Simply put, start with a niche market concept that helps solve very specific problems that people may have (such as delivering pet medicine to old or handicap people who live in villages or the countryside), and then to actually get started make an offer to those providing the solutions (the drivers) that is too good for them to refuse.
In this case I think you'd basically have to pay the drivers to make deliveries for yourself, and then work to show the value of this service to those whom need this service and are in a position to take over paying for it.
I love this story. When I first read it online in college many years ago I was surprised, and disappointed, when I suddenly realized it was a short story. It's a great one to recommend to people.
Outer Wilds, the video game, does a brilliant job expanding on this theme if you're hungry for more. "There's more to explore here."
Warning: progression is gated behind knowledge so spoilers are worse than usual and The Algorithm will aggressively try to spoil you if you start poking too deep into "outer wilds" searches. If you like The Last Question and can fit a game in your life, Outer Wilds is a solid bet.
Right, consider the personnel costs that are displayed here. They were already getting paid this past weekend either way (admittedly the military may have had to hire some last minute contractors to help with the operation).
Absolutely. If I'm driving and using my cellphone (in a legal or illegal manner), and the network is suddenly screwed up, I'll probably be more distracted since I'm trying to solve the "problem" with my phone in addition to driving.
Same, and I also just marvel at the airplanes. This video made me think of the several grass runways that are in my area. They're literally just maintained by some guy mowing them, and yet people land on them in tiny planes as well as two-engine aircraft.
I'm not from Canada, but my take is that given Canada's economic reliance on the US, any "divorce" would cost them more than anything they could find anywhere else. However, I also don't think the PM there can simply separate his country from the US by simply giving a speech, although he can work to foster closer ties with others while still trying to make it work with the US.
Canada has a dysfunctional domestic trade economy where it’s often easier to trade across borders with the U.S. than it is to trade across provinces.
Simply eliminating a lot of those domestic trade barriers would create more economic wealth than what Canada would lose by ending trade with the U.S. completely.
Of course in practice it won’t be that easy and the finances don’t usually materialize that easily, but the point is Canada has options for growth that are fully under its control.
The only sector where this is generally true is liquor. This is significant, but not massive.
Inter-provincial trade barriers for labor, especially licensed labor are also quite onerous. But it's still easier for a Quebecois tradesman to work in Ontario than it is for that same tradesman to work in the US.
If you watch his speech and the follow up interview you he answers that directly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDMyeGQm3NA @ 17:50). It's a good watch, better than the past 10 years of daily coverage by American media of what their dumb president and ex president is ranting about.
I am in the start up community in Canada. I can tell you that after the first threat from Trump every federal program to help tech start ups immediately pivoted to Asia and the EU. Before he started yapping, we were connected to Canadian representatives in the US, meeting about markets and opportunities. Now all programs are directed at forming partnerships elsewhere.
Your logic is exactly why Trump's gambits always work. Everyone knows that individually standing up to a bully is a good way to get the raw end of the deal; so nobody stands up and the bully continues racking up wins.
It's certainly not guaranteed, but taking an aggressive defensive stance is the ONLY possible way to stop having your lunch money stolen.
Canada will suffer greatly, and possibly much more than the US. But appeasing US, in the position of Canada, is akin to trying to reason with a wife beater.
You don't reason. You remove the victim from the hands of the aggressor.
It will cost a lot of money, and the Canadians will suffer greatly. But the alternative is to join America, which Canadians have stated don't want to.
In this case I think you'd basically have to pay the drivers to make deliveries for yourself, and then work to show the value of this service to those whom need this service and are in a position to take over paying for it.
reply