Family businesses handle this by slowly getting the next generation involved, such that the intangible value has been transferred by the time the owner wants to retire. That works less well with a stranger. You really need high levels of trust to make that work fairly for both parties.

Family businesses have traditionally gotten around this by having their children involved for 10+ years prior to taking over. That way, you slowly transfer your "social capital" to the new owner (in this case your kid). This is understandably harder to manage with a stranger, because you can't transfer the value before they buy it, but they won't buy it if they can't guarantee you'll help them transfer the value.

To extend this, the eventual problem is that you eventually lose all of your new users, which means you lose the extremely valuable intermediate users (ones that know enough to ask complex questions, but not so much that they can figure out the answer).

That being said, I can see a few plausible biases (though none of them explain the scale of the increase IMO):

1. CRC risk is correlated with some previously fatal, but now curable disease. The mechanism would be that your high-risk CRC patients would die due to yellow fever or something in 1970, meaning they don't have the chance to get CRC. The important thing is that it would have to "artificially" remove high-risk patients from the age group, but not low risk patients.

2. CRC risk is noticeably higher at 24 than it is at 20, and all-other-cause mortality is significantly lower today. That would lead to a higher proportion of 24-year-old "years" in the calculation.

3. People used to die of CRC before it was caught, which caused it to not be recorded as a cancer incidence.

1 seems unlikely, and even if true shouldn't make a big difference. 2 seems the most possible, but still unlikely to make a huge difference. I don't know enough about how they determine cause of death to know if 3 is a possible outcome.

Regardless, digital file possession and ownership doesn't map cleanly to our language. I technically don't own any Kindle books I buy, I can't share them, yet I clearly have access to an ebook. So I both do and don't currently possess said book.

In my experience, the reason they're cheaper is because they offer fewer features (cut down on ongoing expenses) and because they aggressively enforce TOS (the margins are thinner, so you're less able to afford people using more resources than allocated).

Or maybe I'm wrong, and "we don't want sports gambling" is different legally from "we want to be the regulator of gambling." But it seems like they're just variations of the same question, which is: do states have the power to regulate this?

Not to strain the analogy, but it's more like not locking your bike when it's in your locked apartment (the apartment being your computer). The thought being that if someone puts the time and effort into breaking into your apartment, a bike lock isn't going to do anything to stop them.

There's also the synergy that GameStop now has access to more used gaming inventory, a category that I'm led to believe is high margin for the stores.

This sort of thing all the time when (for example) a movie lover opens a movie theater. Running a profitable movie theater is a lot less about movies and a lot more about maximizing concession revenue.

Whereas prediction markets (and some other stock market/commodity option contracts) are explicitly tied to an event. They're saying "I'll give you $1 if this clearly defined event occurs."

But its worth mentioning that there are fewer and fewer "other public spaces." My local library is just that, a library, and that means I can't:

1. Eat in it, perhaps while studying. 2. Talk above a whisper. 3. Rent anything but books that I might want/need. 4. Do anything on a computer but be on the internet (the computers run a locked down version of Windows XP)

That's not a "problem" exactly. This library is doing exactly what a library is supposed to do. But my town has one other "public" space, which is a combined community and senior center. That's not good for much outside of chair yoga for a kid in a high risk environment; it's largely designed for adults.

It's nice that my library is "just a library" because I don't need it to be anything else. But the fact is that the library is one of the few open, walk-in, free public spaces left. It being "just a library" in that case seems like a missed opportunity.

That's why I disagree with people that say "just give me whatever you gave the LLM." That's only useful if you, the writer of the prompt, have no intention of looking at the LLM output before sending it.

Zeno couldn't prove that there were no gaps; he showed that infinity was different from how we understood finite things, bit that's not the same as proving there are no gaps.

Later, mathematicians proved the existence of irrational numbers. These were "gaps" in the rational numbers, but they weren't all the "same" of that makes sense? The square root of 2 and Euler's number are both irrational, but it's not immediately clear how you'd make a set that includes all the numbers like that.

However, there are "gaps" in that number line. Between 1 and 2, there are values that aren't integers. So the integers make a number line that is infinite, but that has gaps.

Then we have something like the rational numbers. That's any number that can be expressed as a ratio of 2 integers (so 1/2, 123/620, etc.). Those ar3 different, because if you take any two rational numbers (say 1/2 and 1/3), we can always find a number in between them (in this case 5/12). So that's an improvement over the integers.

However, this still has "gaps." There is no fraction that can express the square root of 2; that number is not included in the set of rational numbers. So the rational numbers by definition have some gaps.

The problem for mathematicians was that for every infinite set of numbers they were defining, they could always find "gaps." So mathematicians, even though they had plenty of examples of infinite sets, kind of assumed that every set had these sorts of gaps. They couldn't define a set without them.

Cantor (and it seems Dedekind) were the first to be able to formally prove that there are sets without gaps.

More generally, though, the response can be as simple as "We have received this email; the request will take some time, here's roughly when you can expect an update."

Plus, the t in me from submission to acceptance/rejection can be long. For cutting edge science, you can't really afford to wait to hear back before applying to another journal.

All this to say that spamming 1,000 journals with a submission is bad, but submitting to the journals in your field that are at least decent fits for your paper is good practice.