I took a brief look at truck-driving job ads, pay seems to top off at $75k if you're using their truck, and these are numbers offered by the company so you can expect it to be somewhat inflated.
Moreover, all of them require previous experience so a newbie is going to have a hard time landing that first job. Now if they were really hurting for drivers, they'd offer training.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the limitations of space travel. Let's say I'm on Triton. Solar panels provides 0.1% of the energy than it does near Earth. How am I going to turn all that water I mine into hydrolox fuel?
And just for the record, all nuclear engines have extremely high Isp.
I spend a lot less time worrying about when and where to charge, and whether I need to take a different car that day because the LEAF won't go far enough.
The 2018 Leaf has a 150 mi range, so I don't see what you need to worry about (or if you still do, you're probably better off with a plug-in hybrid). Comparing cars from similar times, the Leaf is still on top given it's less than half the price.
As for the "nicer experience", that's highly subjective. Some people might say the sound of a roaring V8 is a nicer experience. Is it worth an extra $50,000? Yes, but only to people like you who have money to burn.
He promises 1000. Delivers 900. Everyone focuses on falling short of the target by 100. While forgeting that 900 is 900 above what every one said is impossible.
I'd like a source on the "everyone said is impossible". The 2010 Nissan Leaf with 70 miles of range sold for $25,000. Buying 3 of them and strapping them together will get you the same 200 miles of range for the same price as a Tesla. And this was in 2010! What Tesla did was spend 8 years and billions of dollars to end up in the same place as Nissan, albeit with much greater fanfare. Is that really something to be proud of?
Nothing short of nuclear propulsion is going to get meaningful numbers of humans off the planet. Just the mass of a million humans is orders of magnitude greater than what existing rockets can carry, not to mention what you need to keep all of them alive. SpaceX is not going to change that by making incremental improvements.
Now I don't dispute that SpaceX is doing cool stuff, but the idea that it'll get us to self-sustaining Mars colonies is far fetched, technically, economically or politically.
The number of people who actually evaluate the stocks they buy is minimal. By far the largest investments are retirement funds, many of which are unmanaged. Every person with a retirement account is putting a few hundred dollars every month towards all stocks. Now multiply it by a few hundred million people and you have a recipe for extremely overvalued stocks.
1. Driving an ICE car (least green)
2. Driving an electric car
3. Taking the bus
4. Biking / walking
5. Video conference / VR
6. Hikikomori / NEET
7. Killing yourself
And of course...
8. Killing other people (most green)
So the Koch Brothers are pretty green all things considered, they're quite happy to help with #7 and #8.
In all likelihood, he will take Tesla private, and most likely under the terms he sketches out in his initial tweets... he pretty much does what he says he's going to do, no matter how fantastical it sounds...eventually.
I don't think you can claim it until that "eventually" comes to pass. I seem to recall him promising a $35,000 full electric car, LEO launch costs of $5-6 million, and Mars one-way ticket for $200,000... none of which has happened yet.
Note how all of those are promises with actual dollar amounts. The stuff he says he'll do for X will simply not be done for X, which in cases such as reusable rockets might be fine, but not when it pertains to the stock price.
Simple: consumers in the health care market is price insensitive. Most have insurance, which will pay for everything, so they pick whichever hospital is the most convenient. Yes, that increases costs for everyone in the long run, but it's a tragedy of the commons situation.
Others might also have no choice. They may not be in a healthy enough state where they can spend time figuring out which hospital is going to be the best cost-wise.
And then there's the problem that hospitals don't list prices. Most people only know the stay cost $20k after they already left.
So hospitals can charge whatever price they want and still stay in business just fine.
I imagine it's a due to it being associated with teenagers, and not the popular kind either. Of course, tobacco companies are entirely happy to keep promoting that image as well.
Personally I couldn't care less about vapers unless they're blowing smoke in my face.
Do you really think gamers and scientists are trying to eliminate non-white people? Because that's who the far left are going after. They've gone so far left even the socialists are "far right" to them.
"Women do not like confrontation or long hours"
I challenge you to find any half-decent studies showing a meaningful difference between women and men on their preference for confrontation or working long hours.
How would having at least one woman on every board cause this profound damage?
Ah, one can always rely on you to come up with some sort of defense for SJW bullshit.
Unfortunately though, that's not what the law says:
On or before December 31, 2021, the bill would increase that required minimum number to 2 female directors if the corporation has 5 authorized directors or to 3 female directors if the corporation has 6 or more authorized directors.
That doesn't sound like "at least one woman" to me, it's more like half.
Now I don't know much about corporate boards, but if there's no limit to the number of board members, this bill will still have no effect. Any affected corporation can just increase the number of board members until the 3 women are a tiny minority.
But poorly written bill aside, let's just say the law does force half of those boards to be women. Well, those are currently filled by men, who will now have to leave. Even disregarding any damage that the new, inexperienced board members might do, throwing so many men under the bus is, first of all, unfair (but you couldn't care less about that), and second of all, going to trigger a political backlash. Its passing will instantly convince all the moderates that the liberals are out of control, and they'll do the only thing they can think of that will maintain sanity in this country, which is to vote conservative.
So my question to you is: Do you like Trump? If you do, this is how to get 4 more years of that.
It is has a chance at passing and as a result a chance of being profoundly damaging.
It's not going to be profoundly damaging. At worst companies will "relocate" their headquarters to Delaware. At best it'll be immediately struck down for gender discrimination at the federal level.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess nowadays a multi-billion dollar company can be a startup.
Nope. Uber is a private company and don't need to tell you what their plan is.
I took a brief look at truck-driving job ads, pay seems to top off at $75k if you're using their truck, and these are numbers offered by the company so you can expect it to be somewhat inflated.
Moreover, all of them require previous experience so a newbie is going to have a hard time landing that first job. Now if they were really hurting for drivers, they'd offer training.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the limitations of space travel. Let's say I'm on Triton. Solar panels provides 0.1% of the energy than it does near Earth. How am I going to turn all that water I mine into hydrolox fuel?
And just for the record, all nuclear engines have extremely high Isp.
I spend a lot less time worrying about when and where to charge, and whether I need to take a different car that day because the LEAF won't go far enough.
The 2018 Leaf has a 150 mi range, so I don't see what you need to worry about (or if you still do, you're probably better off with a plug-in hybrid). Comparing cars from similar times, the Leaf is still on top given it's less than half the price.
As for the "nicer experience", that's highly subjective. Some people might say the sound of a roaring V8 is a nicer experience. Is it worth an extra $50,000? Yes, but only to people like you who have money to burn.
What the heck does "local resource utilization" have anything to do with "meaningful numbers of humans off the planet"?
I own one of each, and there is a world of difference between them.
Oh really? How much less time do you spend commuting now that you have the Model S?
Or by "world of difference" you mean its ability to show off how rich you are?
They're actually all inferior to chemical propulsion with local resource utilization.
What does that have to do with anything?
He promises 1000. Delivers 900. Everyone focuses on falling short of the target by 100. While forgeting that 900 is 900 above what every one said is impossible.
I'd like a source on the "everyone said is impossible". The 2010 Nissan Leaf with 70 miles of range sold for $25,000. Buying 3 of them and strapping them together will get you the same 200 miles of range for the same price as a Tesla. And this was in 2010! What Tesla did was spend 8 years and billions of dollars to end up in the same place as Nissan, albeit with much greater fanfare. Is that really something to be proud of?
Nothing short of nuclear propulsion is going to get meaningful numbers of humans off the planet. Just the mass of a million humans is orders of magnitude greater than what existing rockets can carry, not to mention what you need to keep all of them alive. SpaceX is not going to change that by making incremental improvements.
Now I don't dispute that SpaceX is doing cool stuff, but the idea that it'll get us to self-sustaining Mars colonies is far fetched, technically, economically or politically.
The number of people who actually evaluate the stocks they buy is minimal. By far the largest investments are retirement funds, many of which are unmanaged. Every person with a retirement account is putting a few hundred dollars every month towards all stocks. Now multiply it by a few hundred million people and you have a recipe for extremely overvalued stocks.
The scale of greenness goes like this:
1. Driving an ICE car (least green)
2. Driving an electric car
3. Taking the bus
4. Biking / walking
5. Video conference / VR
6. Hikikomori / NEET
7. Killing yourself
And of course...
8. Killing other people (most green)
So the Koch Brothers are pretty green all things considered, they're quite happy to help with #7 and #8.
I must apologize, I had assumed the person on the other end of this conversation has a brain. It seems that I've made a serious misjudgement.
Under $100,000... very impressive!
/sarcasm
Note how all of those are promises with actual dollar amounts. The stuff he says he'll do for X will simply not be done for X
In all likelihood, he will take Tesla private, and most likely under the terms he sketches out in his initial tweets... he pretty much does what he says he's going to do, no matter how fantastical it sounds...eventually.
I don't think you can claim it until that "eventually" comes to pass. I seem to recall him promising a $35,000 full electric car, LEO launch costs of $5-6 million, and Mars one-way ticket for $200,000... none of which has happened yet.
Note how all of those are promises with actual dollar amounts. The stuff he says he'll do for X will simply not be done for X, which in cases such as reusable rockets might be fine, but not when it pertains to the stock price.
Simple: consumers in the health care market is price insensitive. Most have insurance, which will pay for everything, so they pick whichever hospital is the most convenient. Yes, that increases costs for everyone in the long run, but it's a tragedy of the commons situation.
Others might also have no choice. They may not be in a healthy enough state where they can spend time figuring out which hospital is going to be the best cost-wise.
And then there's the problem that hospitals don't list prices. Most people only know the stay cost $20k after they already left.
So hospitals can charge whatever price they want and still stay in business just fine.
I imagine it's a due to it being associated with teenagers, and not the popular kind either. Of course, tobacco companies are entirely happy to keep promoting that image as well.
Personally I couldn't care less about vapers unless they're blowing smoke in my face.
You know, at most companies, there's nothing stopping you from putting in more hours. In fact, they'd be pretty happy about it.
Ordinary women perhaps.
Actually I think ordinary men also want poison-free lakes. But the board of a corporation is not filled with ordinary people.
Do you really think gamers and scientists are trying to eliminate non-white people? Because that's who the far left are going after. They've gone so far left even the socialists are "far right" to them.
"Women do not like confrontation or long hours" I challenge you to find any half-decent studies showing a meaningful difference between women and men on their preference for confrontation or working long hours.
Would the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics be considered "half-decent"?
How would having at least one woman on every board cause this profound damage?
Ah, one can always rely on you to come up with some sort of defense for SJW bullshit.
Unfortunately though, that's not what the law says:
On or before December 31, 2021, the bill would increase that required minimum number to 2 female directors if the corporation has 5 authorized directors or to 3 female directors if the corporation has 6 or more authorized directors.
That doesn't sound like "at least one woman" to me, it's more like half.
Now I don't know much about corporate boards, but if there's no limit to the number of board members, this bill will still have no effect. Any affected corporation can just increase the number of board members until the 3 women are a tiny minority.
But poorly written bill aside, let's just say the law does force half of those boards to be women. Well, those are currently filled by men, who will now have to leave. Even disregarding any damage that the new, inexperienced board members might do, throwing so many men under the bus is, first of all, unfair (but you couldn't care less about that), and second of all, going to trigger a political backlash. Its passing will instantly convince all the moderates that the liberals are out of control, and they'll do the only thing they can think of that will maintain sanity in this country, which is to vote conservative.
So my question to you is: Do you like Trump? If you do, this is how to get 4 more years of that.
Equality is great, unless it's applied unevenly.
Some people are more equal than others.
It is has a chance at passing and as a result a chance of being profoundly damaging.
It's not going to be profoundly damaging. At worst companies will "relocate" their headquarters to Delaware. At best it'll be immediately struck down for gender discrimination at the federal level.