Gina Kolata in the NY Times has been running a good series of articles on fraudulent academic publishing. The basic business model is an unholy alliance between academics looking to enhance their resumes, and quick-buck internet sites. Initially, I thought these sites were enticing naive academics. But many academics are apparently willing participants, suggesting that it’s easy to fool many promotion and award committees.
All but one academic in 10 who won a School of Business and Economics award had published papers in these journals. One had 10 such articles.
When my colleagues and I developed the theory of real time electricity prices back in the dark ages (1982), we were amused to see that our equations allowed for the optimal price to be negative. Power companies would pay consumers to use more electricity! At the time, we thought it was a paradoxical case that was unlikely in practice, except possibly in the middle of the night in systems with lots of nuclear units.
Fast forward 30 years, and negative prices are a regular occurrence in real systems, including in Texas and California. And now they are even happing in the middle of the day. But there is still a puzzle: why don’t generators stop generating the moment the price goes negative?
Several blog posts from Berkeley’s great Energy Institute, and my response to one of them, show that real power systems can have a lot of unanticipated phenomena. Take together, these probably explain these apparently strange behaviors.
Source: Is Solar Really the Reason for Negative Electricity Prices? – Energy Institute Blog. and from Catherine Wolfram, Is the Duck Sinking?
TL;DR In Southern California should put PV on houses and buildings that are far from the coast, because coastal areas are cloudy much of the summer. But the actual pattern is the opposite. I estimate a 30% magnitude of loss. Even my employer, UCSD, has engaged in this foolishness in order to appear trendy.
The bumpiness of this graph shows the effects of coastal weather in August.
SC overturns Lexmark’s patent win on used printer cartridges. Since the 17th century, restricting resale has been “against Trade and Traffique.”
Source: Supreme Court overturns Lexmark’s patent win on used printer cartridges | Ars Technica
Summary: once a product is sold, the original patent holder can’t control how it is subsequently used.
Not the only seller.
Today’s ruling is a win for many tech companies, with companies like Vizio, Dell, Intel, LG Electronics, HTC, and Western Digital all taking the side of Impression Products. [the winner] …The companies on Lexmark’s side, no surprise, were heavy licensers of patents, including tech giants like Qualcomm, IBM, Nokia, and Dolby. Biotechnology and pharmaceutical groups also supported Lexmark. Those lineups largely mirror industry divisions over Congressional debates around reforming patent laws, with the pro-Impression companies favoring user-friendly changes to patent laws, and the pro-Lexmark companies wanting more changes that favor patent owners.
I often gripe about the Supreme Court’s seeming “go with the big $” jurisprudence. But in this case, there was plenty of corporate power on both sides. And the 7-1 verdict means it was not a close call.
One of my students reported that he was having trouble finding my lecture notes from this course, so I am putting them in one place. I will update this for the last few classes.
Some of the aviation discussions are not yet here.
There are lots of technology-policy-related stories this weekend. The first three concern about excess market power in tech markets, and its effects. The remaining three are miscellaneous subjects at the intersection of technology, policy, and politics.
Suggestion: If a newspaper is refusing to let you read an article, you can often get it by searching for it (on Google – irony alert, see one of the stories below), and visiting from the search result.
And a humble brag: Only the last of these stories directly concerns He Who Must Not Be Named. Nor did I mention Juicero, whose idiocy I tweeted about when it first came to market.
Is It Time to Break Up Google?
In just 10 years, the world’s five largest companies by market capitalization have all changed, save for one: Microsoft. Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Citigroup and Shell Oil are out and Apple, Alphabet (the parent company of Google), Amazon and Facebook have taken their place.
They’re all tech companies, and each dominates its corner of the industry: Google has an 88 percent market share in search advertising, Facebook (and its subsidiaries Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger) owns 77 percent of mobile social traffic and Amazon has a 74 percent share in the e-book market. In classic economic terms, all three are monopolies.
Same-day delivery for Amazon ” is taking an increasing toll on Yamato’s drivers because of the high volume of nighttime deliveries.”
The company had been considering partly terminating contracts with major clients who refused to accept raised shipping fees or deferring delivery days during peak periods.
Source: Overwhelmed Yamato mulls exit from Amazon’s same-day delivery service | The Japan Times
Package delivery is one of the only employment categories that is increasing as retailing moves more toward the Internet. But as this article implies, we will see more change in how retailers and deliverers manage the last step in the B-to-C supply chain. Why doesn’t Yamato raise its prices?
Why doesn’t Yamato raise its prices? Perhaps they don’t want to compete with other delivery services in late night delivery?