There are tons of examples of consumerised sensors delivering real value in clinical settings. eg wireless blood pressure cuffs.
Accuracy and richness of datasets aren't the be-all and end-all. Frequency of measurement can be very important. Hell, take the example of wireless blood pressure cuffs -- they are less accurate than the cuffs used by health professionals, but readings aren't distorted by white coat hypertension
Um. Are you actually suggesting US gov't involvement in oil is less extensive than Chinese gov't in tech? Did you miss the wars fought to protect oil supplies? etc
Look we are obviously not going to convince each other. I suggest we end this, it's fruitless
You're right on one count: it's just one example. You're wrong to say it "demonstrates... a scale and level of coordination far beyond anything going on in the US". I mean, you are so badly, badly wrong it's hilarious. Just as a little reminder, the Bush and Obama administrations lent the US auto industry $80bn to prevent bankruptcy. From 1950 to 2010, the US has spent $837bn in direct subsidies for the energy industry (obviously, this doesn't include the cost of wars to keep oil flowing). On a much much smaller scale I personally remember, when I worked for a global professional services firm, a healthcare engagement for the state where the team being staffed had to be all American because of procurement requirements it imposed. (It was quite clear to us as a firm that this meant the team was substantially less strong than it would otherwise have been, because there were non-US people with much more experience that was relevant. But the firm was OK to jump through that particular hoop to win the business)
My point here is this: China may be doing all the things you say it is, and more besides. Many of these things may be bad things from a political, moral or economic perspective. But it does your analysis no good at all if you deny the obvious, which is that the US (along with just about every other country in the world) has done and is doing many of the same things, as the same scale and intensity. Because sovereign nations often run industrial and trade policies that are activist.
You think 1.5bn is a significant subsidy? Seriously? You are so sweetly naive. Go check out the level of support for, say, Boeing or Exxon. Or the last Detroit bailout.
I don't know what your word salad response to my #2 means, but it was very exciting. Congratulations!
Now, how about spelling out the logic that goes from "Apple prices for margin rather than share" to "therefore tax increases shouldn't lead to price increases"? Because you actually have your logic bass-ackwards. If Apple priced for *share*, it would wish to preserve share in the face of rising input costs, and therefore would do what it could to absorb increases in input costs, even at the expense of margin. If Apple prices for margin, then it will allow rising input costs to increase product pricing in order to preserve margin. Actually, and unsurprisingly, Apple's pricing strategy can be inferred to be more complex than either of these scenarios.
As for your response to #3, it is entirely possible for Apple to be the largest corporate taxpayer in America and *also* pursue a strategy of tax minimisation including the use of bonds, negotiating tax cuts with states and countries, etc. If you think it's "fake news" that Apple is the largest corporate taxpayer in America, then why don't you link to a source that shows someone else paid more?
Your response to #4 is so silly, it's almost unbelievable. Apple's shares are exceptionally widely held. A large proportion of Americans have a stake in the success of Apple through their investments and retirement plans etc.
The scale of the practices involved?? Are you shitting me? The scale of US subsidies for its industries vastly exceeds the scale of subsidies in China (and every other country in the world).
You listed a bunch of things you said were "unfair trading practices"; now you appear to be describing China's use of them as unfair, but America's as fair because you do it less, and they did it first. This is no way to work through an argument.
You and I didn't discuss whether it was sensible for Trump to do these things. The OP did that, to a degree. You just listed a bunch of things you claimed were unfair trading practices and I disagreed.
If you want to solve all those issues, tariffs aren't going to help either. Trade agreements and tariffs are tools that are useful, unsurprisingly, for trade. They may have some minor value in addressing other issues, but that's going to be limited.
You know what's naive? Thinking that China is at material risk of mass starvation in the event of a trade dispute with America. You know what's childish and ignorant? Not only thinking this is the case, but thinking it's an effective lever to win a trade dispute. You know what's even more naive than that? Thinking that China would respond proportionately to the imposition of mass starvation, when other options are plainly on the table and it possesses the world's largest standing army, very capable cyberwarfare units, and a strategic nuclear defence. I mean, have you really never ever read a Tom Clancy? What you're proposing is how really nasty shit starts, if it were actually possible, which it's not.
Just a reminder: the last time you tried to reach a trade agreement with China, your blessed Trump said no. Your other options included renegotiating. So I wouldn't worry about the other side saying no just yet. You've got to wipe the shit off your own arse first.
A trade agreement. Every time trade agreements are instituted, they increase the quantum of trade that is conducted within the bounds of what the trading parties consider acceptable. They also enrich the parties.
It used to be that folks on the right of politics understood these basic facts of economics, and scorned folks on the left for not understanding it.
In the nicest possible way, I don't think it's only your understanding of Apple product pricing that's flawed. 1. Apple commentators sometimes argue that Apple pricing is designed to maximise margins rather than market share. Unsurprisingly, Apple doesn't state its pricing strategy in public. Why would it? 2. In any event, the logical chain between "Apple prices for margin rather than share" and "therefore tax increases shouldn't lead to price increases" doesn't exist. Obviously, input costs affect final prices, even though final prices are affected by more than just input prices. This is Pricing 101. 3. Apple is the largest corporate taxpayer in America. Maybe you want it to pay more, but if that's the case, what the fuck was the point of giving American corporations including Apple a massive tax cut earlier this year, which is going to balloon your deficit to unheard of levels? 4. The American economy may benefit from more Apple accessories that are sold in America being made in America, but it will also lose out when Apple margins and shares decline, which will happen when American consumers buy fewer Apple accessories because they are more expensive due to tariffs and worse economies of scale for the manufacture of Apple accessories in America and worse economies of scale for the manufacture of ex-US Apple accessories in China and poorer sales overseas due to rising prices etc. How difficult is it, really, to think of second order and third order effects?
This list is an excellent example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
At least five of those practices are not only not unfair trade practices per se, they are also practised extensively by the US, which understandably regards the ability to do these things as the rightful exercise of power by a sovereign nation.
I thought we were all for consumption taxes instead of income taxes?
Why would you think that? Consumption taxes are notorious for hitting the poor hardest, for multiple reasons, including that one of the benefits of being rich is that you can save a larger proportion of your income than poor people, who need to spend nearly everything they earn on the basics of daily living.
1. The world is bigger than the US. Smoothing out power delivery isn't an issue everywhere. I can promise you that all those 22 and 43 kW chargers in Europe do not have their own dedicated building transformers. 2. The EV market comprises more than just Teslas. There are tons of cars that can charge to 80% in 30 to 60mins at 22 / 43 kW chargers. In the UK, there's the i3, Leaf, Zoe, Smart forTwo, eGolf, eUp, Ioniq, iOn Electric, C-Zero, Kona, and Soul. In fact, you have to work pretty hard to find an EV that won't do this.
I know all about Norway. I know all about where EV owners charge. I know when fast and rapid chargers are used. I don't know why you think lampposts need to be fast charging, they're a solution for overnight charging for people who don't have off-street parking. I am well aware of how gas station chargers are distributed.
I think you are confusing me with someone who knows nothing about EV charging and is raising objections to it. I'm not. I know lots about it and I'm interested to see how factors such as those I listed out above affect the speed and density of infrastructure rollout. This isn't an easy thing to predict.
I disagree that rapid charging station infrastructure is so important. My little EV (Renault Zoe) goes only 90 miles between charges. Makes no difference to us: we drive beyond that only a few times per year, and there's more than enough 22kW and 43kW chargers in the UK for it to be easy to charge en route for those few journeys. Our next Renault Zoe will have a range of 180 miles, at which point we'll need a public charger perhaps twice a year.
There are tons of these chargers all over the UK. Being blocked by another EV charging is rarely an issue -- the bigger issue is being blocked by an ICE car parking where it shouldn't.
It's interesting to think how the numbers will play out: - When and how fast will apartment block parking lots be retrofitted with chargers - Will lamp-post charging become commonplace - How often will people actually need to charge given average daily driving distance in the US is 30miles (which implies charging only once or twice a week on average) - How common will workplace charging become I'll bet there's teams of analysts at banks and management consultancies and automakers and energy companies who are doing tons of work on modelling all this right now
People who bemoan western civilisation in these absolutist terms are almost always people living in western civilisations, who have absolutely zero idea of how terrible life is without it. Lately, they've been joined by Russian trolls.
This insane false equivalency is, I believe, a bigger problem than Trump's base. It suggests an absolute refusal to look the truth in the eye, to apply judgement, and a passive helplessness instead of civic engagement. I blame Ralph Nader, with his stupid and memorable quote that "the only difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door"
Do you think he's keen on support from people so stupid that, not only are the unable to spell the word "villain", they do so in CAPITAL LETTERS as if to EMPHASISE their STUPIDITY?
Slashdot Mirror
The phone is the same sized enclosure as the 8 plus. So people will look the same amount of a jerk with the new one as with the old.
There are tons of examples of consumerised sensors delivering real value in clinical settings. eg wireless blood pressure cuffs.
Accuracy and richness of datasets aren't the be-all and end-all. Frequency of measurement can be very important. Hell, take the example of wireless blood pressure cuffs -- they are less accurate than the cuffs used by health professionals, but readings aren't distorted by white coat hypertension
How on earth would an ECG work off a single hand?! A circuit needs to be complete, which implies both arms.
Um. The FDA has certified it. AliveCor has been certified for the same purpose for a while. The way you think the world is, is not how it actually is.
Um. Are you actually suggesting US gov't involvement in oil is less extensive than Chinese gov't in tech? Did you miss the wars fought to protect oil supplies? etc
Look we are obviously not going to convince each other. I suggest we end this, it's fruitless
You're right on one count: it's just one example. You're wrong to say it "demonstrates ... a scale and level of coordination far beyond anything going on in the US". I mean, you are so badly, badly wrong it's hilarious. Just as a little reminder, the Bush and Obama administrations lent the US auto industry $80bn to prevent bankruptcy. From 1950 to 2010, the US has spent $837bn in direct subsidies for the energy industry (obviously, this doesn't include the cost of wars to keep oil flowing). On a much much smaller scale I personally remember, when I worked for a global professional services firm, a healthcare engagement for the state where the team being staffed had to be all American because of procurement requirements it imposed. (It was quite clear to us as a firm that this meant the team was substantially less strong than it would otherwise have been, because there were non-US people with much more experience that was relevant. But the firm was OK to jump through that particular hoop to win the business)
My point here is this: China may be doing all the things you say it is, and more besides. Many of these things may be bad things from a political, moral or economic perspective. But it does your analysis no good at all if you deny the obvious, which is that the US (along with just about every other country in the world) has done and is doing many of the same things, as the same scale and intensity. Because sovereign nations often run industrial and trade policies that are activist.
You think 1.5bn is a significant subsidy? Seriously? You are so sweetly naive. Go check out the level of support for, say, Boeing or Exxon. Or the last Detroit bailout.
Sheesh.
I don't know what your word salad response to my #2 means, but it was very exciting. Congratulations!
Now, how about spelling out the logic that goes from "Apple prices for margin rather than share" to "therefore tax increases shouldn't lead to price increases"? Because you actually have your logic bass-ackwards. If Apple priced for *share*, it would wish to preserve share in the face of rising input costs, and therefore would do what it could to absorb increases in input costs, even at the expense of margin. If Apple prices for margin, then it will allow rising input costs to increase product pricing in order to preserve margin. Actually, and unsurprisingly, Apple's pricing strategy can be inferred to be more complex than either of these scenarios.
As for your response to #3, it is entirely possible for Apple to be the largest corporate taxpayer in America and *also* pursue a strategy of tax minimisation including the use of bonds, negotiating tax cuts with states and countries, etc. If you think it's "fake news" that Apple is the largest corporate taxpayer in America, then why don't you link to a source that shows someone else paid more?
Your response to #4 is so silly, it's almost unbelievable. Apple's shares are exceptionally widely held. A large proportion of Americans have a stake in the success of Apple through their investments and retirement plans etc.
The scale of the practices involved?? Are you shitting me? The scale of US subsidies for its industries vastly exceeds the scale of subsidies in China (and every other country in the world).
You listed a bunch of things you said were "unfair trading practices"; now you appear to be describing China's use of them as unfair, but America's as fair because you do it less, and they did it first. This is no way to work through an argument.
You and I didn't discuss whether it was sensible for Trump to do these things. The OP did that, to a degree. You just listed a bunch of things you claimed were unfair trading practices and I disagreed.
If you want to solve all those issues, tariffs aren't going to help either. Trade agreements and tariffs are tools that are useful, unsurprisingly, for trade. They may have some minor value in addressing other issues, but that's going to be limited.
You know what's naive? Thinking that China is at material risk of mass starvation in the event of a trade dispute with America. You know what's childish and ignorant? Not only thinking this is the case, but thinking it's an effective lever to win a trade dispute. You know what's even more naive than that? Thinking that China would respond proportionately to the imposition of mass starvation, when other options are plainly on the table and it possesses the world's largest standing army, very capable cyberwarfare units, and a strategic nuclear defence. I mean, have you really never ever read a Tom Clancy? What you're proposing is how really nasty shit starts, if it were actually possible, which it's not.
Just a reminder: the last time you tried to reach a trade agreement with China, your blessed Trump said no. Your other options included renegotiating. So I wouldn't worry about the other side saying no just yet. You've got to wipe the shit off your own arse first.
A trade agreement. Every time trade agreements are instituted, they increase the quantum of trade that is conducted within the bounds of what the trading parties consider acceptable. They also enrich the parties.
It used to be that folks on the right of politics understood these basic facts of economics, and scorned folks on the left for not understanding it.
In the nicest possible way, I don't think it's only your understanding of Apple product pricing that's flawed.
1. Apple commentators sometimes argue that Apple pricing is designed to maximise margins rather than market share. Unsurprisingly, Apple doesn't state its pricing strategy in public. Why would it?
2. In any event, the logical chain between "Apple prices for margin rather than share" and "therefore tax increases shouldn't lead to price increases" doesn't exist. Obviously, input costs affect final prices, even though final prices are affected by more than just input prices. This is Pricing 101.
3. Apple is the largest corporate taxpayer in America. Maybe you want it to pay more, but if that's the case, what the fuck was the point of giving American corporations including Apple a massive tax cut earlier this year, which is going to balloon your deficit to unheard of levels?
4. The American economy may benefit from more Apple accessories that are sold in America being made in America, but it will also lose out when Apple margins and shares decline, which will happen when American consumers buy fewer Apple accessories because they are more expensive due to tariffs and worse economies of scale for the manufacture of Apple accessories in America and worse economies of scale for the manufacture of ex-US Apple accessories in China and poorer sales overseas due to rising prices etc. How difficult is it, really, to think of second order and third order effects?
That'll do for now.
This list is an excellent example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
At least five of those practices are not only not unfair trade practices per se, they are also practised extensively by the US, which understandably regards the ability to do these things as the rightful exercise of power by a sovereign nation.
Which country that has the capacity and capability to build iOS devices at volume is Trump *not* targeting with increased tariffs?
Also: if you're going to accuse people of looking stupid, it really helps to not use the phrase "idealistic world".
I thought we were all for consumption taxes instead of income taxes?
Why would you think that? Consumption taxes are notorious for hitting the poor hardest, for multiple reasons, including that one of the benefits of being rich is that you can save a larger proportion of your income than poor people, who need to spend nearly everything they earn on the basics of daily living.
It's the wrong tool, and it won't work. It will, however, make America poorer. Congratulations!
1. The world is bigger than the US. Smoothing out power delivery isn't an issue everywhere. I can promise you that all those 22 and 43 kW chargers in Europe do not have their own dedicated building transformers.
2. The EV market comprises more than just Teslas. There are tons of cars that can charge to 80% in 30 to 60mins at 22 / 43 kW chargers. In the UK, there's the i3, Leaf, Zoe, Smart forTwo, eGolf, eUp, Ioniq, iOn Electric, C-Zero, Kona, and Soul. In fact, you have to work pretty hard to find an EV that won't do this.
Um.
I know all about Norway. I know all about where EV owners charge. I know when fast and rapid chargers are used. I don't know why you think lampposts need to be fast charging, they're a solution for overnight charging for people who don't have off-street parking. I am well aware of how gas station chargers are distributed.
I think you are confusing me with someone who knows nothing about EV charging and is raising objections to it. I'm not. I know lots about it and I'm interested to see how factors such as those I listed out above affect the speed and density of infrastructure rollout. This isn't an easy thing to predict.
I disagree that rapid charging station infrastructure is so important. My little EV (Renault Zoe) goes only 90 miles between charges. Makes no difference to us: we drive beyond that only a few times per year, and there's more than enough 22kW and 43kW chargers in the UK for it to be easy to charge en route for those few journeys. Our next Renault Zoe will have a range of 180 miles, at which point we'll need a public charger perhaps twice a year.
Eh?
A 43kW or 50kW charger is just not that big whether AC, DC or both, and is pretty fast.
Look here for a picture of one:
http://myrenaultzoe.com/index....
There are tons of these chargers all over the UK. Being blocked by another EV charging is rarely an issue -- the bigger issue is being blocked by an ICE car parking where it shouldn't.
It's interesting to think how the numbers will play out:
- When and how fast will apartment block parking lots be retrofitted with chargers
- Will lamp-post charging become commonplace
- How often will people actually need to charge given average daily driving distance in the US is 30miles (which implies charging only once or twice a week on average)
- How common will workplace charging become
I'll bet there's teams of analysts at banks and management consultancies and automakers and energy companies who are doing tons of work on modelling all this right now
People who bemoan western civilisation in these absolutist terms are almost always people living in western civilisations, who have absolutely zero idea of how terrible life is without it. Lately, they've been joined by Russian trolls.
This insane false equivalency is, I believe, a bigger problem than Trump's base. It suggests an absolute refusal to look the truth in the eye, to apply judgement, and a passive helplessness instead of civic engagement. I blame Ralph Nader, with his stupid and memorable quote that "the only difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door"
Do you think he's keen on support from people so stupid that, not only are the unable to spell the word "villain", they do so in CAPITAL LETTERS as if to EMPHASISE their STUPIDITY?