unlike a cab company, Uber allows for people to pick up busy times with cars that have other primary purposes.
Here there's sufficient demand about 2 hours in the morning, 2 in the afternoon during the week, and then 2 hours in the evening and 2 in the late night during the weekend.
It'd unlikely a sufficient number of cabs to meet demand could be cars with that as their only intent.
Or if they did, they'd be too expensive, having only 4 busy hours a day.
Taxis never cost more than Uber/Lyft where I live.
They also would never show up when called. Uber/Lyft made a huge difference here. I don't really know what the appeal was in bigger cities with a functional cab market, but in my little city (Wilmington, DE) the appeal was a ride within 20 minutes at 2am or 6am both. I saw someone wait over 2 hours for a cab that they scheduled where I work. They pretty much onky show up for airport runs, and you can get them at the train station, maybe a hotel if they have a good relationship with a driver.
It's perfectly fair to say that sharing a house is a livable condition.
It'd be a struggle to do that (or even impossible) on 20k year where I live (and cover any unexpected costs and save for retirement), but I'd say living in an unshared life is a luxury pretty far up the list.
I bet different scams work better on different people.
What I'd like to see, is now that we have a (presumably) good study that represent today's youth and older people, it'd be cool to do a follow up every decade and see if the numbers change, also see if people's susceptibility to type (new vs old tech) change with age (as in old tech hits youth more, but new tech hits elderly).
Presumably it would be money well spent even since the results could be used to improve training and PSA style spending, and reduce total fraud with less spending.
We picture the elderly as the primary targets and victims (we being you (based on your comment) and I), but maybe that's simply prejudice. Maybe the reality is that Youth are actually the ones primarily being victimized AND that educating them better will by virtue lead to a better educated elderly population in the long run. Campaign to educate the elderly could actually be wasted money with minimal impact.
I didn't mean because they'll go to the shoot of hard knocks.
My point was simply that a smart 13 year old can be taught avoid scams, but no matter the upbringing, by 60, that skill will exist.
Young people need to rely on their upbringing to avoid scams, old people don't. So the older cohort will always have an edge.
Without being able to check the scam success rate on today's 60 year olds in the 70s, we'll never be able to compare. We could track today's youth though and try to quantity how scammability shifts with age.
I've had a few travel routers, and they all have this wear off pretty quick. Not to say a device could do it in a way that it won't wear off, but they tended to in my experience.
It looks like the law allows for the simple default plus forced change though (that's what I get for not reading TFS).
I want to be able to hard reset my device and get it setup without a reference. I don't want losing the paper where I wrote it's default password to brick the device on a hard reset.
It's more challenging better to have am easy default, and force a change of password during the setup.
I'm not convinced the consumer will always pay more:
1) for "Free" services (YouTube, Facebook, etc.) the consumer is paying every penny that can possibly be extracted from selling them ads etc (for example in the US, Facebook makes about $13/month/user) 2) for ISPs without competition (all of them), the price charged is the highest they can get away with 3) for pay services (Netflix, YoutTube Red etc) likely the costs will pass on.
It's unlikely that companies in group 1 can pass on any of the expense for companies in group 2, maybe a price hike using it as an excuse, but they are likely already charging close to the most they can without losing too many customers.
The companies in group 3 will pass on their cost to customers if they aren't already in a situation where they are making tons and tons because of near monopoly in whatever they do (HBO and Netflix maybe with their original content?).
If the content providers shoulder the cost, consumers will pay some of it.
If the ISPs shoulder the cost, likely consumers will pay very little of it.
If people are working full time and on SNAP, WIC, or Medicare, the job does not in fact pay decently.
You describe buying a condo in an average city on two incomes, that sounds like you're 50-100 percent above current minimim wage, and not the type of job I'm describing
I specifically qualified that I meant jobs that don't support the worker as jobs that shouldn't exist (either do to higher pay, or automation).
I want increased minimum wage, because I want non productive jobs to be automated (non productive in the sense that working that job doesn't support the worker).
I doubt it, this is about either paying people enough, or automating them away.
It's about halting the subsidy on jobs that should either pay more, or not exist.
It's from the perspective that jobs should be enough to live on (there is fair debate that maybe that isn't the case, but it's the premise of the law).
Slashdot Mirror
I can just type what I want to watch on my phone and hit cast?
Or do I need another remote, and another box, and another HDMI hole to use it nicely on my TV?
Also,
unlike a cab company, Uber allows for people to pick up busy times with cars that have other primary purposes.
Here there's sufficient demand about 2 hours in the morning, 2 in the afternoon during the week, and then 2 hours in the evening and 2 in the late night during the weekend.
It'd unlikely a sufficient number of cabs to meet demand could be cars with that as their only intent.
Or if they did, they'd be too expensive, having only 4 busy hours a day.
Taxis never cost more than Uber/Lyft where I live.
They also would never show up when called. Uber/Lyft made a huge difference here. I don't really know what the appeal was in bigger cities with a functional cab market, but in my little city (Wilmington, DE) the appeal was a ride within 20 minutes at 2am or 6am both. I saw someone wait over 2 hours for a cab that they scheduled where I work. They pretty much onky show up for airport runs, and you can get them at the train station, maybe a hotel if they have a good relationship with a driver.
I don't think these two sentiments are at odds.
It's perfectly fair to say that sharing a house is a livable condition.
It'd be a struggle to do that (or even impossible) on 20k year where I live (and cover any unexpected costs and save for retirement), but I'd say living in an unshared life is a luxury pretty far up the list.
If Xfinity on demand worked as smoothly as Netflix or Hulu, I'd likely have cable
I bet different scams work better on different people.
What I'd like to see, is now that we have a (presumably) good study that represent today's youth and older people, it'd be cool to do a follow up every decade and see if the numbers change, also see if people's susceptibility to type (new vs old tech) change with age (as in old tech hits youth more, but new tech hits elderly).
Presumably it would be money well spent even since the results could be used to improve training and PSA style spending, and reduce total fraud with less spending.
We picture the elderly as the primary targets and victims (we being you (based on your comment) and I), but maybe that's simply prejudice. Maybe the reality is that Youth are actually the ones primarily being victimized AND that educating them better will by virtue lead to a better educated elderly population in the long run. Campaign to educate the elderly could actually be wasted money with minimal impact.
Yeah, I did too.
I didn't mean because they'll go to the shoot of hard knocks.
My point was simply that a smart 13 year old can be taught avoid scams, but no matter the upbringing, by 60, that skill will exist.
Young people need to rely on their upbringing to avoid scams, old people don't. So the older cohort will always have an edge.
Without being able to check the scam success rate on today's 60 year olds in the 70s, we'll never be able to compare. We could track today's youth though and try to quantity how scammability shifts with age.
So you believe that one should be attacked for walking down the street naked ?
Obviously it's not safe behavior, bit why do you think it shouldn't be?
I've lived in West Philly, and I love in Wilmington Delaware now.
Crime in Philly has indeed dropped, Wilmington I wouldn't necessarily bet on for the last decade anyway.
Just my feelings in the rougher spots though, don't have real stats.
And a smart person with a bad upbringing will learn to not get scammed because of life.
So for any birth year, the number of people from that birth year that are easy targets declines every year.
Or are saying that every Boomer has an excellent upbringing and none learned from life?
If the process was send it firmware, then push the button.
The window would be incredibly short. I'd argue short enough as to be zero risk.
Someone would have to upload a new firmware between the person setting it up uploaded one, and when they pushed the button.
Just require a physical touch to begin the initial setup process.
I've had a few travel routers, and they all have this wear off pretty quick. Not to say a device could do it in a way that it won't wear off, but they tended to in my experience.
It looks like the law allows for the simple default plus forced change though (that's what I get for not reading TFS).
I like easy default passwords.
I want to be able to hard reset my device and get it setup without a reference. I don't want losing the paper where I wrote it's default password to brick the device on a hard reset.
It's more challenging better to have am easy default, and force a change of password during the setup.
I'm not convinced the consumer will always pay more:
1) for "Free" services (YouTube, Facebook, etc.) the consumer is paying every penny that can possibly be extracted from selling them ads etc (for example in the US, Facebook makes about $13/month/user)
2) for ISPs without competition (all of them), the price charged is the highest they can get away with
3) for pay services (Netflix, YoutTube Red etc) likely the costs will pass on.
It's unlikely that companies in group 1 can pass on any of the expense
for companies in group 2, maybe a price hike using it as an excuse, but they are likely already charging close to the most they can without losing too many customers.
The companies in group 3 will pass on their cost to customers if they aren't already in a situation where they are making tons and tons because of near monopoly in whatever they do (HBO and Netflix maybe with their original content?).
If the content providers shoulder the cost, consumers will pay some of it.
If the ISPs shoulder the cost, likely consumers will pay very little of it.
If people are working full time and on SNAP, WIC, or Medicare, the job does not in fact pay decently.
You describe buying a condo in an average city on two incomes, that sounds like you're 50-100 percent above current minimim wage, and not the type of job I'm describing
I specifically qualified that I meant jobs that don't support the worker as jobs that shouldn't exist (either do to higher pay, or automation).
I agree.
I want increased minimum wage, because I want non productive jobs to be automated (non productive in the sense that working that job doesn't support the worker).
He doesn't earn 260 million a day.
He has unrealized capital gains approaching that, but capital gains are generally considered unearned.
I doubt it, this is about either paying people enough, or automating them away.
It's about halting the subsidy on jobs that should either pay more, or not exist.
It's from the perspective that jobs should be enough to live on (there is fair debate that maybe that isn't the case, but it's the premise of the law).
Based on the contract for government cloud, it seems like they do indeed have some allies in DC.
Unless one is holding all of their money in locked up physical cash, the exponential part is pretty much taken care of.
I'd say less than 5 is "slight" inflation, though that's getting a touch high.
What do you use to save your money that suffers from inflation?
You do realize that slight inflation is pretty good for everyone right?
Sure it was pretty had for a minute in the 70s, but the trend in USD is not particularly bad, and it's more stable that pretty much any other good.
I'm really hoping for an old AI.
Version 1.x was awesome. Slightly interactive notifications and an accessory to my phone.
Then people cried that you couldn't type on it and they made it terrible. Ffs, all of the sudden they pushed me to the play store on the watch.
If it can fast charge to 50%, then you can get 150 miles per half hour charge up to 1500 miles, seems nice.
I'm more interested in being able to do 600 miles in a reasonable at home 12 hour charge though.
I'd be willing to bet they use 3 times the storage for 1/3 the battery size, and allow 50% for leveling/marking dead cells.
This would allow for double the fast charge range.