Slashdot Mirror

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272595/global-shipments-forecast-for-tablets-laptops-and-desktop-pcs/

We can argue until we're blue in the face about the PC "dying", but with lower volumes, who in their right mind would be flooding the market with cheap PC components? What else do you expect, honestly.

I was more than willing to pay for a reasonable increase but not 3-5x for 2x the capacity. Despite the drop in sales of PC / laptops and the rise of tablets, SSDs and HDDs didn't have the same ridiculous gouging.
Even HDDs got quite a bit cheaper per GB after the significant jump in price from the 2011 Thailand flooding
https://www.backblaze.com/blog...

What the fuck does that have to do with antitrust? You're comparing DDR3 to DDR4 prices and not accounting for the manufacturing differences. Seriously, fuck right off.

What the fuck, dude? I bought 16GB (4X4GB) Patriot memory for $70 around Xmas 2011 and planned to upgrade to 32GB, the max the mainboard would support once 8GB sticks were available and affordable. At no point since have I been able to find brand name 32GB DDR3 for less than 3x what I paid for 16GB.

2 years after I bought 1 GB DDR2 sticks, there were several brands offering 4GB sticks for significantly less than what I'd paid for 1 GB.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272595/global-shipments-forecast-for-tablets-laptops-and-desktop-pcs/

We can argue until we're blue in the face about the PC "dying", but with lower volumes, who in their right mind would be flooding the market with cheap PC components? What else do you expect, honestly.

GM : 58 Billion Ford : 154 Billion https://www.statista.com/stati...

At this point in time you no longer get to say that you're simply ignorant.

You are either too stupid to understand written text on a page or screen, or spoken language in a video...
OR... You are so ideologically bent on supporting Nazis - which makes you a Nazi.
Or both... that's a highly probable possibility as well. Nazis ARE immensely retarded, out of sheer necessity of their ideology.

Oh... and one more thing... just to underline your utter retardation...

Micro-targeting of voters was used by Obama against Hillary.

Really? In 2008? Do you even calendar, boy?
Facebook had around 100 million users in 2008 - GLOBALLY.
Might as well target pets.com users for all the good it would do you at that point.

The numbers and relations you claim are way off, which is particularly egregious given that so much of this data is readily available in press releases from Nissan and Tesla.

While Nissan sold a 100 MILLION.

In what time period, or should I say era? According to Nissan's own press report, the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance combined sold 10.6 million units in 2017, with Nissan's portion being 5.8 million. Your claim is off by almost a factor of 20! To put how outrageous your claim is in context, the total number of cars produced worldwide, over all companies and excluding commercial vehicles, appears to only be about 73 million! Even including commercial vehicles still falls short of 100 million.

They've sold more Nissan Leafs than Tesla has sold total cars, and the Leaf is just a footnote for Nissan.

In another press release, also from January 2018, Nissan states that they sold their 300,000th Leaf vehicle. Meanwhile, in February 2018, it has been reported that Tesla delivered their 300,000th vehicle. So your claim that Nissan has sold more Leafs than Tesla has sold total cars is certainly debatable. With currently available data from searching the web, it looks like Nissan and Tesla were roughly at parity in Feb. 2018 in terms of electric vehicles sold.

In any recent period, if Tesla sold X thousand, Nissan sold X million.

That is a bit of disingenuous comparison. Of course Nissan sells more cars than Tesla currently does since Nissan is a much older and larger company and it manufactures more types of vehicles and at many different price levels. Meanwhile, Tesla is a much younger company that so far has mostly catered to the luxury market (though it is starting to push the prices down with its newer Model 3). Nevertheless, your relational claim of "if Tesla sold X thousand, Nissan sold X million" is way off, again by almost a factor of 20! Per the figure I cited above, Nissan sold 5.8 million vehicles in 2017 while Tesla delivered 101,312 Model S and Model X vehicles in 2017 (note that Tesla also sold a handful of Model 3s in 2017 not included in the 101,312 figure). The correct relation, which is only good for 2017, is that Nissan sold about 57 times as many vehicles as Tesla did, not 1000 times as you claimed. But who cares about comparing total vehicles sold over all types!

The appropriate comparison here is the number of electric passenger cars sold and with that we see a much different perspective. Per the above figures, Tesla and Nissan appear to be at near parity over Tesla's entire production history. But since you said "in any recent period", let's look at more recent, shorter term, data. According to Tesla's press release, they delivered 29,997 Teslas in Q1 2018. By contrast, in the same time period (January through March 2018), Nissan sold 23,989 Leafs. Note that Nissan reports its sales by month, per region, so one has to add up the Leaf sale figures for Japan, Europe, and the US across the January through March 2018 production and sales PDFs, all found here. Point is, in the most recent quarter, Tesla outsold the

Not a convincing alternative? https://www.statista.com/stati...

This is the nightmare of government interference into markets that conservatives have long used to attack the left for their regulatory and subsidy policies, summed up in the pithy phrase of "picking winners and losers". But this is unvarnished use of political power to the economic benefit of political allies, a crony capitalism that is an even more explicit form of the "swamp" behavior that Trump ran against.

If you think the above rebuke is wrong, please tell me what the genuine public interest is in the underlying rule "to consider guaranteeing financial returns for any power plant that could stockpile 90 days’ worth of fuel on-site". Several forms of power generation don't stockpile fuel (natural gas is typically piped in), or don't use "fuel" at all, such as wind, solar, and hydro. If fuel disruption was the legitimate security concern, then not requiring fuel distribution at all would be the most ideal for that end.

Propping up coal is particularly egregious, since the coal industry has a plethora of negative externalities, which means that if anything coal power has been selling at rates well below it's true overall cost to society. Coal power also is at the top of the list of mortality and impaired health of all forms of power generation, far higher than natural gas generation which has been the main competitor crowding it out on price.

Subsidizing coal power is plainly not in the general public interest, only the narrow interest of those who depend economically on the coal industry.

Facebook is not that important in Russia, certainly not as much as in Europe or NA. They have only about 35% of the market penetration compared to almost almost 61% of VKontakte (source: https://www.statista.com/stati...) so they can be reasonably blocked without massive issues. I also expect that most of those seriously affected would be outside Putin's power base.

And 99% of those Chinese EVs have a range less than 50 km. Now, let's look at the ~1.3 BILLION ICE vehicles on the road. Electric is 0%, rounded to the nearest 0.5%...

Let's not forget Tesla in this assessment. They're currently making about 3.5K cars/week, soon to be somewhat larger (they say 6k/wk, but have always overpredicted. Maybe 5K/wk is a reasonable belief?)

That's roughly 200,000 cars/year, they'll ramp up production even more, so in 4 years we might see an additional 1 million EVs on the road. After that the doubling rate for EVs would probably be some small number of years - number of EV's on the road doubles every 8 to 10 years.

For all the people who wail and gnash their teeth about climate change, somehow they never want to get behind Tesla and see it succeed. Here's a company that could put a significant dent in the amount of CO2 the US produces, followed by similar gains in China and the rest of the world.

And yet, everyone wants to see Tesla fail in the next 6 months.

Tesla is a solution (one, among a number of solutions) to the problem, the benefits far outweigh the risks, this is the company the US should be giving energy credits to.

(And as an aside, if you think climate change is a pressing issue, putting money into research should be one of the arrows in your quiver. Somehow the global warming community seems to avoid this as a solution - research into new technologies is not something they generally recommend.)

And 99% of those Chinese EVs have a range less than 50 km. Now, let's look at the ~1.3 BILLION ICE vehicles on the road. Electric is 0%, rounded to the nearest 0.5%...

What are you talking about? There are female road workers and landscapers and other shit job do-ers where I live. Where do YOU live that you don't see them?

I live on Earth and your statement is not reflected in the available data.

That's exactly what those "girls who code" initiatives are supposed to address and part of why the gender gap is a problem in the first place - if programming isn't cool to women, and there are women who would code if not for society telling them at a vulnerable age that they shouldn't code, don't you think that's a problem?

Where is the evidence for people telling girls they shouldn't code? What I am saying is there is more evidence available that women don't code because they have other priorities. If they are not interested in coding why should society try to mold them into something they just aren't interested in doing.

The entire rationale of this argument presumes some campaign to stop women coding when in reality anti-discrimination laws have been in place for decades that allows women to do pretty much anything they put their mind to. What we are seeing is people jumping up and down pointing fingers at men because they think they should be accommodated instead of proving themselves. Last I check the men in information technology aren't involved in hiring decisions and HR is mostly occupied by women and I remember one HR women specifically *excluding* other women from employment opportunities when they were qualified.

I also remember one young lady I worked with who was talented and had the capacity to work well with the team, have a campaign run on her by three other "ladies" to make her life a misery while she worked there because she also happened to be attractive. The only place this is negated is in larger shops where anti-discrimination weed out such machinations. Women being mean to other women is a stereotype in our culture - so I guess that's men's fault too.

A more constructive question to ask would be What is it about Information Technology that women *are* interested in and what is stopping them from participating?. What we see is finger pointing, no objectivity, no evidence and a lack of any willingness to seek that and evaluate it whilst ignoring the very real world priorities and decisions women have to make. In the meantime those of us who get sick of working in a sausage shop all the time get fingers pointed at them after observing what has been going on.

So no, as a man, I won't accept the blame. I worked my ass off to be in IT and I get sick of being asked to just wait by the finish line and let people less capable of running the race go by. No I don't see it as a problem I see it as a nuanced issue that a lot of selfish entitled people think that someone should just come along and make a space for them when all the sane women who do the work and put in the time to be good at IT receive social stigma for doing so from other women for the same reasons men do.

I also filter out 100% of the spam mails. I am even close to 160% depending on how many spam I get. I just point everything to /dev/null in .procmailrc .

Universal, Sony and Warner pretty much control music sales around the world. Some interesting statistics about record sales can be found here: https://www.statista.com/stati... Sometimes it's hard to tell if another label is owned by one of those groups.

no the market is slowly dying. to lose a million subscribers in one quarter and have 3 million left is huge, as in hugely downward

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

but there are 1 million less subscribers than a year ago, thing is going down the drain
https://www.statista.com/stati...

So lets talk about this disparity when women start doing dangerous jobs.

You gotta be fucking kidding me:

No, I am not. For industrial death it's roughly 100:1, males:female.

Here are the statistics for Gender differences in suicide as well. Roughly 4:1 M:F.

You example is an outlier.

"extreme poverty" is defined as living on less than $1.90 per day. Or about $57 per month. Or $693.50 per year.

Yes, the amount of people living in that income bracket has been reduced dramatically, and that is one of the biggests successes in the history of mankind and an incredible progress made possible by all the things both left- and right-wing extremists hate so much.

Meanwhile, as the other comment shows in abundance, the majority of new wealth generated in most of the developed countries goes to the top, not the middle or the bottom. While extreme poverty is going down, "simple" povery is going up. Don't believe me? Here's a graph from my home country:

https://de.statista.com/statis...

Here are government graphs, in case you think the source is biased:

http://www.bpb.de/wissen/GCP6X...

How can both of these be true? Because prices differ as well, and a lot. The average yearly income in Congo (~$770) would put you among the poor in the most developed countries if you had it available per month.

Public health measures used to be debatable without crazy lies diverting attention. There is a problem with Western diet as shown by the epidemic of diabetes (approaching one in two people over the age of 50) whilst violent crime in London is comparatively low https://www.statista.com/chart...

The question is how do we tackle the crisis in public health? Do you have any suggestions other than repeating messages from Russian trolls who want to destroy our society? What is it with you people who have latched on an obsessive hatred to the extent that it supersedes the ability to talk about anything else?

Whether banning fast food advertisements is a useful move is debatable. I think that a great deal more attention needs to be paid to researching the causes of obesity and the Western diseases that are correlated with our diet. Research that must be done with government money and not food industry money as has often been done in the recent past. There is a lot of evidence coming to light that says that sugar and a lack of dietary fiber in our diet is much more of a problem than saturated fat or lack of exercise or overeating. The sugar causes metabolic disease and the lack of fiber damages our gut microbiome. Reducing fast food intake does not in itself address these two issues completely.

There's just under a billion cars in the world, meaning that fatal accidents per year average over 1 in every 1000 vehicles.

Which if you bother to think of what that means Apple's overall market share of smart phones is increasing, globally.

[citation needed]

The trend seems rather flat.

fun fact, not everyone uses Google to manage their email
Give that roughly 50% of emails is spam (Sept 2017), I hardly say "problem long solved"

Who gives a damn about what GM or Ford do any more? Call me when Volkswagen, Renault-Nissan and Hyundai [...]

I certainly do, because they have volume, in the same way that the groups you mentioned are very large and cover most market segments.

I'm based in the UK and the media here has an expectation that the Vauxhall/Opel Corsa will have a battery model in 2020. As a GM group member, these guys have sold a LOT of these cars, and now they are part of the PSA group they should still sell a lot. Here's a chart.

It's all very nice there are 10 different models in the "over $50K and over 300bhp" market segment, but it's when Ford, GM, Renault, VW, PSA and the big Asian manufacturers mass produce cheap electric cars that we'll get over petrol/diesel for passenger vehicles. Tesla can probably live well as a specialist high end brand, and/or a supplier to everyone else.

First, I don't know what "total investigated" crimes mean, but according to the 2015 FBI crime stat, "Black or African American" represented 26.5% of total arrests. This includes women as well. Granted, that may be twice their representation in the population but it's nowhere near "a vast majority" of crimes. However, at least some of this disparity can be explained away comparing crime rates within socio-economic classes: If a socio-economic class that is heavily African-American also has a high crime rate and within that socio-economic class African-Americans commit crimes at the same rate as non-African-Americans, then your logic falls apart completely.

Looking just at the individual crimes you listed:
robberies - 53.5%, a slim majority
rapes - 28.2%
assaults - data not in chart, but "other assaults" are 30.8%
aggravated assaults - 32.1%
murders - 51% - a slim majority
drug crimes - not listed in chart, as just about any crime might be drug-related. Drug abuse violations - 27.0%, Driving under the influence (including alcohol) - 13.2% (right in line with the population)

Totalling just the measurable numbers above and leaving out drug crimes:

robberies - 39,052 of 73,023
rapes - 4,907 of 17,370
assaults - data not in chart, but "other assaults" are 254,600 of 826,920
aggravated assaults - 92,237 of 287,566
murders - includes non-negligent manslaughter 4,347 of 8,508
Total of these groups: 395143 of 1213387, or 32.5%, only slightly higher than the "other assaults" percentage, which is to be expected as that dominates this group.

Yes, 32.5% is much greater than the their overall arrest rate, and it's over 2 1/2 times their percentage of the population, which was at least 17.6% in 2015 (some Hispanics and pepole of two or more races may be African-American as well). However, much of the difference in crime rate in the United States is better attributed to socio-economic factors than anything else. To the extent that anything can be attributed to race, I strongly suspect that much of it is the legacy of "Jim Crow" and the racism of the past. I also suspect that some of it is a result of present-day racism, which, while not as prevalant as 50 years ago, still exists and still generates "defensive responses" - which in some cases may be criminal - in its victims.

The bottom line:

While your statement "those who care for their safety and the safety of their families have two choices" might actually be true if we lived in a community which matched your mistaken statistics, we don't live in such a country.

If you are going to appeal to racism on a technical forum, at least give your readers the courtesy of using statistics that are at least close to accurate. At least you did get the "7% of the population are Black males" right if you don't count Hispanics and those of more than one race, and assuming you meant the United States and not the entire world. Thank you for that much.

Oh, by the way, White people make up 82.6% of people arrested for driving under the influence, but they are 61% of the population (possibly up to 78% if all Hispanics and mult-racial people were also White).

2015 crime figures are from
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

2015 population figures are from https://www.statista.com/stati...

I was unable to find a race/ethnic breakdown of licensed drivers or driving patterns of miles driven. It is possible that the high rate of White DUI arrests correspond to Whites having a higher-than-expected number of license drivers or miles driven that their percent of the population would suggest.

Average internet connection speed in the United States in 2007 was 3mbps. In 2017 it was 18. That's 6x more in 10 years. If that rate continues the average internet speed will be able to stream 8k by the time these new tvs drop to reasonable prices. https://www.statista.com/stati...

I am not an accountant, I know nothing about the internal workings of Amazon other than what I can read in public media, and I probably do not know what I am talking about. But, I can do some arithmetic.

1 - The summary states that the Amazon warehouse worker makes $24,300.

2 - Amazon is famous for foregoing profits during its first 15-20 years in favor of expansion of services.

3 - There is financial information at the following links:
Amazon revenues: https://www.statista.com/stati...
Amazon income: https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/...
Amazon employees: https://www.statista.com/stati...
Amazon profits: https://www.theverge.com/2016/...

Based on these numbers, Amazon's performance in 2017 was:
Revenue = $178b
Gross profit after cost of revenue = $66b
Income after operating expenses = $4b
Net income after taxes et al = $3b
Employment = 566,000

For prior years:
2016: $2.4b net on $136b revenue, 341,000 employees
2015: $0.6b net on $107b revenue, 231,000 employees

You can see the trend - Amazon is only recently profitable as employees expand with general revenue and profit.

I have no idea how many of the employees are warehouse or fulfillment center employees. I have seen reports that would place the number between 130k and 200k.
For the sake of this analysis, assume that other low skilled employees are included, and we will go with 200,000 bottom wage employees.

Assume that Amazon had a fit of good will toward its workers and payed them a liveable non-stressful wage.
If in 2017 the $24k current wage was upped to $34k, that is an extra $10k/person/annum x 200k workers = $2 billion extra in wages.
That is 2/3's of profit, so Amazon could have afforded it (at the expense of shareholder return).

In 2016, assume a pro rata fewer number of low wage employees, 341k/566k x 200k = 120k.
Then, $10k x 120k workers = $1.2 billion = 1/2 of profit, so it was affordable.
In 2015, estimate low wage workers at 231k/566k x 200k = 82k.
Then, $10k x 82k workers = $0.82 billion = 1/3 greater than profit, so it was not fully affordable.

Going back farther, there was less profit to fund higher wages.

I am not arguing for or against Amazon, nor for or against minimum wages or workers rights or any other sociopolitical point of view. Being in a human services profession, I tend to side with the workers, and it pains me to hear of such situations. However, I also buy from Amazon, and call me a hypocrite if you will, but so do you.

Emotional or political or social points of view aside, it can be seen that Amazon's push to expand did not permit unfettered generous wages during periods of unprofitability.
Of course, the counter argument must be made that the higher paid employees, which are greater than half the workforce, could have had reduced wages and bonuses for a more equitable pay scale.

Now that Amazon is coming into the black, the righteous thing to do would be to raise wages. Even better, given how long they operated in the red, and were famously proud to do so, they could do so for another year or two and turn their profits into stock or cash bonuses for the low paid employees, to thank them for their sacrifice during the formative years.

I am not an accountant, I know nothing about the internal workings of Amazon other than what I can read in public media, and I probably do not know what I am talking about. But, I can do some arithmetic.

1 - The summary states that the Amazon warehouse worker makes $24,300.

2 - Amazon is famous for foregoing profits during its first 15-20 years in favor of expansion of services.

3 - There is financial information at the following links:
Amazon revenues: https://www.statista.com/stati...
Amazon income: https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/...
Amazon employees: https://www.statista.com/stati...
Amazon profits: https://www.theverge.com/2016/...

Based on these numbers, Amazon's performance in 2017 was:
Revenue = $178b
Gross profit after cost of revenue = $66b
Income after operating expenses = $4b
Net income after taxes et al = $3b
Employment = 566,000

For prior years:
2016: $2.4b net on $136b revenue, 341,000 employees
2015: $0.6b net on $107b revenue, 231,000 employees

You can see the trend - Amazon is only recently profitable as employees expand with general revenue and profit.

I have no idea how many of the employees are warehouse or fulfillment center employees. I have seen reports that would place the number between 130k and 200k.
For the sake of this analysis, assume that other low skilled employees are included, and we will go with 200,000 bottom wage employees.

Assume that Amazon had a fit of good will toward its workers and payed them a liveable non-stressful wage.
If in 2017 the $24k current wage was upped to $34k, that is an extra $10k/person/annum x 200k workers = $2 billion extra in wages.
That is 2/3's of profit, so Amazon could have afforded it (at the expense of shareholder return).

In 2016, assume a pro rata fewer number of low wage employees, 341k/566k x 200k = 120k.
Then, $10k x 120k workers = $1.2 billion = 1/2 of profit, so it was affordable.
In 2015, estimate low wage workers at 231k/566k x 200k = 82k.
Then, $10k x 82k workers = $0.82 billion = 1/3 greater than profit, so it was not fully affordable.

Going back farther, there was less profit to fund higher wages.

I am not arguing for or against Amazon, nor for or against minimum wages or workers rights or any other sociopolitical point of view. Being in a human services profession, I tend to side with the workers, and it pains me to hear of such situations. However, I also buy from Amazon, and call me a hypocrite if you will, but so do you.

Emotional or political or social points of view aside, it can be seen that Amazon's push to expand did not permit unfettered generous wages during periods of unprofitability.
Of course, the counter argument must be made that the higher paid employees, which are greater than half the workforce, could have had reduced wages and bonuses for a more equitable pay scale.

Now that Amazon is coming into the black, the righteous thing to do would be to raise wages. Even better, given how long they operated in the red, and were famously proud to do so, they could do so for another year or two and turn their profits into stock or cash bonuses for the low paid employees, to thank them for their sacrifice during the formative years.

I suppose Apple is just trying to continue this trend.

I, like many, detest dongles.

Are these not being reported? Because global ship losses seem a lot less than one every other day

10% worldwide:

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

I don't think that's "microscopic" but it's hard to nail down stats for the US on its own.

That's literally hundreds of millions of devices, though, so I don't think we're talking about something that can just disappear overnight without anyone noticing.

And yet,
States consider bringing prescription drugs from Canada to US as costs soar

Sovaldi [a hepatitis C drug], is a good example of how prices can vary between countries. In the US, a course of Sovaldi lasts 12 weeks and costs $90,000 US retail.

American insurers typically negotiate a discount of 41%, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. That puts the cost of the drug at $17,700 a month in the US.

But in the United Kingdom, that drug costs $16,770 a month, and in Canada $14,493.

For an even more dramatic example, consider Gleevec, a leukemia drug. It costs $10,122 in the US, $2,645 in the UK, and $2,420 in Canada.

“Our Medicaid drug prices, particularly for specialty drugs, are way over the top,” said Lyons. “So, we’re trying to identify those drugs where the cost has escalated in the past few years, or the payment per dose is very high as compared with Canada.”

...

Americans pay on average three times more than British people for top-selling prescription drugs.

How many people have to pay the retail price?

Average foreign-to-Canadian price ratio for patented drugs as of 2016

It looks like the drug companies charge what they like because the market in the US is fixed.
Are Canadian Pharmacies the Solution to America's High Prescription Drug Prices?

This is what’s at stake if U.S. drug prices fall — and Europeans don’t pay more

Our calculations suggest that the U.S. market accounts for as much as 78% of all global drug profits. These are the profits that drive innovation, and they are coming out of American wallets.

Why does this happen? Branded prescription drugs are 20% to 40% cheaper in Europe in large part because the national health plans there drive hard bargains. The state-run buyers can impose price caps, or even refuse to allow a drug onto a national formulary if they think it is not worth the cost.

Bargaining does occur in the free-market U.S., but not nearly in such draconian terms. Medicare was expressly forbidden from bargaining when the drug benefit was added during the George W. Bush Administration. If the Food and Drug Administration approves a drug and a physician prescribes it, Medicare will almost always cover it. Private insurers and pharmacy-benefit managers can usually negotiate down from sticker prices, but they typically don’t have the European-style ability to broadly deny access, which is the big bargaining chip.

Luckily shows you don't watch don't cost you anything, not even time, since everyone gets their own stream of whatever they want. So if they make a few shows that you really like (Stranger Things and Altered Carbon, for example) and you hate comedy specials, don't watch the comedy specials. Given how well Netflix understands their audience, there are guaranteed a bunch people who love the comedy specials and hate big-budget SF, and that's fine, too. Netflix isn't a mass market channel, it's a distribution mechanism to an infinite number of niches, because each show has its own audience it's targeting. And because each person gets their own stream unpopular shows don't mean they lost the opportunity to broadcast a more popular show (i.e. why broadcast TV always plays to the mainstream) they can afford to make 2,000 niche shows, and have 2,000 very happy audiences, which add up to a huge audience. Not bigger than broadcast TV yet, of course, but certainly bigger than the smaller cable networks - 117m subscribers in Q4 2017, according to https://www.statista.com/stati... .

Let's do the math. Let's focus on the USA, numbers are easier to get and Tesla has most of its business there:

Number of cars on the road:
https://www.statista.com/stati...

Number of road deaths:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

2015 Numbers:
35,485 deaths from 263,610,220 cars.
1 death per 7.429 cars.

Did Tesla have more than 7429 cars on the road in 2016 in the USA?

According to this source:
https://cleantechnica.com/2016...

They sold (in the US) 26,566 cars in 2015 alone, and 18,480 the year before. So even by a conservative estimate, Tesla had at least 40,000 cars on the road in 2015.

Statistically speaking, 5 people should have died in Tesla cars in 2015 in the US alone.

If I remember correctly, either one person or no person died in 2015 (the first fatal crash was 2016, but I could be mistaken). In either case, that is far below the statistically expected value.

Q.E.D.

Why are we allowing corporations to "debug" their cars on our roads? You have no concept of reality. 700 deaths on US roads. What would the number be if every car was using Tesla's autonomous technology? It might be 10,000 deaths per week. How would you know?

There are these things called multiplication and division. There are 250 M cars on the road according ot this:

    https://www.statista.com/stati...

About 200k Teslas have been sold, which is recent enough that most of them should still be on the road. 200k / 250M = 0.08%

There are 40k deaths per year , according to this:

    http://www.nsc.org/NewsDocumen...

so we would expect 0.08% of that in deaths with Teslas, so that is 32 deaths. So to a first approximation, Tesla is very safe, since you do not have another news story every other week about someone having died in a Tesla.

Now one might want to adjust for the type of driving done, where autopilot only drives well on high ways, where maybe the death rate is less. The number is knowable, though, and it is definitely not 10 000 per week.

You're comparing apples to oranges, under 24 and over 75 represent about 65% of road fatalities. Those aren't demographics who drive Teslas. Accidents also skew towards lower-income groups who tend to drive more irresponsibly (alcohol or speed), again not Tesla drivers.

You've also got single vehicle crashes that claim multiple lives. Driving with kids is dangerous because of the potential distraction they pose, but do you really think many Tesla drivers are using the auto-pilot with their kids? Or drive in fresh snow with poor traction?

The auto-pilot is overwhelmingly used by upper-middle class to wealthy people who are old enough to drive responsibly, young enough to drive competently, and are driving in ideal road conditions without occupants, and usually driven in cities (which highways are much more dangerous). Plus some of those cars are older and lack new safety features.

As you pointed out we don't know the proper adjustment, but I can see a lot of factors that should make Telsa owners responsible for far less than 32 deaths per year.

Monopoly power? Where do you people imagine Amazon has a monopoly? It's not in retail sales, where they do only about a quarter of the business that Walmart does:

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

Cloud services? Nope. They're at 31-35%, with both Google and Microsoft growing more rapidly:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/10...

They're a big player, to be sure. But that's because they have their fingers in a lot of pies; not because they're the only game in town for any particular one of them. Apparently you don't remember the mid-1990's, when Microsoft had a 97% share of the desktop market. And, even though a trial was held for the show of it, that wasn't considered enough of a monopoly to be actionable and result in a breakup.

This is not about any monopoly. This is nothing more than your dear leader being butthurt that Jeff Bezos doesn't think highly him. And Bezos is right not to.

Are you kidding? Hundreds of thousands of people already die every year from dirty energy production: https://www.statista.com/stati...

According to the Arizona Department of Transportation, at least as of 2016 [azdot.gov], there were 952 fatalities in car accidents in Arizona, or approximately 2.61 deaths per day.

So far so good - now look up the number of cars in Arizona (about 2.4 million) and the number of Uber self-driving cars (200 across 4 cities). Now apply "appropriate precision" in Uber's favour - 200 out of 2 million = 1/10,000 of AZ cars are uber self-drivers. So, with 1000 fatalities/year, Uber get to kill someone every 10 years - they've used that up in one. (Of course, that's an unspeakably crude and dubious calculation, but its better than yours).

Then, of course, of those 1000 regular fatalities, many will be attributed to drunk-driving, speeding, texting (or other forms of reckless driving), non-roadworthy vehicles etc. all of which carry potential criminal penalties - including possible driving bans - so its not the case that nothing is being done about them.

Uber were allowed to test experimental vehicles on the condition that they'd have a safety driver ready to take over - and one thing that the video clearly shows was that the safety driver was not paying attention (to the surprise of absolutely nobody except, apparently, Uber). The video also shows that the pedestrian was crossing the road in clear line-of-sight, in a street-lit area, from left-to-right yet the car made no attempt to brake or swerve. If you believe that the video truly represents what the Mk 1 eyeball and/or the car's sensors could "see" then all that proves is that the car was going too fast for the conditions - outdriving its headlights - and the driver should have taken action to slow it down.

A walled garden is designed to keep you in. In a walled garden, the user has no choice - they cannot leave. Prohibiting access to other app stores makes for a walled garden. So does prohibiting certain apps which compete with yours.

This move is designed to keep people using non-approved Android installations out. You still have the option of choosing if you want to be on the inside or outside. In that respect it's fence with a gate in it, not a wall. And FWIW the common Google Apps (Gmail, Maps, Calendar, Docs, etc.) still work fine in a browser. So the fence has a lot of holes in it.

The crucial part will be if they include the Play Store in the list of apps which won't work. It's by far the biggest store in the Android marketplace. Amazon's is a distant second. And a lot of the apps in both the Play and Amazon stores aren't updated as frequently in Amazon's store.

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

Ramping up sharply too. On track to ship 360,000 vehicles in 2018 even if there were no further production improvements.

There's not a chance in hell Tesla will make 360,000 vehicles this year and it was be disastrous for them to try.
If they get close to 200k of well-built cars, that would be an achievement in itself

That's odd. He's on track to ship about 0.66% of the cars for next year. (120,000 compared to 17 million)).

Perhaps your production numbers are out of date?

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

That's odd. He's on track to ship about 0.66% of the cars for next year. (120,000 compared to 17 million)).

Perhaps your production numbers are out of date?

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

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

Ramping up sharply too. On track to ship 360,000 vehicles in 2018 even if there were no further production improvements.

At the projected rate of delivery, those 500K will receive their vehicles over the next 3 years. I am sure lots of those pre-buyers will be happy to finally receive their vehicle after 5 years; how many will ask for a refund? 63K had asked for one as of last August, and I am sure the number has increased.

As far as that "demand", Ford will sell about 5X that number F series trucks during the time, and Toyota will sell about 1.5X the number of Prius' as the Model 3. Worldwide, there are around 80MM cars sold annually, so those 500K do, in fact, show there is minimal if any consumer demand right now. Consumers prefer light trucks and hybrids by large margins over the Model 3.

As far as profitability, can you point to a quarter where Tesla actually made profit? Looking at the data they did it exactly once in the last 5 years, when they booked all that model 3 pre-revenue. They have never been a profitable company, unless you consider a 20% loss (spend $5 to make $4) a profit?

About the bond ratings? Tesla is a solid B - junk bond rating. Now, Tesla Finance LLC gets the good rating, but that's based upon the credit worthiness of the people using Tesla financing - not Tesla itself. It's YOUR credit rating used for the bond rating, not Tesla. Facts do not support your claims - which is why you posted nothing to support your claims.

Google is dying? Do you have some data to support that claim?

This graph of Google's quarterly revenues certainly doesn't look like what you would expect from a dying company. Their search engine market share has dropped by less than 4% in the last 7 years, to 87% (Bing has really eaten into this market, you know, topping 5.8%). In 2017, they increased their full time employee count by more than 15,000. Android market share hovers around 87%.

What exactly makes you think that Google is "dying"?

Google is dying? Do you have some data to support that claim?

This graph of Google's quarterly revenues certainly doesn't look like what you would expect from a dying company. Their search engine market share has dropped by less than 4% in the last 7 years, to 87% (Bing has really eaten into this market, you know, topping 5.8%). In 2017, they increased their full time employee count by more than 15,000. Android market share hovers around 87%.

What exactly makes you think that Google is "dying"?

Google is dying? Do you have some data to support that claim?

This graph of Google's quarterly revenues certainly doesn't look like what you would expect from a dying company. Their search engine market share has dropped by less than 4% in the last 7 years, to 87% (Bing has really eaten into this market, you know, topping 5.8%). In 2017, they increased their full time employee count by more than 15,000. Android market share hovers around 87%.

What exactly makes you think that Google is "dying"?

Google is dying? Do you have some data to support that claim?

This graph of Google's quarterly revenues certainly doesn't look like what you would expect from a dying company. Their search engine market share has dropped by less than 4% in the last 7 years, to 87% (Bing has really eaten into this market, you know, topping 5.8%). In 2017, they increased their full time employee count by more than 15,000. Android market share hovers around 87%.

What exactly makes you think that Google is "dying"?

One of the fun things about the Internet is how much random data you can find in just a few seconds. For example, the toy spending per child of various countries.

pretty much gaurantee the US would not be in the top ten.

And you'd be totally and completely wrong. Try #3, roughly the same (within 3%) of the top two, Australia and Great Britain.

Of course, you're also wrong in regards to the middle class and the rich and about austerity, so it's not a shocker that you're also wrong about toys.

Netflix is dying.

In what world is it dying? This chart ... https://www.statista.com/chart... Shows steady and consistent growth.

If something that works "like netflix used to" comes along, netflix will go bankrupt in a week.

So we agree it is currently the best thing going.

I live in a fairly rural area and have about 4 non-religious stations within reach. Consider that OTA stations are all advertising supported as well.

I'd argue that it's just the opposite: I have so little free time that $8/month for a Netflix plan is well worth it.

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

They say 693 seconds of advertising per hour, average, for broadcast TV. 11 minutes and 33 seconds of ads.
That is 5 hours, 46 minutes, 30 seconds per month, assuming that you average 1 hour/day.

Using Netflix as a plan to avoid that? $1.38/hour to avoid advertising. That's less than minimum wage. Worth it.

The iPhone has changed Apple's business dramatically. iPhone sales have risen strongly over the years, from around 1.4 million iPhones sold in 2007 to more than 216 million units worldwide in 2017. In total, Apple has sold more than one billion iPhones worldwide from 2007 to 2017.

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

On a planet with 8 billion inhabitants that hardly translates to 14%.