Slashdot Mirror

Here's the data, and given it's down 15% over the last decade, and world emissions are up - we're probably the exception, making ANY reduction significant.

That's because doubling the national debt *was* the fiscally responsible action for Obama. Why? Because the economy was in free-fall in the worse recession since the 1930s. The previous president had cut taxes, started 2 wars and increased entitlements (and increased the deficit before the recession started). Letting the economy bottom out naturally would have increased the debt more than trying to cushion it, and would have been a much worse result for Americans (less employment and more hardship). After dealing with the recession, the deficit shrank every year under Obama.

The fiscally responsible thing to do is run a deficit during a recession, and to cut the deficit until you run a surplus in good years. Trump is increasing the deficit during the good years, and that's fiscally irresponsible.

You're right and wrong. They can't afford them and are buying them anyway.

iPhones may only have about 24% market share worldwide, but the US market share is 44.5%.

Granted, 44.5% is not precisely "most", but certainly not limited to the top 10% types that can afford it. In order to have that kind of market share, there has to be a lot of people with below average incomes with iPhones.

And, as others have indicated, there is no way a tariff on smartphones would be limited to iPhones.

On November 11th, 2018.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/1...

Yes, but those are the sales for the one-day Singles Day. US holiday shopping is spread out over an entire month. If all Christmas sales were all compressed to a single day, then the total would be much higher for that one day. As a comparison, total 2017 US Christmas sales were over $700 billion, of which $123 billion was online.

China is quickly becoming a consumer economy, but it still has a ways to catch up to the US for now.

Facebook's income taxes. In 2017 they paid about $5 billion in income taxes, and $4.6 billion of those were in the US. Their revenue and net profit for 2017 was $40 billion and $16 billion, respectively. So they paid about a 24% income tax rate ($5 billion of $21 billion, giving a net $16 billion). That's higher than the average of the EU at ~19%, and hs quite a way from "virtually no tax".

You mean those years of ~2% GDP growth? Not the 3%+ that's happened since he was sworn in as President? Or maybe the DJIA that was ~flat from 2014 to the day after the election, rather than the ~40% run-up since then? Or maybe consumer confidence that bumped up 10% in the months right after the election? Those economic recoveries?

Yes. And? Market share continues to slide. The trend is irrefutable.

About 11% of Americans move each year. That's about 35.5 million people.

About 264,000 people moved to NYC last year. So about 0.74% of all movers relocated to NYC.

Amazon has about 600,000 employees. I can't find a breakdown of U.S. vs overseas employees, but about 70% of their sales are in the U.S.. So figure 420,000 U.S. employees. If 11% of them move, that'd be 46,000 Amazon employees moving each year.. 0.74% of that is 340 Amazon employees moving to NYC each year.

Of that amount, most would rent. But it seems highly likely that more than two would end up buying.

Normally, I do not answer AC, but you are my personal Chinese troll.

When it comes to R&D, VW does not even come CLOSE to what Tesla has been investing.
More importantly, most of legacy R&D's budget continues to go into ICE, and NOT EVs. Tesla is 100% into EVs, which is why Tesla is ahead in EVERYTHING, except for the actual manufacturing. However, M3 is the most automated , and I suspect that MY will put that to shame.

As to VW or any of these car makers, the EVs continue to be pure junk. The reason why is that if they were any good, they would outsell, not only Tesla (which none do), BUT, would actually outsell the ICE POS (slow, expensive to own, etc) that legacy car makers push. And as Tesla says, we should ALL hope that the legacy car makers will go to the EVs, instead of continuing to push ICE.

But we keep on growing as an economy, so those companies made room for others. We'll keep the ones that can thrive in our business environment and lose the ones that wish to not be good stewards of the planet and let them go destroy the physical environment elsewhere.
https://www.statista.com/stati...
Want to dump effluent into the waterways and pollute the air with toxic shit? That's what Texas is for, don't let the door hit you on your way out.

The absolute only place it has any advantage is if you want to lie down in bed and watch movies on a bigger screen- which isn't a big enough niche, and most people are happy using their phones for (or getting a TV in their bedroom). Which is why tablets are dying.

Tablet sales outpaced laptops for a few years and now are about even now:
https://www.statista.com/stati...

There are about 1.5b tablet users worldwide. So yeah, contrary to your arm chair analysis, people love tablets.

We already know that I-phone sales are down, it was in the quarterly report

We do? It was?

The year ago quarter they sold 46.7 million phones. This quarter they sold 46.9 million.

FY 2017 they sold 216.8 million phones
FY 2018 they sold 217.7 million phones

Which of those figures show that sales are down?

You are cherrypicking data. Their sales dropped after 2015.
FY 2018 they sold 217.7 million phones
FY 2017 they sold 216.8 million phones
FY 2016 they sold 211.9 million phones
FY 2015 they sold 231.2 million phones
(Sales continuously increased before that time.)

Also, the issue is not that their sales are dropping, it's that their rate of increase is dropping, which is indicative of lack of enthusiasm in their product.

You can see this from their sales trends here and here .

This is even more reason to delete Facebook. Facebook is ultimately a failed social experiment. Here's to hoping it continues a decline in popularity.

Yes, it certainly looks as if Facebook is declining in popularity.

That chart ends at Q2 of this year. According to FB itself, its traffic and user base both declined in Q3 for the first time ever.

This is even more reason to delete Facebook. Facebook is ultimately a failed social experiment. Here's to hoping it continues a decline in popularity.

Yes, it certainly looks as if Facebook is declining in popularity.

America has more guns than people. You're not from here = you do not understand that.

This is the excuse used to excuse police killing innocents, even though violent crime has been dropping for 25 years.

Apple sells thick-client product that are deeply threatened by thin-client cloud-based solutions

Right, because they don't sell any thin-client products that use cloud services:
https://www.apple.com/ipad/
https://www.apple.com/iphone/
https://icloud.com/
https://www.apple.com/ipod-tou...

And those thick-client products that you refer to? They account for less than 10% of Apple's revenue.
https://www.statista.com/chart...

I'm not sure where you are getting your data, but we went from 1045 million short tons for electricity in 2006 to 664 in 2016, a reduction of 1/3 and we had a corresponding rise in natural gas for electrical generation which offsets some of these losses. The CO2 per kwh has not dropped by much in the last decade. Secondly, the Tesla battery is sold at a loss and is not anywhere near 100 usd/kwh yet. They are on track for the cells to hit that price this year and maybe packs by 2020. The only thing keeping the costs down are the fact Tesla uses and advanced smart battery architecture with long lifespan cells and carefully controls the temperature and charge cycles at all times making them viable for use as storage after they are no longer useful in cars. Sorry if the facts aren't as rosy as you like them to be, but that's reality.

If this current ~3% annual growth, which began back in mid-2009 during Obama's first term

It did? I don't see a single year that reached 3% since 2005.

The iPad's rapid decline

Huawei's global tablet shipments from 2nd quarter 2014 to 2nd quarter 2018

Looks like Apple lost the tablet plot.

So you're claiming you have 12 million people that are okay with a stranger at a store picking out their meat and produce for them? I don't believe you

It doesn't matter how many brits tell you what life is like in the UK you simply cannot accept it's different from your life in a different country. And all because you personally can't imagine you it can be made to work. Your arrogance is astounding. Smarter people did in fact manage to figure it out.

It's true. Get over it.

http://www.mintel.com/press-ce...

https://www.statista.com/topic...

etc.

12.1% of new smartphone sales for 2018 QC

I'm not sure what % of shipments measures or whether it's better than the link I quoted, but the available statistics diverge rather ... sharply.

I Google'd "deaths per terawatt" and found this: https://www.statista.com/stati...

Non-paywalled data is at https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

The biggest problem with this claim is that it is a gross oversimplification even with some pretty straight forward reasoning. To understand the deaths by certain industrial causes you have to consider direct and indirect mechanisms. Direct mechanisms contribute historical data, however indirect mechanisms do not create obvious historical data.

For us to consider deaths by Solar and Wind direct causes maybe someone falling off a roof or a tower. The duration of such incidents are hours. An indirect cause maybe a chemical byproduct of the production process or perhaps going crazy from infra sound. These are somewhat avoidable and correctable issues with a duration of months to years. Propagation over area can be tens to hundreds of metres.

To consider Coal direct causes maybe someone getting black lung from mining, being burnt to death, falling, crushed or fire. The duration of such incidents are days to weeks. Indirect causes maybe asthma or other lung diseases. You may breathe in a natural radio-isotope causing lung cancer. These are difficult to avoid and correct with a duration of years to decades. Propagation over area can be tens to hundreds of Kilometres.

These are easy to understand because the means that creates the deaths are obvious. However with Nuclear the causes of death are not so obvious.

To consider Nuclear direct causes maybe Industrial accidents similar to a coal plant or a severe exposure to radiation. The duration of such incidents are years to indefinite considering that Chernobyl has only just been bought under control with New Safe Confinement and Fukushima is barely controlled. Indirect causes for Nuclear are ignored in the forbes article because it ignores the externalities of the Nuclear industry whilst focusing on the one for other industries. These are so varied because the vectors are cancer from absorbing radio-isotopes, transgenic disease from DNA damage received in a previous generation, pregnancies that failed to come to term and fatal birth defects from those who did all occur over a long time. You may breathe in an enriched radio-isotope causing lung cancer. You may drink or eat it and you could not detect it was there as it organically binds inside your body. These are impossible to correct with a duration of decades to unknown amount of years. You can't tell if you do or do not avoid them. Propagation of radio-isotopes from Fukushima has spread all over the world, with much of it landing on the west coast of the US. We know this because the MOX fuel elements in Unit three can be tracked using data from the Nuclear test ban treaty monitoring stations. Bio-accumulation in the environment is also a complex subject that takes a long time to manifest as something that can be measured. This is all relative to the rates at which the radio-isotopes decay through their daughter products.

When I get a chance I subscribe to statistica to have a look at the underlying data however it is clear to see the flaw in the reasoning is that we are still at the beginning of the nuclear accidents, there is no historical data to compare. Considerable obfuscation of data has been performed to keep the truth vague and ambiguous. To truly understand it you have to model the propagation of these elements in the body and the environment. However I think H. L. Mencken summed it up nicely when he said:

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

I Google'd "deaths per terawatt" and found this: https://www.statista.com/stati...

But that's paywalled...

Non-paywalled data is at https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

I would have pasted it here, but:
Filter error: Please use less whitespace.

Go filter!

I Google'd "deaths per terawatt" and found this: https://www.statista.com/stati...

Just as we jail everyone who throws a brick off an overpass, we can jail everyone who maliciously interferes with the operation of an automated vehicle.

Just as we jail everyone who is caught in the act of throwing a brick off an overpass, we can jail everyone who is caught in the act of maliciously interfering with the operation of an automated vehicle. There, fixed that for you.

Do you have any idea what the clearance rate is for property crimes? You can find out here.

Also, there's the little detail that while jail is great for punishing the offender, it does nothing to protect the victim of the crime, and little to prevent the crime from being committed in the first place. It seems that jail is only effective in preventing law-abiding citizens from committing crimes.

I know a few people who got cancer in the US - and they did not lose their house, their car, their everything. Payment plans with vastly-reduced costs were worked out, no interest, and ultimately paid off in each case

Contrary to the typical memes and beliefs, bankruptcy for medical issues is extremely rare: about 4% of all bankruptcies are due to medical costs. Given that 0.3% of households file for bankruptcy each year, and there are 126 million households in the US, that means there are about (126MM * 0.003 * 0.04) 15,000 medical bankruptcies each year in the US. Yes, a large number, but nowhere near the oft-quoted 643,000 annually (which is actually more than the number of bankruptcies filed overall).

Nope! "he state’s economy grew by 4.1 percent in 2015, compared to just 2.4 percent for the rest of the country." And since then, it has been doing better than Texas (which has #2 spot) see california> and Texas.

Is it a common belief in Euro-wherever that US middle-class equates to McMansions?

Typically only amongst those who do poorly, economically. What they fail to realize is that about 42% of Europe lives in apartments, and in the US almost 80% live in free-standing homes. To a large segment (nearly half) of Europeans, owning your own freestanding home just isn't realistic, it's what "the rich" have, and thus ANY freestanding home must be a "McMansion". Of course, when we have over twice the land area, and only 60% of the population, so it should be no surprise that we have much lower density living...

Total iPhone units sold between 2007 and 2017 worldwide is 216.76 million. So not literally a billion; in fact, the article is specifically about iOS, so we can leave out macs. An iPhone will stay in use for about 5 years so let's assume that half of those 216 million devices is still using Safari and will get the search provider pushed. That's 9 billion for 100 million users, or USD 90 per IOS user. Assume I made a mistake and it would only amount to a third of that per user. I would still be worried if Google would pay my phone manufacturer that for providing me ads.

Total iPhones sold in fiscal year 2017 were 217 million. In February 2017, Apple had 1.3 billion active devices, so 7 USD/user.

At least as of 2018 that's 78% living paycheck to paycheck.

OK. So, assuming an estimated population of 325,000,000, that means that that 253,500,000 people live paycheck to paycheck and 71,500,000 do not. Of those 71,500,000, more than 90,000,000 own an iPhone. That's right. Mathematically, at least 10% of the US population that supposedly lives to paycheck must own an iPhone for the sales figures to work out. Meaning that if iPhone owners account for every single American who is not in financial distress and then some, that means every single owner of a top of the line Samsung phone comes from the financially distressed segment of the population.

Are there people who live paycheck to paycheck because of legitimate financial hardships that are outside their control? Yes. Is it the absurdly high figure that you trot out in every one of these discussion? Not a chance.

The fact remains that many, or more likely most, people who live paycheck to paycheck live paycheck to paycheck because of their own lifestyle choices. If what you said was true, then I would expect that there would be 4 or 5 budget smart phones sold for every iPhone and high end Samsung. Instead, the opposite is true. That simply cannot happen without a generous helping of personal choice on the part of most consumers. No class warfare needed here.

According to Statistica, there are almost 12,000 Wal-Marts worldwide: https://www.statista.com/stati...

17k handsets, is almost 1.5 per store. I don't know the distribution of them. That point is vague.

The interesting part is the fact that Wal-Mart is experimenting with VR, specifically Oculus. The amount is actually underwhelming, in a relative way.

You missed the third choice, which is only made possible by the existence of mostly free global markets: Plant apple orchards in countries where labor is cheap, then bulldoze our apple orchards and replace them with food crops that can be mostly harvested by automation (wheat, corn, etc.). Then, import the apples while exporting grains.

More magical thinking. Agriculture simply doesn’t work that way.

Sure it does—not over the course of months, but it very much works that way. Historically, most of our fruit in the U.S. was grown here in the U.S. These days, most of it is imported. Since 2010, the amount of fruit produced in the U.S. has declined by nearly 30%, while the amount of grain increased by nearly 40%. And over the last few decades, decreased demand for tobacco has resulted in tobacco farms switching to various grains, demand for neat gadgets has replaced apple orchards with Apple office buildings, etc.

For the most part, fertile topsoil is fertile topsoil. As long as there is enough root structure to prevent runoff, you can pretty much grow whatever is needed wherever you need to grow it, unless what you're trying to grow has specific temperature limitations or sun hour requirements. You can grow apples anywhere from Alaska all the way down to the equator. You grow them differently in different places (aggressive pruning and annual leaf stripping at the equator, for example), but they will grow anywhere that humans can realistically survive. Some other fruits are more picky, like bananas and citrus (which don't like cold temperatures), but these have always been largely grown outside the U.S. anyway. And certain berries don't like heat, but there are varieties that are significantly more tolerant than others. So farmland isn't perfectly fungible, but it is pretty close.

To be fair, some older fruit orchards may be unsuitable for growing some other types of plants because of lead arsenate contamination in the soil, but that's sort of a side issue, and an artifact of poor government oversight over pesticides, rather than anything fundamental about the soil. And obviously, digging up tree roots is a pain, too, but it can be done, and indeed, that's the only way that new farmland gets created, typically, i.e. it's a common thing to do. It makes little difference whether you're felling a forest or an orchard. And, of course, most of the orchards are near the coast, where land is valuable, so a lot of it is making way for housing, rather than farmland. But that land is then being replaced by irrigation pushing agriculture out into previously unusable areas elsewhere in the country, so on the whole, we're gaining agricultural output.

You missed the third choice, which is only made possible by the existence of mostly free global markets: Plant apple orchards in countries where labor is cheap, then bulldoze our apple orchards and replace them with food crops that can be mostly harvested by automation (wheat, corn, etc.). Then, import the apples while exporting grains.

More magical thinking. Agriculture simply doesn’t work that way.

Sure it does—not over the course of months, but it very much works that way. Historically, most of our fruit in the U.S. was grown here in the U.S. These days, most of it is imported. Since 2010, the amount of fruit produced in the U.S. has declined by nearly 30%, while the amount of grain increased by nearly 40%. And over the last few decades, decreased demand for tobacco has resulted in tobacco farms switching to various grains, demand for neat gadgets has replaced apple orchards with Apple office buildings, etc.

For the most part, fertile topsoil is fertile topsoil. As long as there is enough root structure to prevent runoff, you can pretty much grow whatever is needed wherever you need to grow it, unless what you're trying to grow has specific temperature limitations or sun hour requirements. You can grow apples anywhere from Alaska all the way down to the equator. You grow them differently in different places (aggressive pruning and annual leaf stripping at the equator, for example), but they will grow anywhere that humans can realistically survive. Some other fruits are more picky, like bananas and citrus (which don't like cold temperatures), but these have always been largely grown outside the U.S. anyway. And certain berries don't like heat, but there are varieties that are significantly more tolerant than others. So farmland isn't perfectly fungible, but it is pretty close.

To be fair, some older fruit orchards may be unsuitable for growing some other types of plants because of lead arsenate contamination in the soil, but that's sort of a side issue, and an artifact of poor government oversight over pesticides, rather than anything fundamental about the soil. And obviously, digging up tree roots is a pain, too, but it can be done, and indeed, that's the only way that new farmland gets created, typically, i.e. it's a common thing to do. It makes little difference whether you're felling a forest or an orchard. And, of course, most of the orchards are near the coast, where land is valuable, so a lot of it is making way for housing, rather than farmland. But that land is then being replaced by irrigation pushing agriculture out into previously unusable areas elsewhere in the country, so on the whole, we're gaining agricultural output.

You guys haven't started construction of new nuclear power plants since the 1980s, so saying this is somehow a partisan issue that's entirely to be blamed on one side or the other is completely nonsensical.

Fact is, even though Chernobyl was the result of both defective reactor design as well as incredibly bad oversight (the plant was undergoing testing prior to the operation and some safety-measures were disabled etc, overall mismanagement), the accident (together with three mile island which was small in scale) ruined nuclear power's reputation in many western countries, even though to date (even including Fukushima victims) nuclear power is the safest energy source per amount of electricity produced and also far superior for the climate. But because of the association with Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and nuclear explosions, people are scared because they don't understand it.

This is why neither side has really wanted to push nuclear power in the States. Because the majority of the voterbase is misinformed about nuclear safety it's been easier to just avoid the topic. Add to this the fact that Democrats are heavily for reneweables, while the republicans tend to come from oil/coal producing areas, and it's not hard to see why nuclear power has not been an attractive topic for either side from an optics perspective.

But sure, it's always the other guys right?

From an outsiders perspective rhe red team vs. blue team BS is getting rather comedic these days on Slashdot.

The thing with Tesla is that.. they don't really have any special technology.

Neither does Coca Cola - nothing special about carbonated sugar water - but that doesn't mean they cannot succeed. It's all about execution. And when it comes to electric vehicles to date Tesla has been out executing pretty much everyone. That's not to say they have any sort of insurmountable advantage - they don't. But the incumbent auto makers sleep on Tesla at their own peril. Tesla is vertically integrated, has a fantastically popular brand, products people are willing to wait literally years for, the best electric vehicle technology on the market, patents (even if they don't use them aggressively), and a visionary leader. Yes they still might shit the bed but I'm not about to bet against them at this point.

They just sold it at a price that didn't make any fucking sense for them to be doing, since they were selling all production(supposedly) and still losing money(even after one time book shenigans).

Yeah, yeah... People made the same short sighted argument about Amazon back in the day. While I wouldn't buy Tesla's stock at the current price and they definitely aren't on solid financial ground yet, they also have a long term strategy that if it works will pay off very handsomely. They didn't make money because they were aggressively investing in future products to grow bigger instead of remaining a boutique maker of high end cars - ala Ferrari. This was a calculated gamble by Tesla but there is a good chance it will actually work. They probably could have made money on the Model S but they had larger ambitions. Nothing wrong with that.

Why do american car companies insist on building stuff people can't afford anyways en masse? don't they realize that 80 000 dollar + cars are an extreme luxury, just because they live rich themselves?

What are you talking about? Tesla sells a tiny of the cars sold every year in the US and almost everyone who buys one can definitely afford it. They sell in numbers comparable to other luxury car maker for similar products. Tesla has less than 1.5% market share in the US.

Per capita Americans use more coal than just about anyone. More than India, even more than China.

You are not even CAPABLE of logic. China consumes over 1/2 of the consumed coal on this PLANET EACH YEAR for the last 10 years.
BUT, they are 1/6-1/5 of the worlds population or ~19%.
America consumes 15-8% of all of the consumed coal for the last 10 years. Yet, population of 5%. It is obvious that with MINOR knowledge that America's coal per capita can not even be FUCKING CLOSE.
So, here are some REAL numbers.
What follows is 2017 coal consumption equivalence in million metric tons of oil equivalence| population in millions | coal consumption per million capitia.
China: 1, 892.6|1,409| 1.34
India: 424| 1,339| .31
USA: 332| 324| 1.02
Russia: 92.3|143|.65
S. Africa: 82.2|56| 1.47
Germany: 71.3|82|.87


While China is not the highest in per capitia, it is one of the highest.
And America is not even CLOSE to China in terms of per capita.

Porky, you keep speaking of per capita, and yet, you constantly lie, rather than simply face the facts.

Half of the recipients probably will be Amazon employees.

In 2017 Amazon had a total of 566K employees. Various estimates claim, as many as 10% of them are on Food Stamps — or living with someone, who is. That makes for 56.6K people.

Dividing half of the $2 billion pledged by Bezos over the 56600 amounts to a rather generous $17+K per person...

Most gold is used in industry. only about 25% of gold is in bars/coins. 5% used by banks .4% for ETFs. about 50% is jewelry, and about 9% is used in electronics. https://www.statista.com/stati... so no, not 'minor' industrial usages.

I once made a poor income too

You are a poster child for this. The rest of us are moving away from overpriced flagships.

Per capita, America is also the largest buyer of ICE cars as well.
Did you have a point?

What you probably failed to realise is that according to this. Passenger plug-in market share of total new car sales between 2013 and 2017 for selected countries and selected regional markets Shows in 2017, China had almost twice the percentage as America. (they overtook you in 2015 and have been pulling further away since.)

less than 2%. Dropbox is a desktop - not server - service. If you can configure and run your Linux server - you already have WebDisk, FTP, and a host of other options. This is for desktop file sharing and storage, drag and drop from the desktop. And Linux is such a bit player in that market, it makes zero financial sense to support it.

You being poorly educated on this subject does not change the fact that comparisons in homicide rates between first world nations are considered perfectly valid by those who aren't. They control for all of the typical major exasperating factors like major degrees of poverty, wealth inequality, and government corruption to name a few.

In sociology ? You mean a "Science" where studies can't be reliably replicated

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

Anyway going back to your idiocy. The violent crime rate in Montana a state with very little regulation of gun ownership 281/100k overall violence comparing that to London it's 2200/100k considering strict violence against the person

https://www.statista.com/stati...

https://www.bozemandailychroni...

So are you an idiot or just not as well educated as you think you are ?

Oh just going back to the within the same society

Maryland has a violent crime rate of 457/100k
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

But has much stricter gun laws.

Geee It seems the predictive power of your proposition is near zero.

site:slashdot.org "net neutrality"
9,520 results

site:slashdot.org "Snowden"
8,340 results

site:slashdot.org "NSA"
7,070 results

site:slashdot.org "Google"
50,900 results

site:slashdot.org "Facebook"
61,700 results

I suppose you still think a regular stream of lobbyists and geeks (counted in public view) and generals and policy wonks (not counted in public view) into Obama's White House was situation irregular during his eight-year tenure?

Here's another seismic view of the Obama presidency:

Global Apple iPhone sales from 3rd quarter 2007 to 3rd quarter 2018

Odd that such a busy man would be paying more than normal attention to this sleepy industry.

In the five years since launch, GTA V and GTA Online gamers have listened to more than an estimated 75 billion minutes of music from the game's 18 radio stations

Why'd they stop at minutes? They could've made the metric sound even more fantastic by listing it as "4.5 trillion seconds of music."

For comparison:

• GTA V's 75 billion minutes = 1.25 billion hours. Divide by 5 years and you get 0.25 billion hours per year on average.
• Pandora averages over 20 billion hours per year.
• Spotify is up around 40 billion hours per year.

In the five years since launch, GTA V and GTA Online gamers have listened to more than an estimated 75 billion minutes of music from the game's 18 radio stations

Why'd they stop at minutes? They could've made the metric sound even more fantastic by listing it as "4.5 trillion seconds of music."

For comparison:

• GTA V's 75 billion minutes = 1.25 billion hours. Divide by 5 years and you get 0.25 billion hours per year on average.
• Pandora averages over 20 billion hours per year.
• Spotify is up around 40 billion hours per year.

Again, you're exaggerating my point way beyond what I said. I never said it has to be at cost or free. That would be absurdly idealistic and run counter to basic economic principles. Stop with this, you know it isn't even close to my point.

https://www.statista.com/stati...
https://www.statista.com/stati...

20 billion on play alone in 2017. Didn't see their revenue total but Q2 2018 was 30 so 120 is a safe assumption. Meaning it accounted for 1/6 of their revenue... They aren't dumping even half that into the distribution piece or even likely most of the support structure by now. There's your numbers. I'd say 16% is a bit bigger than "relatively nothing."

Now, considering I am a software engineer and work on enterprise level systems and architecture, yea I have a pretty good idea of what goes into Android development. Don't get on a high horse with that like I'm some pleb that doesn't know what I'm talking about. I've deployed large scale systems with everything you're mentioning for fortune 500 companies though mostly not consumer facing.

The last part is just you being asinine. I'm clearly referring to the largely known fact that Google collects and sells information and not even acting like somehow you don't know. Google does in fact want people to believe otherwise, I was merely making an aside.

Again, you're exaggerating my point way beyond what I said. I never said it has to be at cost or free. That would be absurdly idealistic and run counter to basic economic principles. Stop with this, you know it isn't even close to my point.

https://www.statista.com/stati...
https://www.statista.com/stati...

20 billion on play alone in 2017. Didn't see their revenue total but Q2 2018 was 30 so 120 is a safe assumption. Meaning it accounted for 1/6 of their revenue... They aren't dumping even half that into the distribution piece or even likely most of the support structure by now. There's your numbers. I'd say 16% is a bit bigger than "relatively nothing."

Now, considering I am a software engineer and work on enterprise level systems and architecture, yea I have a pretty good idea of what goes into Android development. Don't get on a high horse with that like I'm some pleb that doesn't know what I'm talking about. I've deployed large scale systems with everything you're mentioning for fortune 500 companies though mostly not consumer facing.

The last part is just you being asinine. I'm clearly referring to the largely known fact that Google collects and sells information and not even acting like somehow you don't know. Google does in fact want people to believe otherwise, I was merely making an aside.

Oh stop the disinformation.

Denmark has among the lowest electricity prices in the developed world, actually.

On top of those, consumers (and some businesses) pay taxes on electricity use. Those taxes have nothing to do with generating costs. I will happily debate tax policy, but don't use it to derail the debate on nuclear power.

Please cite your source. Here are a couple more citations from me that back my statements. You've provided none.

https://www.statista.com/stati...

https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/...

> I'm not a native English speaker, but isn't churn supposed to mean reduction in something?

No. If you actually looked up the definition / etymology of the word you would see that churn is a machine or container in which butter is made by agitating milk or cream.

e.g. Butter Churn

i.e. If 5% cut the cord but a different 5% start their cable subscription then the total number of current subscribers hasn't changed. Churn is just another name for cyclical movement.

The cable industry with its subscribers, for the most part (*), has been holding steady for the past 20 years. i.e. Steady churn.

(*) Roughly 2%

If one in a million batteries catches fire per year that seems like a very rare, maybe acceptable risk.
- compared to the risk of _being_ killed by a firearm in the US of about 30 in a million persons per year*1
Apple sold > 200'000'000 iPhones in the last 4 quarters.(*2) So that would mean 200 exploding new iPhones per year.
The press would be all over it, so the real number and thus the risk must be waaaay lower.

Same goes for Samsung and the rest, of course. So move along, nothing to see here. But yes, it's funny that it happened in an Apple Store :)

*1 combining topics Apple and guncontrol, because fire is fun. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...
*2 these numbers are impressive and kind of frightening. https://www.statista.com/stati...

The battery was PUNCTURED.

It's right there in TFS, FFS!

Sheesh!