Maybe it's because they aren't doing it right. Takes a special sort of snowflake sensibility to automatically conclude that your own lack of success must be someone else's fault, and then when you can't identify that someone to save your life, to move on to the "the system" being the problem. At some point, The Russians(TM) will be the reason of the week (month?) for why Johnny is still living in his mother's basement at age 28. If I were a betting man, I'd place my guess on about two slots after "systemic racism" being the problem, but a little bit before "global warming."
False. The probability that a business will fail is not random chance; it is a function of the quality of the business plan, the product, the market need, and the capability of the business owner to follow through and execute. Investors who withhold capital from obvious stupid do so based on their judgement of these factors. Take away that signal, and you will have a lot more people who can barely string two thoughts together "starting a business," and thereby distorting the market for labor and capital. Not good.
Option 4: learn basic economics and stop pretending that there's a big pot of "wealth" somewhere out there that the evil one percenters are keeping all to themselves.
No one is making these guys do this to themselves. If they made a poor decision, then this article does a valuable service to society by publicising it. If you take the ouch out of bad decision making by subsidizing it with free money and free stuff paid for out of the pocket of people who make good decisions, then
1. More people will make bad decisions out of ignorance 2. Fewer people will feel the need to keep themselves on the straight and narrow and make good decisions 3. The pie will get smaller for eveyone.
Whoosh. My entire point is that an average across different households is not a meaningful quantity the way an average across different customers of the widget factory is.
I'm sorry, what? Since when is a product that meets all realistic use cases of a smaller portion of the population expected to sell better?
I have a sedan. It gets me 20 miles to work and 20 miles back every day, and 50 miles to the remote site once every few weeks. It also gets me 300 miles to the parent's house and 500 miles to the in-laws once or twice a year. On the rare occasion I need to go farther, I fly. On the rare occassion I need to haul a big load, I use the wife's station wagon or rent a truck. I sure as shit don't want to be borrowing a vehicle too often or renting a truck more than maybe once a year or less. So an electric car that causes me to have to do that wouldn't be on my radar. I'm pretty sure a good fraction of your 40% would agree, let alone my 60%.
1. Range (as noted)
2. Refuelling time (as glossed-over)
3. Energy carrying mass and volume density
4. Safety. Not interested in riding on about a quarter ton of fuel and oxidizer packed close together, thank you.
5. (Not that I care, but) "icky-ness" of manufacturing process. An engine block is just aluminum. Batteries and high-current semi-conductor devices use some pretty nasty chemicals.
Someone must have gone to business school to learn his math. Satisfying the average need isn't sufficient. Satisfying a large (say 99.9 pct) of use cases is. Electric cars fail that for very fundamental reasons. That's why they will remain a toy for the rich, not a tool for the masses.
It'd be nice for these self-proclaimed globalist elites to latch on to something that isn't an obvious failure. I mean, a quick back-of-the-envelope will tell you that an IC engine burning gasoline wins in just about every utility metric you can come up for a personal automobile (buses and trucks are a whole other matter). Yet they're declared the Wave of The Future (TM) by the Davos set.
I would love it if these knuckleheads chained themselves to something real, like roads, bridges, power lines, or any one of a dozen other things that aren't sexy at first blush but where real attention and real monetary investments are called for.
No kidding. I'm typing this on a 2 year old slim desktop PC (ie laptop board in a large case), behind me on the wife's desk is a 6 year old mac, on the shelf next to that is a 10 year old laptop that I used regularly until a few months ago and keep around to do taxes on. In my briefcase is my company-issued laptop (3 years old) and in my other case is my new laptop (6 months old) that I got because I needed something fast for once. So out of five machines, only one is younger than the typical replacement time the PHBs expect for an i-device. If all you know is power points and excel, I suppose you could spin that into 'the PC is dying'.
If half of the safe space dwellers were to take half the energy they devote to figuring out how oppressed they are and instead put into learning a useful skill or trade like physical science, engineering, welding, or woodworking, then maybe there'd be more wealth created here so that we're not all dragged down by the dead weight of talking heads and grievance mongers demanding that we hire more degenerates and mental defectives at 15/hr to sit on their asses and preen in the proverbial mirrors of their facebook pages.
Maybe in Star Trek fantasy land. In reality, we want that wealth to originate here. It's embarrassing that the country that invented computers and cell phones can't make any, almost as much as the fact that we can barely clothe ourselves these days.
Magic. Same way the "smart guns" are supposed to know that they're pointed at the bad guy. Everything's trivial when you live in a Star Trek fantasy land with automation eliminating the need to work and free stuff falling from the skies.
What automation? 1000 workers in US vs 2000 in Mexico for half the cost of those 1000 is not "automation." Same thing with your hand-assembled smartphone. I'd rather have it be assembled by robots in the US with 100 human babysitters than hand-built in China with by 1000 human drones.
My position was that there was no point in leaving if we were just going to have to go back in. This is not mutually exclusive with recognizing that it was quite probably a mistake to have gone in there in the first place, which in turn is not mutually exclusive with believing back when the pile was still smoldering in Manhattan that a preemptive invasion was necessary.
Everything always comes back to politics with you people for some reason. Try to follow along.
Claim: Automation will displace human workers to the point that almost no one will be employed. Counter-argument: Automation is not nearly the force your think it is. Example: smartphones are hand-assembled by legions of human workers. Rebuttal: Argle-bargle-Trump-OBama. ?????
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. It has many interesting words. The most interesting one is "favorite," though I'm afraid it has no entry for this "favourite" thing in the summary. Also, how is this exactly news for nerds? Or in the new preferred orthography, Howe Is Thise Newes Fur Nerddes?
Automation my ass. You smartphone is still hand-assembled. Just 'cause the work doesn't happen here where you can see it doesn't mean that nobody does it. Before "The Singularity" was a thing that people worshipped, it was called a "cargo cult."
That's not a real tax in that you don't think of it as a tax, but rather as part of the price you pay to the man behind the cash register. To him though, it's a tax.
No, just some requirement to have skin in the game. Too many people are susceptible to thinking of government as a guarantor of a right to material stuff. Seeing the 'responsibility' part of that equation is healthy.
Slashdot Mirror
And write headlines like the people here aren't two-year-olds, OK?
Maybe it's because they aren't doing it right. Takes a special sort of snowflake sensibility to automatically conclude that your own lack of success must be someone else's fault, and then when you can't identify that someone to save your life, to move on to the "the system" being the problem. At some point, The Russians(TM) will be the reason of the week (month?) for why Johnny is still living in his mother's basement at age 28. If I were a betting man, I'd place my guess on about two slots after "systemic racism" being the problem, but a little bit before "global warming."
False. The probability that a business will fail is not random chance; it is a function of the quality of the business plan, the product, the market need, and the capability of the business owner to follow through and execute. Investors who withhold capital from obvious stupid do so based on their judgement of these factors. Take away that signal, and you will have a lot more people who can barely string two thoughts together "starting a business," and thereby distorting the market for labor and capital. Not good.
Option 4: learn basic economics and stop pretending that there's a big pot of "wealth" somewhere out there that the evil one percenters are keeping all to themselves.
No one is making these guys do this to themselves. If they made a poor decision, then this article does a valuable service to society by publicising it. If you take the ouch out of bad decision making by subsidizing it with free money and free stuff paid for out of the pocket of people who make good decisions, then
1. More people will make bad decisions out of ignorance
2. Fewer people will feel the need to keep themselves on the straight and narrow and make good decisions
3. The pie will get smaller for eveyone.
'Programme' is not the correct spelling of the word. Learn to write.
Whoosh. My entire point is that an average across different households is not a meaningful quantity the way an average across different customers of the widget factory is.
I'm sorry, what? Since when is a product that meets all realistic use cases of a smaller portion of the population expected to sell better?
I have a sedan. It gets me 20 miles to work and 20 miles back every day, and 50 miles to the remote site once every few weeks. It also gets me 300 miles to the parent's house and 500 miles to the in-laws once or twice a year. On the rare occasion I need to go farther, I fly. On the rare occassion I need to haul a big load, I use the wife's station wagon or rent a truck. I sure as shit don't want to be borrowing a vehicle too often or renting a truck more than maybe once a year or less. So an electric car that causes me to have to do that wouldn't be on my radar. I'm pretty sure a good fraction of your 40% would agree, let alone my 60%.
1. Range (as noted)
2. Refuelling time (as glossed-over)
3. Energy carrying mass and volume density
4. Safety. Not interested in riding on about a quarter ton of fuel and oxidizer packed close together, thank you.
5. (Not that I care, but) "icky-ness" of manufacturing process. An engine block is just aluminum. Batteries and high-current semi-conductor devices use some pretty nasty chemicals.
Someone must have gone to business school to learn his math. Satisfying the average need isn't sufficient. Satisfying a large (say 99.9 pct) of use cases is. Electric cars fail that for very fundamental reasons. That's why they will remain a toy for the rich, not a tool for the masses.
It'd be nice for these self-proclaimed globalist elites to latch on to something that isn't an obvious failure. I mean, a quick back-of-the-envelope will tell you that an IC engine burning gasoline wins in just about every utility metric you can come up for a personal automobile (buses and trucks are a whole other matter). Yet they're declared the Wave of The Future (TM) by the Davos set.
I would love it if these knuckleheads chained themselves to something real, like roads, bridges, power lines, or any one of a dozen other things that aren't sexy at first blush but where real attention and real monetary investments are called for.
Anyway, I've never had a problem with my windows that couldn't be fixed with a little windex and elbow grease.
No kidding. I'm typing this on a 2 year old slim desktop PC (ie laptop board in a large case), behind me on the wife's desk is a 6 year old mac, on the shelf next to that is a 10 year old laptop that I used regularly until a few months ago and keep around to do taxes on. In my briefcase is my company-issued laptop (3 years old) and in my other case is my new laptop (6 months old) that I got because I needed something fast for once. So out of five machines, only one is younger than the typical replacement time the PHBs expect for an i-device. If all you know is power points and excel, I suppose you could spin that into 'the PC is dying'.
If half of the safe space dwellers were to take half the energy they devote to figuring out how oppressed they are and instead put into learning a useful skill or trade like physical science, engineering, welding, or woodworking, then maybe there'd be more wealth created here so that we're not all dragged down by the dead weight of talking heads and grievance mongers demanding that we hire more degenerates and mental defectives at 15/hr to sit on their asses and preen in the proverbial mirrors of their facebook pages.
And what do they do besides charging money for something you can do for free with a terminal, poorly?
Maybe in Star Trek fantasy land. In reality, we want that wealth to originate here. It's embarrassing that the country that invented computers and cell phones can't make any, almost as much as the fact that we can barely clothe ourselves these days.
Magic. Same way the "smart guns" are supposed to know that they're pointed at the bad guy. Everything's trivial when you live in a Star Trek fantasy land with automation eliminating the need to work and free stuff falling from the skies.
What automation? 1000 workers in US vs 2000 in Mexico for half the cost of those 1000 is not "automation." Same thing with your hand-assembled smartphone. I'd rather have it be assembled by robots in the US with 100 human babysitters than hand-built in China with by 1000 human drones.
My position was that there was no point in leaving if we were just going to have to go back in. This is not mutually exclusive with recognizing that it was quite probably a mistake to have gone in there in the first place, which in turn is not mutually exclusive with believing back when the pile was still smoldering in Manhattan that a preemptive invasion was necessary.
I think you're agreeing with me.
Everything always comes back to politics with you people for some reason. Try to follow along.
Claim: Automation will displace human workers to the point that almost no one will be employed.
Counter-argument: Automation is not nearly the force your think it is. Example: smartphones are hand-assembled by legions of human workers.
Rebuttal: Argle-bargle-Trump-OBama.
?????
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. It has many interesting words. The most interesting one is "favorite," though I'm afraid it has no entry for this "favourite" thing in the summary.
Also, how is this exactly news for nerds? Or in the new preferred orthography, Howe Is Thise Newes Fur Nerddes?
Automation my ass. You smartphone is still hand-assembled. Just 'cause the work doesn't happen here where you can see it doesn't mean that nobody does it. Before "The Singularity" was a thing that people worshipped, it was called a "cargo cult."
That's not a real tax in that you don't think of it as a tax, but rather as part of the price you pay to the man behind the cash register. To him though, it's a tax.
No, just some requirement to have skin in the game. Too many people are susceptible to thinking of government as a guarantor of a right to material stuff. Seeing the 'responsibility' part of that equation is healthy.
Solipsism is nice, isn't it?