First environmentalists caused global warming by blocking CO2 free nuclear power
Nice bit of scapegoating you have there. I'm sure the fossil fuel industry had nothing at all to do with it. I'm sure catastrophic events like Chernobyl had nothing to do with it. I'm sure the fact that we still don't have a good way to deal with the waste problem had nothing to do with it.
People are afraid of radiation. Solve that and I'm sure they'll be fine with nuclear power.
then they starve us to death by blocking GMO foods...
They aren't blocked where I live. Hunger has a funny way of getting people to cease worrying about such silliness anyway.
Milk in this context does NOT mean what you think it does.
Unless they are talking about secretions from the mammary gland of a mammal then they are not talking about milk so I don't know where you are going with this argument.
They are not talking about something for your decafe latte
It may not be everyone's cup of milk, but for years now, some researchers believe insect milk, like cockroach milk
Any substance that did not come from the mammary gland of a mammal is by definition not milk. If it is derived from plants or nuts it is JUICE. This includes soy "milk", almond "milk" and all the other forms of juice that asshat marketing people keep trying to claim are milk instead of juice. If it comes from insects I have no idea what that is but it is NOT milk.
I didn't see any mention of per capita in that article.
You seem to have missed the point. Domestic cats kill 4 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more birds than wind turbines. Two orders of magnitude more birds die from flying into STATIC towers than are killed by rotor blades. There is NO evidence that wind turbines present any meaningfully increased risk to birds especially given that there is zero chance of there ever being as many wind turbines as there are cell towers.
What little information I found on the subject when I looked into it pointed to lobbying by special interest groups interested in protecting birds.
Which is one of the more bullshit arguments one can make against wind power since wind turbines kill rather few birds. Cell phone towers actually kill far more birds than wind turbines do but I don't see people complaining about those. And cats kill orders of magnitude more birds than wind turbines.
From the link "Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually — a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, according to the peer-reviewed study by two federal scientists and the environmental consulting firm West Inc."
It wasn't Trump, it was Pence and Pompeo who threatened North Korea with a Libyan outcome.
A distinction without a difference. Trump wants to play emperor then he gets to take responsibility for what happens on his watch too. Not just the bits he likes.
SpaceX is independent and makes their own decisions. They just happen to have written a screw the feds contract that brings more money in.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. I run a small manufacturing company and I've build products for government contracts. I also happen to be a certified accountant. The amount of administrative burden for a government job can in some cases easily double the cost. Particularly for military work. While I'm not privy to the inner workings of SpaceX, I could see a military launch easily adding many millions of dollars of administrative costs for legitimate reasons not controlled by SpaceX.
Now I know that a bunch of your are thinking that this is government inefficiency at work (and sometimes it is) but most of the time it is simply procedures put in place to ensure the government actually gets what they are paying for. These procedures are developed based on previous experiences. Private enterprise routinely tries to screw the government as hard as possible (and they often succeed) and government fights back by making extremely detailed requirements to ensure that doesn't happen or to at least minimize the problem. It's not an easy problem to solve especially when the number of qualified suppliers for a complicated product (like a rocket) are few.
One of the more far-fetched theories is that Nessie is a long-necked plesiosaur that somehow survived the period when dinosaurs became extinct. Another theory is that the monster is actually a sturgeon or giant catfish. Many believe the sightings are hoaxes or can be explained by floating logs or strong winds.
There is no giant monster. It's a nice little fun story based on no actual credible evidence but it does bring in tourism dollars. (gee wonder why they keep the story going... $$$) It's fed by the same sorts of idiots who buy into conspiracy theories, bigfoot sightings, and who forget what the U in UFO stands for. The notion that it could be some sort of plesiosaur is just absurd because there would have to be a population of them and that would be impossible to hide even in an ocean much less 7.5 km^3 of water. It's people seeing what they want to see. Nothing more.
How many crashes happen every day because of humans? Yes I know it is sad, no one wants bad things to happen. But in the long run this is going to save far more lives than take.
Several problems with that argument. 1) you are assuming people are rational when they aren't. 2) People don't care much about the long run. They especially don't care when they are afraid of something (see nuclear power). 3) Your claim that it will save lives is at this point pure conjecture albeit based on reasonable logic. We don't actually have any proof that self driving tech does or will save lives. 4) Certain high profile companies are pushing the technology out there in some arguably irresponsible ways. 5) People tend to trust people more than they trust machines even when that makes no logical sense.
There's the powerful counterpoint of course that those vehicles actually exist, the $35k Tesla 3 does not in production quantities and is sliding further into the future with every announcement.
The Ioniq EV sold 6797 units last year globally. Tesla delivered more Model 3s than that last QUARTER and is accelerating production. In fact Tesla delivered more Model 3s than the Chevy Bolt and Nissan Lead COMBINED in Jan and Feb this year. Right now Tesla is delivering around 2800 Model 3s per week.
By the time I can walk into a Tesla dealer (especially in the UK as the RHD will be even further behind) and buy a standard Tesla 3, there will be probably another 2 major updates to that Ioniq. And maybe Ford etc will have their hands properly in play.
That's a nice little fantasy story you are telling yourself. You do know Ford is literally stopping production of almost all non-truck vehicles right? And you think the Ioniq is going to magically be redesigned massively to compete on range with the Tesla?
Which suggests that all those people who "only" buy the $35k model (expensive for a car, still!) are second-class customers whose business alone can't sustain the company, whether or not they are early adopters, first in the queue, etc. etc.
You fail Cost Accounting 101. Tesla invested a huge sum of money up front to build an assembly line. To recoup that cost you have to sell a lot of units. The fastest way to get out of the red is to sell the units with the highest margins first. If you don't get out of the red then the company experiences an opportunity cost having the money tied up in capital equipment that it could put to better use elsewhere.
You shouldn't be using CAR SALES to pay for the CAR ASSEMBLY LINE. That's what all those millions in investment were for.
You have no idea how manufacturing actually works do you? The ONLY thing that will pay for that assembly line is sales and that is true for every product from any company. The investors money isn't a gift and it has to be repaid. Doesn't matter if the money to build the line came from the company savings or from outside investors. The only difference is the cost of capital. You have to sell product to pay for it and capital tooling expenses get paid for over periods of years. Any company that doesn't serve their highest margin customers first is monumentally stupid. Furthermore Tesla was up front that this was EXACTLY what they were going to do.
It's just frustrating. I don't want to go back to fossil, but I need more range. The Leaf 40 is a disaster, and who knows if the 60 will be any better.
So buy a Chevy Bolt or a Volt. Both have much better range than the Leaf and are decent cars in their own right. The Leaf is a car that is useful for short commutes and that's it. If you need more then buy something else.
that maybe so, that won't make the average punter who forked out the $1000 to support Tesla and reserve their $35k any happier that they are being given the arse end of the deal.
If anyone plunked down a deposit expecting to not have to wait a long time then they are idiots. 1) Tesla ALWAYS over promises delivery dates and routinely misses them. This is nothing new. 2) Tesla has ZERO experience with production at this volume. There is a learning curve. 3) If you buy the "cheap" model then you aren't their best customer and you should expect to go to the back of the line. Every business serves their best customers first. 4) A car received later is better than a car not received at all. 5) Tesla was up front that the pimped out models would be delivered first. Almost everyone has had to wait a little longer than hoped for.
There's a very obvious difference between the Playstation hardware (you know, the stuff everyone else here is talking about) and the Playstation business unit (which only you are talking about).
A distinction without a difference. There is no Playstation without both the hardware and software. It's an integrated product. You can't meaningfully talk about one without the other. The fact that they don't try to make a profit on the base console is IRRELEVANT because that isn't their business model. To argue that Sony makes no money on the Playstation hardware requires you to narrow the scope of your accounting analysis so narrow as to render it meaningless. (I should know because I'm a certified accountant)
It is a verifiable fact that at launch, Sony lost money on every Playstation 4 sold,
Sigh... When was the last time anyone bought a Playstation console and nothing else? Oh that's right... never. It's a razors and blades model. They make a ton of money on the hardware - just not up front. The hardware is useless by itself. Talking about the component cost of the Playstation hardware is near as makes no difference a meaningless discussion unless it is part of a broader conversation about the entire business model for the product.
The latest generations of Xbox have also allowed the Xbox division to become a profitable unit within Microsoft as well, despite them also selling their console hardware
Microsoft spent years losing billions of dollars trying to buy their way to success. I can't be bothered to check to see if they've finally recouped their investment. Presumably they have by now but they were deep in the red for a very long time. Only their deep pockets allowed them to stay the course.
Keeping their best sensors and lowest defect sensors for their own cameras.
Even if that were true (and you haven't established that it is) so what? I don't see why that is a problem.
Sony's best phone, with a _much_ better sensor then is in the iPhones..
Several problems with that argument. 1) You have no idea if Apple actually wanted that sensor given their other design parameters. 2) It's not clear if the sensor was available early enough in Apple's design process. 3) You have no idea if Sony was ready to produce the sensor in the volumes Apple would need (WAY more than Sony sells under their own brand). Ramping production up to Apple volumes is not a trivial endeavor and there are lead times involved. 4) Apple is their largest customer for their camera sensors - it is unlikely Sony is going to piss off Apple especially with Samsung making noises about becoming a big player in the camera sensor market. I suspect if Apple wants that sensor or any other sensor Sony makes they'll get it. 5) It's not a dual camera sensor so there are design tradeoffs to consider. It's also not immediately clear for which use cases the MotionEye sensor might be superior.
There is also more to it than just the sensor, hence why Nikon can obtain higher image quality than Sony at times.
Nikon uses a lot of Sony sensors though they seem to be trying to get away from that. You are right that other things matter to the final image (including lenses especially). But outside of some specialty lenses, Sony has cameras and lenses that equal or sometimes surpass the offerings that Nikon has these days. Sony's A9 and A7-3 and A7-R3 cameras are remarkable pieces of kit that are kind of game changers along with their G-Master glass. I'm not saying Sony cameras get better results than Nikon - I'm just saying they are roughly at parity for most use cases. You could buy either one and get really good results.
I think Nikon as a company is kind of in trouble actually. They have fallen behind Sony on sensor tech and mirrorless cameras (which are replacing SLRs) as well as some other important technology in areas like autofocus. Nikon is also reluctant to cannibalize their DSLR sales and has less budget to throw into R&D than Sony (or Canon for that matter). They're kind of living on their existing user base and most of the really interesting new tech is coming from Sony. I don't have anything against Nikon and I quite like some of their gear but I'm worried that they may not be able to keep pace with Sony if they don't get a really compelling mirrorless camera out there that is competitive with the A7-III.
That doesn't mean they're making any money from it.
Sony has made plenty of profit from the Playstation. You should check your facts more carefully. In 2016 the Playstation division accounted for 3/4 of Sony's profits for the whole corporation.
The PlayStation hardware was sold at a significant loss
The Playstation has been a significant cash cow for Sony for quite a few years now. Microsoft tried to buy into the market with Xbox but Sony has been making money on Playstation for a long time.
Their second tier sensor...to get Sony's best sensor in a cell phone you have to buy a Sony phone.
Unless you can provide evidence I'm calling bullshit. Apple is Sony's largest customer for camera sensors by a fair margin. I'm pretty sure they are getting whatever sensor Apple wants.
Do the same for the Boeing, but put a little LED right next to it so they won't miss it in the dark.
Not a bad idea but it creates a new issue. Namely how do you tell the indicator is working if the LED malfunctions? Instruments are generally quite reliable but not 100%. That's a fundamental issue with any status indicator - false positives or worse, false negatives. The problem can be with the device or the indicator and it can be difficult to tell which is the problem. The indicators are still worth doing if the failure modes are severe enough but it doesn't completely eliminate the risk.
You have to let corporations fail, and take investors' money with them. But you don't have to let people fail, if you catch my drift.
Corporations are run by people. They fail because the people running them fail. You seem to be making a distinction without a difference but perhaps I don't understand your point. Some people are going to fail and that's ok. Failure in business is rarely permanent or fatal. Have some social safety nets (fully funded of course) but very little of value is ever accomplished without some measure of risk.
Someone profits; tax 'em enough to pay for the upheaval caused by failure.
Most businesses aren't zero sum games, at least not all the time. I don't have to fail for someone else to succeed and vice versa.
Yeah, but there's a good chance they'll cause the next one.
Oh I've got to hear this story. How exactly do you figure the big tech companies are going to throw the world into recession requiring massive bailouts and forcing people out of their homes? Be specific on the causal mechanism.
Slashdot Mirror
First environmentalists caused global warming by blocking CO2 free nuclear power
Nice bit of scapegoating you have there. I'm sure the fossil fuel industry had nothing at all to do with it. I'm sure catastrophic events like Chernobyl had nothing to do with it. I'm sure the fact that we still don't have a good way to deal with the waste problem had nothing to do with it.
People are afraid of radiation. Solve that and I'm sure they'll be fine with nuclear power.
then they starve us to death by blocking GMO foods...
They aren't blocked where I live. Hunger has a funny way of getting people to cease worrying about such silliness anyway.
Milk in this context does NOT mean what you think it does.
Unless they are talking about secretions from the mammary gland of a mammal then they are not talking about milk so I don't know where you are going with this argument.
They are not talking about something for your decafe latte
No shit...
It may not be everyone's cup of milk, but for years now, some researchers believe insect milk, like cockroach milk
Any substance that did not come from the mammary gland of a mammal is by definition not milk. If it is derived from plants or nuts it is JUICE. This includes soy "milk", almond "milk" and all the other forms of juice that asshat marketing people keep trying to claim are milk instead of juice. If it comes from insects I have no idea what that is but it is NOT milk.
I didn't see any mention of per capita in that article.
You seem to have missed the point. Domestic cats kill 4 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more birds than wind turbines. Two orders of magnitude more birds die from flying into STATIC towers than are killed by rotor blades. There is NO evidence that wind turbines present any meaningfully increased risk to birds especially given that there is zero chance of there ever being as many wind turbines as there are cell towers.
What little information I found on the subject when I looked into it pointed to lobbying by special interest groups interested in protecting birds.
Which is one of the more bullshit arguments one can make against wind power since wind turbines kill rather few birds. Cell phone towers actually kill far more birds than wind turbines do but I don't see people complaining about those. And cats kill orders of magnitude more birds than wind turbines.
From the link
"Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually — a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, according to the peer-reviewed study by two federal scientists and the environmental consulting firm West Inc."
Amazon takes privacy very seriously.
Evidently not if an occurrence like this was even possible.
We investigated what happened and determined this was an extremely rare occurrence.
"Extremely rare"? That implies this has happened more than once. That's more than a little disturbing.
I'm feeling pretty good about not buying any of these wiretapp... err, personal assistant devices.
It wasn't Trump, it was Pence and Pompeo who threatened North Korea with a Libyan outcome.
A distinction without a difference. Trump wants to play emperor then he gets to take responsibility for what happens on his watch too. Not just the bits he likes.
All he had to do is keep his mouth shut and let South Korea do the heavy lifting... But noooooo....
Right because if there is one thing Trump is good at it's keeping his mouth shut.
We're admitting that simply having the cops show up is so inherently dangerous that it constitutes a reckless disregard for human life.
Anyone in the US who does not have white skin already knew that.
SpaceX is independent and makes their own decisions. They just happen to have written a screw the feds contract that brings more money in.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. I run a small manufacturing company and I've build products for government contracts. I also happen to be a certified accountant. The amount of administrative burden for a government job can in some cases easily double the cost. Particularly for military work. While I'm not privy to the inner workings of SpaceX, I could see a military launch easily adding many millions of dollars of administrative costs for legitimate reasons not controlled by SpaceX.
Now I know that a bunch of your are thinking that this is government inefficiency at work (and sometimes it is) but most of the time it is simply procedures put in place to ensure the government actually gets what they are paying for. These procedures are developed based on previous experiences. Private enterprise routinely tries to screw the government as hard as possible (and they often succeed) and government fights back by making extremely detailed requirements to ensure that doesn't happen or to at least minimize the problem. It's not an easy problem to solve especially when the number of qualified suppliers for a complicated product (like a rocket) are few.
One of the more far-fetched theories is that Nessie is a long-necked plesiosaur that somehow survived the period when dinosaurs became extinct. Another theory is that the monster is actually a sturgeon or giant catfish. Many believe the sightings are hoaxes or can be explained by floating logs or strong winds.
There is no giant monster. It's a nice little fun story based on no actual credible evidence but it does bring in tourism dollars. (gee wonder why they keep the story going... $$$) It's fed by the same sorts of idiots who buy into conspiracy theories, bigfoot sightings, and who forget what the U in UFO stands for. The notion that it could be some sort of plesiosaur is just absurd because there would have to be a population of them and that would be impossible to hide even in an ocean much less 7.5 km^3 of water. It's people seeing what they want to see. Nothing more.
Neither are available here.
I have no idea where you are but I'll guess Europe. If so buy a Renault Zoe. Or a BMW i3 with a range extender.
How many crashes happen every day because of humans? Yes I know it is sad, no one wants bad things to happen. But in the long run this is going to save far more lives than take.
Several problems with that argument. 1) you are assuming people are rational when they aren't. 2) People don't care much about the long run. They especially don't care when they are afraid of something (see nuclear power). 3) Your claim that it will save lives is at this point pure conjecture albeit based on reasonable logic. We don't actually have any proof that self driving tech does or will save lives. 4) Certain high profile companies are pushing the technology out there in some arguably irresponsible ways. 5) People tend to trust people more than they trust machines even when that makes no logical sense.
There's the powerful counterpoint of course that those vehicles actually exist, the $35k Tesla 3 does not in production quantities and is sliding further into the future with every announcement.
The Ioniq EV sold 6797 units last year globally. Tesla delivered more Model 3s than that last QUARTER and is accelerating production. In fact Tesla delivered more Model 3s than the Chevy Bolt and Nissan Lead COMBINED in Jan and Feb this year. Right now Tesla is delivering around 2800 Model 3s per week.
By the time I can walk into a Tesla dealer (especially in the UK as the RHD will be even further behind) and buy a standard Tesla 3, there will be probably another 2 major updates to that Ioniq. And maybe Ford etc will have their hands properly in play.
That's a nice little fantasy story you are telling yourself. You do know Ford is literally stopping production of almost all non-truck vehicles right? And you think the Ioniq is going to magically be redesigned massively to compete on range with the Tesla?
Which suggests that all those people who "only" buy the $35k model (expensive for a car, still!) are second-class customers whose business alone can't sustain the company, whether or not they are early adopters, first in the queue, etc. etc.
You fail Cost Accounting 101. Tesla invested a huge sum of money up front to build an assembly line. To recoup that cost you have to sell a lot of units. The fastest way to get out of the red is to sell the units with the highest margins first. If you don't get out of the red then the company experiences an opportunity cost having the money tied up in capital equipment that it could put to better use elsewhere.
You shouldn't be using CAR SALES to pay for the CAR ASSEMBLY LINE. That's what all those millions in investment were for.
You have no idea how manufacturing actually works do you? The ONLY thing that will pay for that assembly line is sales and that is true for every product from any company. The investors money isn't a gift and it has to be repaid. Doesn't matter if the money to build the line came from the company savings or from outside investors. The only difference is the cost of capital. You have to sell product to pay for it and capital tooling expenses get paid for over periods of years. Any company that doesn't serve their highest margin customers first is monumentally stupid. Furthermore Tesla was up front that this was EXACTLY what they were going to do.
It's just frustrating. I don't want to go back to fossil, but I need more range. The Leaf 40 is a disaster, and who knows if the 60 will be any better.
So buy a Chevy Bolt or a Volt. Both have much better range than the Leaf and are decent cars in their own right. The Leaf is a car that is useful for short commutes and that's it. If you need more then buy something else.
that maybe so, that won't make the average punter who forked out the $1000 to support Tesla and reserve their $35k any happier that they are being given the arse end of the deal.
If anyone plunked down a deposit expecting to not have to wait a long time then they are idiots. 1) Tesla ALWAYS over promises delivery dates and routinely misses them. This is nothing new. 2) Tesla has ZERO experience with production at this volume. There is a learning curve. 3) If you buy the "cheap" model then you aren't their best customer and you should expect to go to the back of the line. Every business serves their best customers first. 4) A car received later is better than a car not received at all. 5) Tesla was up front that the pimped out models would be delivered first. Almost everyone has had to wait a little longer than hoped for.
There's a very obvious difference between the Playstation hardware (you know, the stuff everyone else here is talking about) and the Playstation business unit (which only you are talking about).
A distinction without a difference. There is no Playstation without both the hardware and software. It's an integrated product. You can't meaningfully talk about one without the other. The fact that they don't try to make a profit on the base console is IRRELEVANT because that isn't their business model. To argue that Sony makes no money on the Playstation hardware requires you to narrow the scope of your accounting analysis so narrow as to render it meaningless. (I should know because I'm a certified accountant)
It is a verifiable fact that at launch, Sony lost money on every Playstation 4 sold,
Sigh... When was the last time anyone bought a Playstation console and nothing else? Oh that's right... never. It's a razors and blades model. They make a ton of money on the hardware - just not up front. The hardware is useless by itself. Talking about the component cost of the Playstation hardware is near as makes no difference a meaningless discussion unless it is part of a broader conversation about the entire business model for the product.
The latest generations of Xbox have also allowed the Xbox division to become a profitable unit within Microsoft as well, despite them also selling their console hardware
Microsoft spent years losing billions of dollars trying to buy their way to success. I can't be bothered to check to see if they've finally recouped their investment. Presumably they have by now but they were deep in the red for a very long time. Only their deep pockets allowed them to stay the course.
Keeping their best sensors and lowest defect sensors for their own cameras.
Even if that were true (and you haven't established that it is) so what? I don't see why that is a problem.
Sony's best phone, with a _much_ better sensor then is in the iPhones..
Several problems with that argument. 1) You have no idea if Apple actually wanted that sensor given their other design parameters. 2) It's not clear if the sensor was available early enough in Apple's design process. 3) You have no idea if Sony was ready to produce the sensor in the volumes Apple would need (WAY more than Sony sells under their own brand). Ramping production up to Apple volumes is not a trivial endeavor and there are lead times involved. 4) Apple is their largest customer for their camera sensors - it is unlikely Sony is going to piss off Apple especially with Samsung making noises about becoming a big player in the camera sensor market. I suspect if Apple wants that sensor or any other sensor Sony makes they'll get it. 5) It's not a dual camera sensor so there are design tradeoffs to consider. It's also not immediately clear for which use cases the MotionEye sensor might be superior.
There is also more to it than just the sensor, hence why Nikon can obtain higher image quality than Sony at times.
Nikon uses a lot of Sony sensors though they seem to be trying to get away from that. You are right that other things matter to the final image (including lenses especially). But outside of some specialty lenses, Sony has cameras and lenses that equal or sometimes surpass the offerings that Nikon has these days. Sony's A9 and A7-3 and A7-R3 cameras are remarkable pieces of kit that are kind of game changers along with their G-Master glass. I'm not saying Sony cameras get better results than Nikon - I'm just saying they are roughly at parity for most use cases. You could buy either one and get really good results.
I think Nikon as a company is kind of in trouble actually. They have fallen behind Sony on sensor tech and mirrorless cameras (which are replacing SLRs) as well as some other important technology in areas like autofocus. Nikon is also reluctant to cannibalize their DSLR sales and has less budget to throw into R&D than Sony (or Canon for that matter). They're kind of living on their existing user base and most of the really interesting new tech is coming from Sony. I don't have anything against Nikon and I quite like some of their gear but I'm worried that they may not be able to keep pace with Sony if they don't get a really compelling mirrorless camera out there that is competitive with the A7-III.
That doesn't mean they're making any money from it.
Sony has made plenty of profit from the Playstation. You should check your facts more carefully. In 2016 the Playstation division accounted for 3/4 of Sony's profits for the whole corporation.
The PlayStation hardware was sold at a significant loss
The Playstation has been a significant cash cow for Sony for quite a few years now. Microsoft tried to buy into the market with Xbox but Sony has been making money on Playstation for a long time.
Their second tier sensor...to get Sony's best sensor in a cell phone you have to buy a Sony phone.
Unless you can provide evidence I'm calling bullshit. Apple is Sony's largest customer for camera sensors by a fair margin. I'm pretty sure they are getting whatever sensor Apple wants.
Sony is up to their old tricks.
And which tricks do you figure those are?
Do the same for the Boeing, but put a little LED right next to it so they won't miss it in the dark.
Not a bad idea but it creates a new issue. Namely how do you tell the indicator is working if the LED malfunctions? Instruments are generally quite reliable but not 100%. That's a fundamental issue with any status indicator - false positives or worse, false negatives. The problem can be with the device or the indicator and it can be difficult to tell which is the problem. The indicators are still worth doing if the failure modes are severe enough but it doesn't completely eliminate the risk.
You have to let corporations fail, and take investors' money with them. But you don't have to let people fail, if you catch my drift.
Corporations are run by people. They fail because the people running them fail. You seem to be making a distinction without a difference but perhaps I don't understand your point. Some people are going to fail and that's ok. Failure in business is rarely permanent or fatal. Have some social safety nets (fully funded of course) but very little of value is ever accomplished without some measure of risk.
Someone profits; tax 'em enough to pay for the upheaval caused by failure.
Most businesses aren't zero sum games, at least not all the time. I don't have to fail for someone else to succeed and vice versa.
Yeah, but there's a good chance they'll cause the next one.
Oh I've got to hear this story. How exactly do you figure the big tech companies are going to throw the world into recession requiring massive bailouts and forcing people out of their homes? Be specific on the causal mechanism.