The article says: "the two new handsets also boast Google's latest Android 8.0 operating system, aka Oreo, an exclusive to Google Pixel and certain Nexus devices currently. And in some ways, this is also a big advantage"
That 9% figure is usually quoted by public health folks talking about the importance of the social determinants of health. You have no idea how directly that undercuts the argument you are trying to make.
*Of course* there's no free ride! That Dane is part of a society whose members have decided it is better (and cheaper) for everyone to band together and buy a shit load of stuff collectively (healthcare, social care etc) rather than buying it individually. So your jeans are cheaper, but your healthcare is waaaaaaaay more expensive. And guess what? No-one drops dead or loses a house from not being able to afford jeans, but they sure as hell do if they can't afford healthcare.
Danish healthcare expenditure totalled 10.8% of GDP in 2014. US healthcare expenditure totalled 17.1% in the same year.
The Danes spent an average of $5199 on healthcare in 2016, of which $4374 was for government / compulsory services. Americans spent an average of $9892 on healthcare in the same year, of which $4860 was for government / compulsory services. Yes, you actually spent 12 US Levi jeans *more* per year on government / compulsory services in 2016 than the Danes, despite their being able to provide a universal service for that money, while you put up with terrible safety nets, all because of the ridiculous state you've allowed your health system to get into, by being so in thrall to the notion of the free market as a political construct (although obviously not an actual political objective in US health policy for the Republicans or the Democrats).
A strategy of deliberately fragmenting the user-base across OS versions based on the hardware they're running is not good from a UX, security or privacy perspective
"Use your head" You finished your sentence too soon. You clearly intended to write "use your head to look at the numbers that agree with my case and dismiss all the numbers that don't"
That article you quote from states that the subsidy from 1950 to 2010 for the US for fossil fuels amounted to $600bn, while that for renewables amounted to $74bn. Why you think quoting this article helps you make your case is beyond me. A single year's figures show sweet fuck all. None of those subsidies count the costs of wars, by the way, which have been fought for oil at the cost of a great deal of blood and treasure, but have not been fought for solar.
God, you're dumb. The money in the foundation can't be spent on yachts, or football clubs, or megamansions, or blow. So it's really not at all the same as the kids directly inheriting daddy's squillions? And if you think a billionaire needs to set up a charitable foundation to minimise their tax bills, you're even dumber than I thought possible.
You do realise that the very article you quoted from has two numbers, right? First number: fossil fuel subsidies. $5.3 trillion Second number: renewable subsidies. $88bn
I mean, really. Can't you at least quote from an article that supports the case you're trying to make?!
I know you're into your conspiracy theories and all, and so are completely dismissive of anything anyone actually ever says, but you do know that unlike virtually every other billionaire in the world, Bill Gates has very publicly said he will be leaving the vast bulk of his fortune to his foundation, rather than his children? Obviously, they're never going to starve -- they'll get millions -- but he's leaving several thousand times as much to the foundation. Now, I'm sure in your head that's all just more evidence of the conspiracy somehow and that really his kids will get the money, but Ockham's Fucking Razor applies! He didn't have to do that -- he could have just left the money directly to his kids if he wanted to, and no-one would have blinked.
I get the intent behind your post but the specifics are way off: >When's the cost of a battery recharge going to match the cost of an ICE Used car's fillup? A battery recharge is -- famously -- much much cheaper than an ICE fillup
> When are electric charging stations going to be able to handle the numbers and flows of ICE Used cars. They won't ever need to, because usage and recharge patterns will be vastly different. Somewhere between 70 to 90% of EV drivers will do most of their charging at home. A large proportion will also charge at work day. Electrical outlets can be installed in many more places than gas stations -- in lamp-posts, in car-parks etc.
>Where are all the petro fueled electric plants necessary for electric cars going to be built? Petroleum products won't be used for electric plants. Electricity will be generated from wind, solar, nuclear and coal, as today, with the mix trending towards renewables over time. There's a couple of decades of data to show this.
>When are necessary electric plants going to be built? The net additional plants figure is unclear, and it doesn't help to confuse it with the gross increase in power requirements. We have to net off the reduction in refinery power requirements, the use of car batteries as part of generation-and-storage systems (charge car at work during the day, charge home battery at home during day, discharge car on journeys and use spare to boost the discharge of the home battery during the morning and evening peak consumption periods), etc etc.
Even if there were going to be lots of people living near new plants whose health would now be damaged, which is not the case, this would still be the right thing to do considering the vastly higher numbers of people whose health is being damaged by exhaust fumes on the roads today.
You're looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope. Within a week of launch, iOS 11 was on a quarter of all iOS devices. On Sept 6th 2017, 89% of iOS devices used iOS 10. iOS users typically upgrade, and this brings massive benefits in terms of ensuring that devices are secured, devs can use the latest-and-greatest features in the API, etc etc. Android is dramatically more fragmented, and that is a problem. And this is just the OS: the hardware situation is even more of a cluster-fuck for an Android dev. Those tools you describe would be mildly nice-to-have on iOS: they're essential on Android, because the user base is so wildly fragmented.
You don't need an EV charging station! You can get away with a trickle charger. FFS, we put in a 7kW outlet and it cost under a grand, and that's in the UK where everything is more expensive than the US, and there are no economies of scale to speak of yet. You don't need 3-phase power and 22kW chargers, never mind 43, 50 or 350kW. Just something that will charge up overnight.
So bored of ridiculous exaggerations masquerading as thought.
People like you are so tricking parochial. Last time I went to Denmark, I flew in, then took the train to Copenhagen, and yes -- I walked to business meetings. No need for a car. Infrastructure doesn't need to look like America, you know. Better possibilities exist elsewhere.
Yes, those are all reasons. But they are all pretty shit reasons, aren't they? I mean, it takes what three seconds to ask "how much will that be?" and get the answer "fifteen quid" or whatever back. Anyhoo, I looked at taking an Uber this morning. Surge was 2.3x at 7.05am. Of course I didn't know what x was, and the algorithm could be highly clever and specific for calculating X or it could be some fat bloke in a room calling out magic numbers and I would be none the wiser, and I have no idea whether 2.3 is a fair or unfair multiple, but whatevs, according to you Uber's pricing is as clear as it needs to be for the consumer.
You may think that the estimate is better; my mileage differs. And I find that there's almost *always* a surge on at the times I'd actually want to use an Uber.
You donâ(TM)t get an estimate from a private hire company. You get a firm price. With a black cab, you get a transparently set rate per mile and minute. None of this is true for Uber. They should offer a fixed price, like a private hire company, or a set rate and Hackney carriage regulations. They want to have their cake and eat it.
Slashdot Mirror
Your comment appears to have nothing to do with the comment you were replying to. Congratulations! Non sequitur of the day aware goes to you.
Ooooh exciting! Apparently, there's a "correct" way to spell names! Who decides that, pray tell?
The article says: "the two new handsets also boast Google's latest Android 8.0 operating system, aka Oreo, an exclusive to Google Pixel and certain Nexus devices currently. And in some ways, this is also a big advantage"
Sounds like encouraging fragmentation to me. YMMV
That 9% figure is usually quoted by public health folks talking about the importance of the social determinants of health. You have no idea how directly that undercuts the argument you are trying to make.
*Of course* there's no free ride! That Dane is part of a society whose members have decided it is better (and cheaper) for everyone to band together and buy a shit load of stuff collectively (healthcare, social care etc) rather than buying it individually. So your jeans are cheaper, but your healthcare is waaaaaaaay more expensive. And guess what? No-one drops dead or loses a house from not being able to afford jeans, but they sure as hell do if they can't afford healthcare.
Danish healthcare expenditure totalled 10.8% of GDP in 2014.
US healthcare expenditure totalled 17.1% in the same year.
The Danes spent an average of $5199 on healthcare in 2016, of which $4374 was for government / compulsory services. Americans spent an average of $9892 on healthcare in the same year, of which $4860 was for government / compulsory services. Yes, you actually spent 12 US Levi jeans *more* per year on government / compulsory services in 2016 than the Danes, despite their being able to provide a universal service for that money, while you put up with terrible safety nets, all because of the ridiculous state you've allowed your health system to get into, by being so in thrall to the notion of the free market as a political construct (although obviously not an actual political objective in US health policy for the Republicans or the Democrats).
A strategy of deliberately fragmenting the user-base across OS versions based on the hardware they're running is not good from a UX, security or privacy perspective
I really don't. But the Gates Foundation is not set up like Joel Osteen's.
"Use your head"
You finished your sentence too soon. You clearly intended to write "use your head to look at the numbers that agree with my case and dismiss all the numbers that don't"
That article you quote from states that the subsidy from 1950 to 2010 for the US for fossil fuels amounted to $600bn, while that for renewables amounted to $74bn. Why you think quoting this article helps you make your case is beyond me. A single year's figures show sweet fuck all. None of those subsidies count the costs of wars, by the way, which have been fought for oil at the cost of a great deal of blood and treasure, but have not been fought for solar.
God, you're dumb. The money in the foundation can't be spent on yachts, or football clubs, or megamansions, or blow. So it's really not at all the same as the kids directly inheriting daddy's squillions? And if you think a billionaire needs to set up a charitable foundation to minimise their tax bills, you're even dumber than I thought possible.
It's quite the commentary on the times we live in that your comment could plausibly be serious or ironic.
You do realise that the very article you quoted from has two numbers, right?
First number: fossil fuel subsidies. $5.3 trillion
Second number: renewable subsidies. $88bn
I mean, really. Can't you at least quote from an article that supports the case you're trying to make?!
PR and Tesla are talking, apparently
I know you're into your conspiracy theories and all, and so are completely dismissive of anything anyone actually ever says, but you do know that unlike virtually every other billionaire in the world, Bill Gates has very publicly said he will be leaving the vast bulk of his fortune to his foundation, rather than his children? Obviously, they're never going to starve -- they'll get millions -- but he's leaving several thousand times as much to the foundation. Now, I'm sure in your head that's all just more evidence of the conspiracy somehow and that really his kids will get the money, but Ockham's Fucking Razor applies! He didn't have to do that -- he could have just left the money directly to his kids if he wanted to, and no-one would have blinked.
Gulf wars are free now, are they?
I get the intent behind your post but the specifics are way off:
>When's the cost of a battery recharge going to match the cost of an ICE Used car's fillup?
A battery recharge is -- famously -- much much cheaper than an ICE fillup
> When are electric charging stations going to be able to handle the numbers and flows of ICE Used cars.
They won't ever need to, because usage and recharge patterns will be vastly different. Somewhere between 70 to 90% of EV drivers will do most of their charging at home. A large proportion will also charge at work day. Electrical outlets can be installed in many more places than gas stations -- in lamp-posts, in car-parks etc.
>Where are all the petro fueled electric plants necessary for electric cars going to be built?
Petroleum products won't be used for electric plants. Electricity will be generated from wind, solar, nuclear and coal, as today, with the mix trending towards renewables over time. There's a couple of decades of data to show this.
>When are necessary electric plants going to be built?
The net additional plants figure is unclear, and it doesn't help to confuse it with the gross increase in power requirements. We have to net off the reduction in refinery power requirements, the use of car batteries as part of generation-and-storage systems (charge car at work during the day, charge home battery at home during day, discharge car on journeys and use spare to boost the discharge of the home battery during the morning and evening peak consumption periods), etc etc.
Even if there were going to be lots of people living near new plants whose health would now be damaged, which is not the case, this would still be the right thing to do considering the vastly higher numbers of people whose health is being damaged by exhaust fumes on the roads today.
You're looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope. Within a week of launch, iOS 11 was on a quarter of all iOS devices. On Sept 6th 2017, 89% of iOS devices used iOS 10. iOS users typically upgrade, and this brings massive benefits in terms of ensuring that devices are secured, devs can use the latest-and-greatest features in the API, etc etc. Android is dramatically more fragmented, and that is a problem. And this is just the OS: the hardware situation is even more of a cluster-fuck for an Android dev. Those tools you describe would be mildly nice-to-have on iOS: they're essential on Android, because the user base is so wildly fragmented.
You don't need an EV charging station! You can get away with a trickle charger. FFS, we put in a 7kW outlet and it cost under a grand, and that's in the UK where everything is more expensive than the US, and there are no economies of scale to speak of yet. You don't need 3-phase power and 22kW chargers, never mind 43, 50 or 350kW. Just something that will charge up overnight.
So bored of ridiculous exaggerations masquerading as thought.
People like you are so tricking parochial. Last time I went to Denmark, I flew in, then took the train to Copenhagen, and yes -- I walked to business meetings. No need for a car. Infrastructure doesn't need to look like America, you know. Better possibilities exist elsewhere.
I routinely use Uber -- about once a week -- mainly for work. It is a quintessentially British trait to use a service and complain about it.
Yes, those are all reasons. But they are all pretty shit reasons, aren't they? I mean, it takes what three seconds to ask "how much will that be?" and get the answer "fifteen quid" or whatever back. Anyhoo, I looked at taking an Uber this morning. Surge was 2.3x at 7.05am. Of course I didn't know what x was, and the algorithm could be highly clever and specific for calculating X or it could be some fat bloke in a room calling out magic numbers and I would be none the wiser, and I have no idea whether 2.3 is a fair or unfair multiple, but whatevs, according to you Uber's pricing is as clear as it needs to be for the consumer.
Why would you take a private hire car and *not* ask the fare in advance? It is for your protection that they're obliged to give you a price!
You may think that the estimate is better; my mileage differs. And I find that there's almost *always* a surge on at the times I'd actually want to use an Uber.
You donâ(TM)t get an estimate from a private hire company. You get a firm price. With a black cab, you get a transparently set rate per mile and minute. None of this is true for Uber. They should offer a fixed price, like a private hire company, or a set rate and Hackney carriage regulations. They want to have their cake and eat it.