They are defining the scope of "clean" pretty narrowly here to get this win. One admittedly important metric only -- CO2e, and the comparator is an EV running off a grid that looks like today.
Obviously, 1. there are many other important metrics: particulates, particulates at street level, NOx, NOx at street level, noise, vibration damage, etc. 2. EVs get less carbon intensive over time without doing anything as the mix of power sources shifts more and more towards low-carbon.
He didn't use the word "free", dumbass. You did. It's tax-funded and it is *free at the point of care*. All economic activity is just "shuffling money around" -- turns out *how you shuffle money around* affects the cost and effectiveness of healthcare.
The problem with individuals paying for basic checkups while the government paying for major problems, is that it encourages people to skimp on cheap, effective early interventions. They don't go and see their primary care provider when they first develop that ache in their side, because they don't really have $100 to spare...and then that ache turns out to be something serious, and costs a shit-load more to treat because it's progressed.
The rest of the civilised world does *not* all use single payer. Many European health systems -- France, Germany, Belgium and others -- use a system of regulated mandatory insurance. It's not that different from the US system in concept -- but the execution is very different, not least because they haven't allowed regulatory capture. The Dutch system is particularly effective.
In doing this, T-Mobile has joined RE100, an initiative for large corporates to buy only 100% renewable electricity. 123 have joined so far. T-Mobile is not the first, not the largest, not the only tech player, and hasn't moved the furthest. So I've no idea why its decision is considered story-worthy, but not the decision of Adobe, Autodesk, BT, ebay, etc.
RE100 is a great initiative, especially when corporates also commit to science-based targets for GHG reductions that cover scopes 1, 2 and some or all of scope 3 emhttps://hardware.slashdot.org/story/18/01/30/225248/t-mobile-commits-to-100-percent-renewable-electricity-by-2021#issions.
You are thinking so hard about how smart your concept is, you ignore the blindingly obvious: the installed capacity of renewables is increasing daily to meet demand. Extra demand creates incentives for suppliers to deploy more capacity, more quickly, than they otherwise would have. This is *precisely* the mechanism by which renewable capacity has grown so rapidly and costs-to-serve have dropped so quickly over the past decade. When large corporates commit, the effect is even stronger, because they are worth a lot.
Competitive intensity doesn't just vary linearly with the number of competitors, though. There are significant differences between the markets for smartphones and broadband, which mean that you need more competitors in the latter than the former for an effective market (and NB, there may be only two major platforms, but there are half a dozen platforms altogether, and there are hundreds of smartphone manufacturers).
It is a business disadvantage for Apple to be able to read that data. Cynicism makes you look oh-so-clever, but cynicism is supposed to be worldly-wise, and ignoring the material disadvantages that accrue to Apple from being able to read that data (less trust leading to lower revenues, more hassle from the Feebs, no expertise in monetising data through eg resales and no business built on this either, etc) is not very worldly-wise.
I don't know who you think you're quoting, but it's certainly not me. And Apple doesn't ask consumers to share most types of data with Apple. It doesn't ask you to share your notes, your email, your calendar, your health data, your photos, etc. You may choose to use Apple's cloud services to store that data (eg iMessages) but Apple doesn't look at the data and in fact has engineered those services so that it can't.
It might be possible to be less informed, but you'd have to work quite hard at it.
Apple sells this phone called the iPhone. You might have heard of it. It makes rather more money for them than "Media" (or Services, which is an actual category for Apple). In FYQ4 2017, iPhone made $29bn vs $9bn for Services.
Sigh. Apple sells *devices*, not data. The records data sits on your devices and Apple doesn't get to see it. In fact, it's engineered so that Apple can't see it even if it wanted to. That's kinda the point. It's a competitive differentiation from Android.
And what are your qualifications, oh wise one? When were you last in Riyadh? Who is MBS? What is Vision 2030? Give us a quick potted history of the house of Saud. Demonstrate your insights into the changing importance of Hajj in the last twenty years. Name three important Islamic theologians of the last decade. I'll bet you couldn't do any one of those things all by yourself. You might be able to use Google to find an answer, but it would be a bit of a struggle for you if we're honest, wouldn't it?
It is absurdly funny that you would presume to judge my knowledge of Islam, when you talk about the "stance of the current king against Shariah". That is wrong on so many levels, it's almost like a master-class in stupid ignorance: - The current king has Alzheimers - The current king is king in name only, and powers are in the hands of MBS, by and large - The current king is not the instigator of reforms -- that is being done by MBS - The current king never took a "stance against Shariah". At most, it can be said that the current king has not curbed MBS's reform program. - Permitting women to drive and watch football matches does not constitute a "stance... against Shariah"
Fucking know-nothing pricks who think they're so smart.
Um, it's pretty inaccurate to call what MBS is doing as "rejecting Islam". Islamism, perhaps. But Islam is still going to be the state religion and it's going to be an overtly religious country for a long time yet.
What the fuck are you on about? States don't send police officers to foreign countries to question suspects, and you are possibly one of five idiots in the entire world who thinks it would be good if they did. States request that suspects be extradited instead. Which is what has happened. And this is between Sweden and the UK, not the USA, you muppet.
Not sure I really understand your first point. We ascribe malice when there's evidence of malice, for sure. That evidence may be circumstantial -- like fitting with a pattern, for example. A pattern that includes for example, in Alabama, a long history of racism and the use of political power for racist ends. This isn't a court of law; it's reasonable for me to form a view on a lower bar of evidence than that.
The tensions between localism and centralism are as old as the hills. I don't think it's a done deal that localism ought to win every time.
That's a distinction without a difference. FMCG doesn't work the way you describe, and food is regulated for safety and quality reasons, for example. By contrast, there are plenty of one-time services where there comes a point where you can't change your mind until it's too late -- an operation, for example.
And many services of the type you describe have exit penalties, to discourage switching. And switching itself is not cost-free (time and effort, if not money). And notoriously, there's no point in attempting to switch if there's a local monopoly or more broadly a lack of a meaningfully different offer in the market.
The ASA, however, was aware of all this -- but science is not just about inputs and process, it's about replicable outcomes. And there's no studies showing that eHarmony marriages have MTBF that's materially better than other marriages.
Slashdot Mirror
They are defining the scope of "clean" pretty narrowly here to get this win. One admittedly important metric only -- CO2e, and the comparator is an EV running off a grid that looks like today.
Obviously,
1. there are many other important metrics: particulates, particulates at street level, NOx, NOx at street level, noise, vibration damage, etc.
2. EVs get less carbon intensive over time without doing anything as the mix of power sources shifts more and more towards low-carbon.
Do you really think the US can't out-anecdote the UK for horror stories related to healthcare??
So many words, so much wrong.
UK health spend is 7% of GDP. It's 15%+ in the US.
But don't let facts get in the way of your world-view.
Fortunately, these studies have been done time and again, and the result is that the UK spends about 7% of GDP on healthcare vs 15%+ in the US.
http://www.commonwealthfund.or...
He didn't use the word "free", dumbass. You did. It's tax-funded and it is *free at the point of care*. All economic activity is just "shuffling money around" -- turns out *how you shuffle money around* affects the cost and effectiveness of healthcare.
The problem with individuals paying for basic checkups while the government paying for major problems, is that it encourages people to skimp on cheap, effective early interventions. They don't go and see their primary care provider when they first develop that ache in their side, because they don't really have $100 to spare...and then that ache turns out to be something serious, and costs a shit-load more to treat because it's progressed.
Erm, how do you think Obama and the Democrats -- or indeed any political party -- could have given you decent healthcare while not being in power?
The rest of the civilised world does *not* all use single payer. Many European health systems -- France, Germany, Belgium and others -- use a system of regulated mandatory insurance. It's not that different from the US system in concept -- but the execution is very different, not least because they haven't allowed regulatory capture. The Dutch system is particularly effective.
In doing this, T-Mobile has joined RE100, an initiative for large corporates to buy only 100% renewable electricity. 123 have joined so far. T-Mobile is not the first, not the largest, not the only tech player, and hasn't moved the furthest. So I've no idea why its decision is considered story-worthy, but not the decision of Adobe, Autodesk, BT, ebay, etc.
RE100 is a great initiative, especially when corporates also commit to science-based targets for GHG reductions that cover scopes 1, 2 and some or all of scope 3 emhttps://hardware.slashdot.org/story/18/01/30/225248/t-mobile-commits-to-100-percent-renewable-electricity-by-2021#issions.
You are thinking so hard about how smart your concept is, you ignore the blindingly obvious: the installed capacity of renewables is increasing daily to meet demand. Extra demand creates incentives for suppliers to deploy more capacity, more quickly, than they otherwise would have. This is *precisely* the mechanism by which renewable capacity has grown so rapidly and costs-to-serve have dropped so quickly over the past decade. When large corporates commit, the effect is even stronger, because they are worth a lot.
Competitive intensity doesn't just vary linearly with the number of competitors, though. There are significant differences between the markets for smartphones and broadband, which mean that you need more competitors in the latter than the former for an effective market (and NB, there may be only two major platforms, but there are half a dozen platforms altogether, and there are hundreds of smartphone manufacturers).
It is a business disadvantage for Apple to be able to read that data. Cynicism makes you look oh-so-clever, but cynicism is supposed to be worldly-wise, and ignoring the material disadvantages that accrue to Apple from being able to read that data (less trust leading to lower revenues, more hassle from the Feebs, no expertise in monetising data through eg resales and no business built on this either, etc) is not very worldly-wise.
I don't know who you think you're quoting, but it's certainly not me. And Apple doesn't ask consumers to share most types of data with Apple. It doesn't ask you to share your notes, your email, your calendar, your health data, your photos, etc. You may choose to use Apple's cloud services to store that data (eg iMessages) but Apple doesn't look at the data and in fact has engineered those services so that it can't.
It might be possible to be less informed, but you'd have to work quite hard at it.
Apple sells this phone called the iPhone. You might have heard of it. It makes rather more money for them than "Media" (or Services, which is an actual category for Apple). In FYQ4 2017, iPhone made $29bn vs $9bn for Services.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom...
Sigh. Apple sells *devices*, not data. The records data sits on your devices and Apple doesn't get to see it. In fact, it's engineered so that Apple can't see it even if it wanted to. That's kinda the point. It's a competitive differentiation from Android.
Why would Apple need to do this? The company monetises *devices*, not data
And what are your qualifications, oh wise one? When were you last in Riyadh? Who is MBS? What is Vision 2030? Give us a quick potted history of the house of Saud. Demonstrate your insights into the changing importance of Hajj in the last twenty years. Name three important Islamic theologians of the last decade. I'll bet you couldn't do any one of those things all by yourself. You might be able to use Google to find an answer, but it would be a bit of a struggle for you if we're honest, wouldn't it?
It is absurdly funny that you would presume to judge my knowledge of Islam, when you talk about the "stance of the current king against Shariah". That is wrong on so many levels, it's almost like a master-class in stupid ignorance: ... against Shariah"
- The current king has Alzheimers
- The current king is king in name only, and powers are in the hands of MBS, by and large
- The current king is not the instigator of reforms -- that is being done by MBS
- The current king never took a "stance against Shariah". At most, it can be said that the current king has not curbed MBS's reform program.
- Permitting women to drive and watch football matches does not constitute a "stance
Fucking know-nothing pricks who think they're so smart.
Nope. But I travel to Saudi pretty regularly for work
Um, it's pretty inaccurate to call what MBS is doing as "rejecting Islam". Islamism, perhaps. But Islam is still going to be the state religion and it's going to be an overtly religious country for a long time yet.
Poor Norwegians. Just a single trillion dollar sovereign wealth fund to get them through the transition.
What the fuck are you on about? States don't send police officers to foreign countries to question suspects, and you are possibly one of five idiots in the entire world who thinks it would be good if they did. States request that suspects be extradited instead. Which is what has happened. And this is between Sweden and the UK, not the USA, you muppet.
Um, because he wanted them to come to the UK to question him. And that's not how things work.
Not sure I really understand your first point. We ascribe malice when there's evidence of malice, for sure. That evidence may be circumstantial -- like fitting with a pattern, for example. A pattern that includes for example, in Alabama, a long history of racism and the use of political power for racist ends. This isn't a court of law; it's reasonable for me to form a view on a lower bar of evidence than that.
The tensions between localism and centralism are as old as the hills. I don't think it's a done deal that localism ought to win every time.
That's a distinction without a difference. FMCG doesn't work the way you describe, and food is regulated for safety and quality reasons, for example. By contrast, there are plenty of one-time services where there comes a point where you can't change your mind until it's too late -- an operation, for example.
And many services of the type you describe have exit penalties, to discourage switching. And switching itself is not cost-free (time and effort, if not money). And notoriously, there's no point in attempting to switch if there's a local monopoly or more broadly a lack of a meaningfully different offer in the market.
The ASA, however, was aware of all this -- but science is not just about inputs and process, it's about replicable outcomes. And there's no studies showing that eHarmony marriages have MTBF that's materially better than other marriages.