FT: “In recent years, many businesses have come to view the cloud as an important technology platform. There are obvious attractions to replacing in-house data centres with IT that is delivered as a service, on-demand, with payment tied to actual usage rather than a fixed cost. But what happens when the cloud moves from being the platform on which a business runs, to becoming the product itself? How should companies outside the tech industry adjust when much of the value inherent in their own operations can be delivered in the form of a cloud service, rather than packaged into the kind of products and services they have traditionally sold?…The wider adoption of cloud services such as this should prompt more companies to examine the nature of their existing business, and where their competitive advantages lie. When software changed the way businesses operated, it became fashionable to say that every company was now a tech company. In future, that could be replaced by a new refrain: every company is a cloud company.”
The Economist on India’s reducing fertility rate: “While a declining fertility rate is broadly a sign that India is richer and better educated than before, it will also bring worries. Economists have long heralded the “demographic dividend”, when productivity rises because a bigger slice of the population pyramid is of working age. This window will now be narrower, and India will have to contend sooner with a fast-growing proportion of elderly people to care for. Stark discrepancies in fertility rates between states also carry dangers. In future more Indians from the crowded north will seek jobs in the richer and less fecund south. Politicians will also face the hot issue of how to allot parliamentary constituencies. Back in 1971 Mrs Gandhi froze the distribution of seats among states. The result is that whereas an MP from Kerala now represents some 1.8m constituents, one from Uttar Pradesh represents nearly 3m. When the freeze on redistricting lifts some time in the next decade, these disparities will spawn a big fight.”
Christopher Hitchens: “Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. The search for security and majority is not always the same as solidarity; it can be another name for consensus and tyranny and tribalism. Never forget that, even if there are “masses” to be invoked, or “the people” to be praised, they and it must by definition be composed of individuals.” [via CafeHayek]
