wetenschap • tech • gezondheid • geld

Slechte ontvangst Pono

pono

De muziekspeler gesteund door Neil Young, die superieure kwaliteit zou bieden omdat de files niet worden gecomprimeerd – volgens deze verslaggever kan niemand het verschil horen, ook zijn 4-jarige zoon niet. Eerdere recensies waren ook al niet erg lovend.


Twitter groeit nauwelijks, aandeel +9%

Bedrijf geeft schuld aan technische problemen met iOs8. Maar de trend is al wat langer en ziet er zorgelijk uit.

twit

Deze kaart gaat over actieve gebruikers, Twitter zelf zegt dat het aantal gebruikers steeg met 20% in het meest recnte kwartaal. Toch stijgt het aandeel 10% nabeurs omdat de omzet fractioneel beter is dan verwacht. NB Omzet. De winst was nog steeds een verlies van $125,4 miljoen.


Zijn er nog 'veilige'banen?

Antwoord: Ja, vrachtwagenchauffeur en leraar. Twee banen die niet vervangen kunnen worden door computers en laagbetaalde werkers in verre landen. Deze kaart – ”De meest voorkomende baan in elke staat” – gaat helaas alleen over de VS maar is wel intrigerend (op de site is hij interactief)

Knipsel

(Tip van lezer Sander Ottes)


Staal zo sterk als titanium

gallery_1423077406-steel-crystals

Zuidkoreaanse onderzoekers hebben een legering ontwikkeld die staal net zo sterk en net zo licht als titanium maakt – voor een tiende van de prijs van titanium. Door manipulatie van B2-kristallen. Helaas nog niet klaar voor massaproductie want er ontbreekt nog een beschermlaag. Bij gewoon staal wordt een silicaat-laag gebruikt, maar in dit geval reageert die met het aluminium in de legering.


Twee stappen voorwaarts voor Bitcoin

Department for Financial Services van de staat New York, belangrijke toezichthouder op de bankensector, heeft nieuwe spelregels voorgesteld voor betalingen met Bitcoin. En de Nederlandse betalingsgigiant Adyen, die vorig jaar €22 miljard aan transacties in 180 valuta faciliteerde, heeft nu Bitcoin als betaalmiddel toegevoegd.


Hoe? Antwoord: .how

Van de vijf basisvragen – wie, wat, waarom, waar en hoe – is de ‘hoe’ vraag verreweg de meest gestelde op Google. Dus maakte Google een nieuwe categorie domeinnamen: .how voor bedrijven en individuen die handleidingen aan de man willen brengen, of middels handleidingen hun producten.


Europese schuldencrisis is klassiek probleem

Lang artikel van een econoom komt hierop neer: de Europese schuldencrisis is een conflict tussen bankiers en werkers. Dat valt op te lossen als je de schulden bij de een of de ander laat vallen: wie moet wat afschrijven. Een relatief simpele economische exercitie. Maar in dit geval zitten de bankiers in het ene land en de werkers in een ander land. Dan wordt het een conflict tussen landen, en dat is een stuk ingewikkelder. Trekt parallellen met de schuldbetalingen door Frankrijk aan Pruisen/Duitsland in 1871-73.


Gastcolumn

De afscheidstoespraak van de hoofdredacteur van The Economist, John Micklethwait. (Als er een betaalmuur tussenzit, dan kunt u ook hieronder kijken waar ik de tekst heb geplakt. Bij wijze van uitzondering.) Westerse democratiën zijn nauwelijks nog een rolmodel; economisch liberalisme likt zijn wonden. Hoe kan een liberaal nog hoopvol zijn?

An editor’s farewell

The case for liberal optimism

John Micklethwait, who has edited this newspaper since 2006, leaves today. These are his parting thoughts

From the print edition

THIS newspaper churlishly deprives its editors of the egocentric adornments of our trade. Tragically, these pages include no weekly “editor’s letter” to readers, underneath a beaming, air-brushed picture. Online, there is a weekly e-mail, but that comes from your “desk”, not you. As editor, you spend your time in deplorable obscurity, consoled merely by the fact you have the nicest job in journalism. But there are two indulgent exceptions: a brief mention when you are appointed; and this valedictory leader, which attempts to sum up the world that has hurtled across your desk.

It starts on the first day, and never lets up. There are elections, coups, wars, bankruptcies and tsunamis. Science throws up discoveries and ideas. A pantomime of Putinesque villains and Berlusconi-style clowns force themselves onto the cover. But for the things this newspaper cares about, the past nine years have been a battle, one that has left me in a state of paranoid optimism. Paranoia because so much remains under threat; optimism because, for the most part, the creed this newspaper lives by is strong enough to survive.

That applies first to The Economist itself. One of my earliest covers asked “Who killed the newspaper?” (August 24th 2006), and this newspaper has arguably faced more change in the past nine years than it did in the previous century. On April Fool’s Day 2006, when, appropriately, I began this job, Twitter was ten days old, our print advertising was growing and social media was something to do with a very good lunch.

So any modern editor who is not paranoid is a fool. But my optimism remains greater, both about The Economist and the future of independent journalism. That is partly because technology gives us ever more ways to reach our audience. In 2006 our circulation was 1.1m, all in print. Now it is 1.6m in print, digital and audio. Already half a million of you have downloaded our new Espresso app; we are adding over 70,000 Twitter followers each week. Media is not the race to the bottom that pessimists forecast. People want to read about the Kurds, Keynes and kokumi (see article) as well as the Kardashians. Ever more go to university, travel abroad and need ideas to stay employable—and will pay for an impartial view of the world, one where the editor, whatever his faults (or from now on, her virtues), is in nobody’s pocket.

Fighting new battles

The same guarded hopefulness applies to an Economist editor’s only true master: the liberal credo of open markets and individual freedom. That liberalism, which stretches back to our founding by James Wilson in 1843, has been attacked from all sides over the past nine years. In 2006 it was still easy to convince yourself that history was ending—that the “Washington consensus” of democracy and capitalism would liberate the world. But freedom’s momentum has sadly stalled.

Democracy is no longer the presumed destination. Countries that looked mildly hopeful nine years ago, such as Russia and Turkey, have acquired tsars and sultans. The Arab spring has turned to winter. Above all, authoritarians have found a new model in China—in which power revolves at the top every decade and economic growth is organised at the bottom. China’s income per person has risen at twice the rate of democratic India’s since 2006.

Western democracy, too, looks ever less exemplary. Barack Obama may have stopped his predecessor’s waterboarding of American values, but Washington remains synonymous with gridlock. In every year of my editorship a clear majority of Americans have told Gallup that they are dissatisfied with the way they are governed. America’s money politics, the target of another editor’s valedictory in 1993, looks ever grubbier and more feudal, with a Bush v Clinton contest beckoning in 2016.

The only way to feel good about American democracy is to set it beside Brussels. Woefully unaccountable and ineffective, the European Union is often held together only by the woman who has somehow managed to be both the West’s most impressive politician and its greatest ditherer, Angela Merkel. But to what end? The near-permanent euro crisis has proved a classic exercise in shambolic decision-making, consisting mostly of agreeing to kick the can down the road.

If liberal politics are rightly attacked, the blows that have rained down on liberal economics have perhaps been even more painful. It is now a commonplace to blame the dominant event of this editorship, the 2007-08 financial crisis, on unfettered capitalism. This is mostly a calumny: the epicentre was the American mortgage market, one of the most regulated industries on Earth, and Leviathan’s hand was all over much of the mess that followed. But part of the charge against capitalism was true, and it hurts. No liberal can justify a system in which huge banks’ balance-sheets teetered on tiny amounts of capital. In 2006 too much of finance was gambling, pure and simple; and too much of the bill ended up with taxpayers.

This helps explain why a feeling of unfairness lingers across the West—visible in the streets of Athens, but also in the pages of Thomas Piketty. People blame liberalism for much of what they fear: whether large-scale immigration, technological change, or just what the French callmondialisation.

Such a reaction is not unreasonable. Globalisation has indeed brought problems in its wake. But it has also done an incredible job in reducing want. Since 1990, nearly 1 billion people have been hauled out of extreme poverty; and the 75m people who bought an iPhone in the last quarter of 2014 were not all plutocrats. Moreover, open markets could do more, not least in the West. Free-trade pacts across the Atlantic and the Pacific would spur growth, while Mrs Merkel could open up Europe’s single market in services. The magic still works, and liberals should be far bolder in making that optimistic case.

But that is not enough. Two great debates are forming that will redefine liberalism. The first is to do with inequality. A more open society, where global markets increase the rewards for the talented, is fast becoming a less equal one. As this newspaper pointed out last week, the clever are marrying the clever and manically educating their children, making it ever harder for the poor to catch up. Liberals should resist the left’s inclination to punish the talented and somehow to mandate equality. But in the name of equal opportunity, progressives need to hack away at unnecessary privileges (like university places for children of alumni) and wage war on crony capitalism. Private equity and Exxon are both clever enough not to need special tax breaks. Four times as much public money goes to the wealthiest 20% of Americans in mortgage-interest deductions than is spent on social housing for the poorest fifth.

These were causes that motivated Wilson, John Stuart Mill, William Gladstone and the great liberals of the 19th century, who waged war on “the old corruption” of aristocratic patronage and protection for the rich, such as the corn laws this newspaper was set up to oppose. But they were progressives who also believed in a smaller state. This is the second debate forming around liberalism, and a dilemma: for although this newspaper wants government’s role to be limited, some of the remedies for inequality involve the state doing more, not less. Early education is one example. Only 28% of American four-year-olds attend state-funded pre-school; China is hoping to put 70% of its children through pre-school by 2020.

Planting liberalism’s standard

The answer is to scale down government, but to direct it more narrowly and intensely. In Europe, America and Japan the state still tries to do too much, and therefore does it badly. Leviathan has sprawled, invading our privacy, dictating the curve of a banana and producing tax codes of biblical length. With each tax break for the already rich and with each subsidy to this business or that pressure group, another lobby is formed, and democracy suffers.

Lessons lie in the private sector. It is often several decades ahead of the public sector in the West. Some of the answer is just good management: if Singapore can pay good teachers more and fire bad ones, so can Stuttgart and Seattle. Other answers lie in experiments at lower levels of government, as among America’s states, and outside the West—in India’s giant heart hospitals and Brazil’s conditional-cash-transfer system.

The battle for the future of the state is an area where modern liberalism should plant its standard and fight, just as the founders of the creed did. Because, in the end, free markets and free minds will win. Liberalism has economic logic and technology on its side—as well as this wonderful newspaper, which I now hand over into excellent hands. And that is my last, best reason for optimism.


S&P500 verslaat slimste beleggers

In 2008 sloot Warren Buffett een weddenschap: de beurs zou het over een periode van tien jaar beter doen dan alle slimmeriken die denken dat ze het beter weten. Om precies te zijn: Hedge fund managers, de best gefinancierde, meest geavanceerde en dus ook duurst betaalde beleggers. (Ze vragen meestal iets van 20% van de winst.) Eind 2014 was de S&P500 gestegen met 63,5%, de vijf ‘funds of hedge funds’ gekozen door Protégé waren +19,6%. Protégé is een money manager die de handschoen van Buffett oppakte. Het punt van Buffett: beter om de schildpad te zijn dan de haas, als in de fabel van Aesopus.


Goud in data

Als je weet wat mensen kopen – bijvoorbeeld door credit card transacties te analyseren – kun je de beurskoers van genoteerde middenstanders voorspellen. Dat ontdekten twee broers, die de transacties van Capital One bekeken. Ze plaatsten call en put opties op basis van hun conclusies en verdienden zo $2.8 miljoen dollar. Helaas waren ze door Capital One in dienst genomen voor ander werk, dus worden ze nu vervolgd door de SEC voor ‘insider trading.’


Abonneer De Bicker

Vul hieronder uw e-mailadres in om u in te schrijven voor de nieuwsbrief
jamie@example.com
Abonneer