knowhow.
Samsung was the original manufacturing partner for Apple, which allowed them to amass incredible amount of knowhow to create their own, and before that they were not even in the phone market much, yet alone launch their own phone.
In the initial years HTC was one of the biggest Android manufacturers and their phones didn't really copy the iPhone.
Samsung was just better at marketing and other business aspects.
> and before that [Apple] were not even in the phone market much, yet alone launch their own phone.
This applies to Apple, too. Samsung learned how to make them. As did HTC, Sony, Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo, OnePlus, etc, etc. Turns out, making smartphones is a very competitive business, but a lot of companies were good at it, at least for periods of time.
Australia has very strong consumer protection laws but international companies still sell products here. They are forced to comply with the regulations and the prices are mostly comparable with other countries. Regulations work.
Australia's startup scene is doing ok, but the funding model is lacking. There are a few reputable VCs, and very limited government funding. I don't think it's regulations that are cramping Australian startups, I think it's more lack of investment from both private and public sectors. I know many people who are running successful startups in Australia.
I'd argue that having a system of lobbying government and lax rules on political donations would have a much greater effect on stymying competition. It seems that monopolies in the US are very much protected by a lack of regulation on political donations rather than too much regulation.
> I'd argue that having a system of lobbying government and lax rules on political donations would have a much greater effect on stymying competition.
Interesting. My belief is that regulations are the most harmful since they raise barriers to startup competition and thus protect monopolies (since startups, due to their hunger, are the most important source of competition in a market - incumbents usually end up in monopolies and cartels instead). We're seeing that here in the EU every day.
But let's explore your point: how exactly do you think lobbying and donations are stymying competition? What's the mechanism at work?
The mechanism is as old as the hills. You pay for favourable conditions for your business, and unfavourable conditions for your competitors. Australia has a classic history of political figures being given very comfortable jobs in the private sector after they've greased the wheel for their largest donors. This applies to tech, communications, finance, property development and probably every other money making sector.
When contracts are awarded to companies based on lobbying and donations it stymies competition.
The following quote is from the report linked at [1]. It's worth reading the entirety of that report.
"the growing politicisation of public service, exemplified by political appointments to government bodies (Griffiths et al. 2022), may spill over into the contract market. Links between politics, donations, and contracts may negatively impact competition and firm entry".
What you are describing is how governments prop-up incumbents. But this rarely apply to startups, who seldom stand a chance at getting government contracts and the like. Entrepreneurs will ignore those and build the startup from the bottom up, with small customers first.
Of course a less corrupt government could help here, like the x-prize helped SpaceX and electric car subsidies helped Tesla. But that's too much to ask from politicians of most countries.
To actually prevent startups competing and disrupting the market, I maintain that regulations are much more effective: they will prevent entrepreneurs from even thinking of entering and competing highly regulated domains. See the three canonical examples (health care, education and housing) where high prices and scarcity are the name of the game.
I think we're debating around the actual core of the issue: Regulations are only as good or bad as the content of the regulations, and corrupt governments can (and do) ignore and enact regulations at their pleasure.
Ideally, regulations can promote startups and overall market competition. We do see that ideal in some Australian regulations (and I would guess in most countries) but regulations are decided by the government, and that means that their enforcement (or lack thereof) and intent is often pro-incumbent.
I still maintain that regulations on political lobbying and donations would go a long way to open up the playing field for startups. Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence of any political party in any country doing more than pay lip service to actually doing this.
The first of these I can see as valid, but it's an optimisation that is only needed because globally, taxation law is a deliberate mine-field deisgned to support consultants. The second is exactly as you read it.
The thing is, the original problem is one that "the free market" would say should fail. That company, without the expertise required to do the job, should fail.
Having consultants do anything in this situation is antithetical to the ideal of a company. The company should fail, OR, the consultants should advise that the company should either fail or gain the expertise to no longer require consultants.
Obviously this isn't going to happen, and here we are.
There are so many different kinds of expertise, you can't have everything in house. The problem is that now you are going to have to hire someone for something that you are not qualified to do yourself, which almost automatically implies that you are not qualified to make that hire either. So everybody plays it safe and they hire the 'big names' because those have social proof, no matter how crap the actual interaction.
Yes, that's a more detailed way of saying what I mean, but without the snark against "the free market". The value provided by the big 4 is based on a universal acceptance of "play it safe, cover your ass" instead of "we provide quality advice". The big 4 have realised this, as near, captive market, and lowered their output accordingly.
>The thing is, the original problem is one that "the free market" would say should fail. That company, without the expertise required to do the job, should fail.
The free market doesnt say anything, the invisible hand is also silent. Have seen:
1. Additional round of investor funding to rescue the business based on doing it right this time.
2. Dip into family money to reorganise and rescue business
3. Uses us to correct their practices and then runs it themselves
4. Farm mortgage.
I dont see how its antithetical, its a service. Businesses use other businesses services all the time.
If they need the expertise only once every ten years? Then it makes no sense to have in house expertise. Or the company expands to a new market and they need new expertise. They can hire, but they don't know who to hire, so consultants come in to help them.
So there's some free market reasons for this to exist.
> antithetical to the ideal of a company. The company should fail, OR, the consultants should advise that the company should either fail or gain the expertise to no longer require consultants.
This is a super myopic. Company's don't operate in idyllic terms ("ideal of a company"). Company's exist to create customers. How they reach that is up to them, consultants or otherwise...there are no "rules" you have to follow to achieve it (other than obvious regulatory ones)
There is a risk in hiring expertise. What if the idea turns out to not work? What if the company decides to not pursue the idea any further? Now you already hired and trained a bunch of people that are now useless.
And what about companies that purchase materials necessary to their business from 3rd party vendors? Should all companies that aren't 100% vertically integrated die, or just the ones purchasing services?
If the company can usefully gain access to that expertise by paying a consultant, then why should that be a problem as far as the market is concerned? There's nothing in the idea of efficient markets that says anything about how the company or economic activity should be structured (in fact, there's an argument that having such activity be subject to market pressure could improve market efficiency).
The main issue, of course, is that a truly efficient market is a theoretical construct that can only be approximated. And in practice the approximation is often quite poor: successful companies are usually only doing one or two things right to make their success, then doing most other things in a mediocre fashion, and usually one or two things just short of catastrophically badly.
Ah, but by outsourcing the consultancy to AI, the consultancy firms are playing the same game! Now we just need to train a perfectly bureaucratic LLM to provide iron-clad but completely vapid conclusions and citations, and we can finally fire all of those pesky public servants!
