Buying something isn't a debt. A debt is money owed that you can't get out of except by repayment or negotiation.
Buying something can be cancelled by vendor or consumer, until the purchase or contract is complete. A vendor thus can refuse to take cash and cancel or refuse any transaction.
I too believe that every merchant should accept cash. I recently had an issue with U-Haul where literally they would not accept my debit card and only took credit cards. But there is definitely a difference between an incomplete purchase and a debt.
If you swipe something from an Amazon store and run out the door, that's also not a debt. That's theft and a criminal activity.
So I'm sure this is true some places, but seriously, check out credit unions. Most of them are nothing like this.
I just opened a credit union account for $25. My friend with a very poor credit score was able to get a debit card from one with no issues either.
When I was a teenager and had no established credit, they offered me a secured credit card. I had to put $1k in the account and my credit limit was the same $1k.
The whole point of the 737 MAX was to avoid a white board redesign, not because the plane was rushed, but because they wanted to make it similar enough that pilots would not need a new type rating or new training. Unlike you, I disagree that a redesign was necessary--I think the MAX design was sound except for the serious and fatal design flaws in the MCAS system. Boeing is correcting those. Yes, the plane has a positive feedback pitch design, but the plane is perfectly flyable both with and without MCAS, and MCAS eliminates the positive feedback when operating properly.
The main concern I have is what other serious design flaws exist in the plane. I am not happy that the FAA appears to have basically rubber stamped the design.
Clearly, the crash rate of the 737 MAX is very high compared to modern passenger aircraft. The planes should be grounded (and are). There were 88,000 flight hours of the 737 MAX, and 2 crashes. This is roughly 5x higher than the General Aviation crash rate, which is a much higher risk activity.
Once the fundamental problem causing both crashes is resolved, and assuming that we have proper oversight of the overall design, I would have no concern flying on a 737 MAX.
You're correct. Had the jump seat pilot not been present, the Lion Air plane (the first crash) would have crashed the day before. If that happened, I strongly suspect it would not have crashed again the next day.:)
Yes, the AOA sensor was not repaired properly on the Lion Air plane, it was put back into service, and the plane crashed. Unlike the Ethiopian airlines plane, the pilots were not aware of the MCAS system.
The jump seat pilot properly identified a runaway stabilizer condition (caused by MCAS), and by following the procedure for runaway stabilizer (which was unchanged from previous 737 models), prevented the crash.
You missed my point. Everyone in the same area could work at the same time, it just wouldn't have to be 9 to 5. It could be 7 to 3, or whatever is appropriate to that region. They would work the same hours as today, but we could just eliminate the timezone and all use one standard one, such as GMT.
Why must it be this way? What if we all just used one of the timezones (say, GMT), and I knew that the sun rose at approximately 2am instead of 7am? "Standard" working hours could be 4am-12pm in my region, instead of 9-5.
Then we'd all know what time it was everywhere. No need to convert. If we actually needed information like "what time is dinner, what time do you start work, etc", we could just ask those questions.
Flying is routine until it isn't. Planes are essentially balancing in the air. It doesn't take much to make one stop flying, and one momentary loss of attention at the wrong time or improper control input can end very badly. All of this x10 if the Pilots haven't been informed of or trained on the failure scenario they're encountering.
I really *want* to agree with you, because it seems reasonable. We know that Nazis are bad, and we know that anti-vax is wrong. We know that because we've studied the effects of both and they're undesirable.
We also know that exposing people to these concepts will cause them to be sympathetic to them, although I we don't fully understand the scale. In the US, exposing people to Nazi propaganda seems to create a ~9% supportive effect[1], while in Germany in the 20s and 30s it was far higher. The truth is, if you or I were a student in Germany in the 30s, we'd almost certainly be Nazis.
The problem with suppressing wrong/hate speech is that the same argument could be made about Galileo in the 1600s or US racism in the 60s. Let me "quote" you: "Don't let the black man speak at your college, don't allow black content on your social media platform, etc. Letting them debate ideas spreads them to vulnerable people who aren't swayed by logic, and citizens should use their civil liberties and private property rights to deny these debates a venue."
We would be much better off if only correct arguments can be platformed, so that weak people aren't swayed by incorrect arguments. Unfortunately, we don't have a way of perfectly identifying "correct" arguments. Even if we could, "correct" changes over time, as people and cultures change. Life is complex and complicated enough that anyone who thinks they "know with certainty" anything about any complex topic is kidding themselves. If you restrict speech based on what you "know" is right, you will get it wrong some of the time. Furthermore, evil people will come along and use those restrictions as a weapon to create further oppression. History shows us that.
If we seek truth and a better life for all, the best way I've found is to allow people to speak freely, debate, argue, and pick at truth. It's messy and often has horrible outcomes. It causes Measles outbreaks. It allows Nazis to march and alienate people. It allows speech that is utterly hateful to homosexuals and racial groups. It allows speech that marginalizes people of less common attributes (appearance, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, etc). But I'll take all of those downsides in a heartbeat if the alternative is oppression, exploitation, and dictatorships.[2]
I strongly recommend you read "The Gulag Archipelago" from Solzhenitsyn.
No, his point was that "anything over 15 minutes to recharge is terrible" and until that's improved, people will only buy electric cars for "conspicuous consumption", That is incorrect for short and medium range travel, where EV's are more convenient, easier and more fun to drive, and cheaper.
I agree that ICE is significantly better than EV for long range travel, and that opinion is stated in my other posts on this topic. However, that was not the point the OP was making.
As a short-range EV owner, this is not true. I no longer have to go to a gas station to fill up, which saves me significant time and smell. I don't even use 240V to charge--it takes 8-12 hours to charge, which is plenty for each day's driving.
There's decreased maintenance because there are less parts, which makes my local driving much cheaper. The car is far more fun to drive because it's super quiet and has instant acceleration. There's no transmission or shifting, which is a huge plus for ride quality and responsiveness. The fuel to power the car costs less, even including battery replacement costs. I paid < $6k for my car, which doesn't exactly quality for "conspicuous consumption".
As a two car family with a lot of short-range travel, the EV was a slam dunk. We still have an ICE for long distance trips.
12 minutes to do an 80% charge is ~3C, which no automotive EV batteries are capable of right now. The ideal charge rate for LiPO batteries is 1C. Higher charge rates reduce battery lifespan for most chemistries. In fact, Tesla, which has remarkably reliable battery packs, has seen premature failures in some cars due to high use of supercharging [1]. Tesla superchargers max out at 120kW and typically are around 70-90kW. 350kW chargers are 3-5x that rate.
It's good they're installing future-proof chargers... batteries are getting bigger and handling higher charge rates as they improve. Tesla Semis will likely require even more than 350kW to charge at an optimal rate. But the 12 minute charge for 3 hours of driving is still a long way off.
As an EV owner, your examples for long trips are very misleading. I live in a midwest city with over 2000 deployed EV charging stations, and yet, most places that I go, there's no EV charging station nearby. Of the 2k stations, less than 5 are fast chargers, excluding the Tesla supercharger network.
Typical use on long trips:
EV (Non-Tesla): Pick from a limited set of restaurants that have Level 2 chargers nearby. Eat for an hour, then wait 5 more hours for the car to fully charge. Drive half the range of an ICE and repeat.
Tesla: Go to a supercharger and eat at one of the restaurants nearby, which is a very limited selection (0-2).
ICE: Fill up for 5 minutes, then eat wherever you want.
I'm a huge EV advocate and I think they really are the future, but let's not oversell the reality that is today's very limited charging network.
Tracking how much we have left makes all the difference. We will consistently overspend the budget using a card attached to an "endless" money bucket, but an envelope of cash that runs out changes the psychology.
So yes, the psychological (not mathematical) effects of cash has saved us tons of money. Some of those effects would likely affect you as well. The only way to know is to measure and try it.
Nexus 6 (Motorola)
The CPU is very power hungry and the phone throttles heavily below 50% battery and disables cores. Aftermarket ROMS often remove this restriction, which causes unexpected random poweroff events at below 30-40% if your battery is old. Replacing the battery resolves the random shutoff events.
The only difference is the Nexus 6 did this from day one, whereas Apple introduced it later after release.
As a very happy owner of a Nexus 6 (purchased on launch date), I don't consider this a design defect. I've had to replace my battery once ($45).
I really don't see the big deal with the iPhone battery "fiasco", and I'm not an Apple fanboy.
Everything gets old and wears out eventually. $45 every few years isn't too much to keep a multi-hundred $ device running.
Honestly, CPUs of that age were a bit like the P4 netburst--they pushed power and speed too much and started getting power and thermal throttling issues. New tech and die shrinks have just really improved things.
Lowered our grocery bill from $800/mth to $300/mth by switching from credit cards to cash (temporarily, to pay off all our debt). Best financial decision we ever made. Yes, it sucked for a while.
I drive a Nissan Leaf with the telematics disabled. It's extremely easy to do on any 2011-2017 Nissan leaf. I'm assuming the 2018 is the same, but they did do a redesign. It took 15 minutes of my time and one screwdriver to disable the TCU, and I'm very much a beginner with cars.
I agree with this. Sexual abuse and harassment against any person, whether they be female, male, intrasex, or otherwise is wrong. As I understand it, steam rules exist to prevent harassment, and topics that are political or flamebait get locked by moderators quickly, like your above topic.
It's right in the steam topic that you created, before it got locked:
Ask for rules that protect everyone.
Wait, the rules are there.
Report and move on.
I suspect you're not getting the support you want from the Steam and Slashdot crowds because many of us are against identity politics. Instead of identifying and grouping people based on aspects of their identity, many of us (myself included) prefer to deem harassment, sexual assault and vitrol as unwanted and bad against ALL users and put in place rules to protect everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or other aspects of one's identity.
I fully recognize that certain groups of individuals may encounter harassment, assault, and vitrol more than others, but that simply means that the rules provide those people more protection and redress, which is a GOOD THING(tm).
So far, one person has died from automated car driving testing. While it's terrible that they died, when you put that in the context of the 101 people that died on average every day last year from car accidents, it's pretty clear that automated cars will be a net benefit for society.
We've become extremely adverse to risk and death in our society. Progress costs human lives, whether they end suddenly or as a result of years of toil at a job. Google employs 88,100 full time employees. Assuming a 40 hour work-week, and the 78.6 year life expectancy in the US, this means that they burn through 235 human lives each year. If you account for human work-hours, that number exceeds 500.
Even if you only care about sudden, unexpected deaths, we're doing well compared to before. Over 100 people died making the Hoover dam[1]. The pyramids claimed orders of magnitude more.
To make the world better, people will die. This is today's reality. It may occur suddenly, or gradually over time. Maybe with technological improvement in the future, this could change. But I will not support changing public policy to halt progress over the tragic loss of a single life.
Slashdot Mirror
Buying something isn't a debt. A debt is money owed that you can't get out of except by repayment or negotiation.
Buying something can be cancelled by vendor or consumer, until the purchase or contract is complete. A vendor thus can refuse to take cash and cancel or refuse any transaction.
I too believe that every merchant should accept cash. I recently had an issue with U-Haul where literally they would not accept my debit card and only took credit cards. But there is definitely a difference between an incomplete purchase and a debt.
If you swipe something from an Amazon store and run out the door, that's also not a debt. That's theft and a criminal activity.
Two words: Credit Union. Low fees and good customer service.
That said, just did a domestic wire and there was a $10 or $12 fee. They were up front about the fee, however.
So I'm sure this is true some places, but seriously, check out credit unions. Most of them are nothing like this.
I just opened a credit union account for $25. My friend with a very poor credit score was able to get a debit card from one with no issues either.
When I was a teenager and had no established credit, they offered me a secured credit card. I had to put $1k in the account and my credit limit was the same $1k.
The whole point of the 737 MAX was to avoid a white board redesign, not because the plane was rushed, but because they wanted to make it similar enough that pilots would not need a new type rating or new training. Unlike you, I disagree that a redesign was necessary--I think the MAX design was sound except for the serious and fatal design flaws in the MCAS system. Boeing is correcting those. Yes, the plane has a positive feedback pitch design, but the plane is perfectly flyable both with and without MCAS, and MCAS eliminates the positive feedback when operating properly.
The main concern I have is what other serious design flaws exist in the plane. I am not happy that the FAA appears to have basically rubber stamped the design.
Clearly, the crash rate of the 737 MAX is very high compared to modern passenger aircraft. The planes should be grounded (and are). There were 88,000 flight hours of the 737 MAX, and 2 crashes. This is roughly 5x higher than the General Aviation crash rate, which is a much higher risk activity.
Once the fundamental problem causing both crashes is resolved, and assuming that we have proper oversight of the overall design, I would have no concern flying on a 737 MAX.
You're correct. Had the jump seat pilot not been present, the Lion Air plane (the first crash) would have crashed the day before. If that happened, I strongly suspect it would not have crashed again the next day. :)
Yes, the AOA sensor was not repaired properly on the Lion Air plane, it was put back into service, and the plane crashed. Unlike the Ethiopian airlines plane, the pilots were not aware of the MCAS system.
The jump seat pilot properly identified a runaway stabilizer condition (caused by MCAS), and by following the procedure for runaway stabilizer (which was unchanged from previous 737 models), prevented the crash.
You missed my point. Everyone in the same area could work at the same time, it just wouldn't have to be 9 to 5. It could be 7 to 3, or whatever is appropriate to that region. They would work the same hours as today, but we could just eliminate the timezone and all use one standard one, such as GMT.
Or we could just share one timezone and have different work times than 9-5 UTC?
Why MUST work start at 9 and end at 5?
Why must it be this way? What if we all just used one of the timezones (say, GMT), and I knew that the sun rose at approximately 2am instead of 7am? "Standard" working hours could be 4am-12pm in my region, instead of 9-5.
Then we'd all know what time it was everywhere. No need to convert. If we actually needed information like "what time is dinner, what time do you start work, etc", we could just ask those questions.
#NoDST #NoTimezones
You think that's bad, how about the aircraft brought down by a burned out light bulb?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Flying is routine until it isn't. Planes are essentially balancing in the air. It doesn't take much to make one stop flying, and one momentary loss of attention at the wrong time or improper control input can end very badly. All of this x10 if the Pilots haven't been informed of or trained on the failure scenario they're encountering.
I really *want* to agree with you, because it seems reasonable. We know that Nazis are bad, and we know that anti-vax is wrong. We know that because we've studied the effects of both and they're undesirable.
We also know that exposing people to these concepts will cause them to be sympathetic to them, although I we don't fully understand the scale. In the US, exposing people to Nazi propaganda seems to create a ~9% supportive effect[1], while in Germany in the 20s and 30s it was far higher. The truth is, if you or I were a student in Germany in the 30s, we'd almost certainly be Nazis.
The problem with suppressing wrong/hate speech is that the same argument could be made about Galileo in the 1600s or US racism in the 60s. Let me "quote" you: "Don't let the black man speak at your college, don't allow black content on your social media platform, etc. Letting them debate ideas spreads them to vulnerable people who aren't swayed by logic, and citizens should use their civil liberties and private property rights to deny these debates a venue."
We would be much better off if only correct arguments can be platformed, so that weak people aren't swayed by incorrect arguments. Unfortunately, we don't have a way of perfectly identifying "correct" arguments. Even if we could, "correct" changes over time, as people and cultures change. Life is complex and complicated enough that anyone who thinks they "know with certainty" anything about any complex topic is kidding themselves. If you restrict speech based on what you "know" is right, you will get it wrong some of the time. Furthermore, evil people will come along and use those restrictions as a weapon to create further oppression. History shows us that.
If we seek truth and a better life for all, the best way I've found is to allow people to speak freely, debate, argue, and pick at truth. It's messy and often has horrible outcomes. It causes Measles outbreaks. It allows Nazis to march and alienate people. It allows speech that is utterly hateful to homosexuals and racial groups. It allows speech that marginalizes people of less common attributes (appearance, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, etc). But I'll take all of those downsides in a heartbeat if the alternative is oppression, exploitation, and dictatorships.[2]
I strongly recommend you read "The Gulag Archipelago" from Solzhenitsyn.
Sources:
[1] https://www.elitedaily.com/new...
[2] https://stanfordfreedomproject...
No, his point was that "anything over 15 minutes to recharge is terrible" and until that's improved, people will only buy electric cars for "conspicuous consumption", That is incorrect for short and medium range travel, where EV's are more convenient, easier and more fun to drive, and cheaper.
I agree that ICE is significantly better than EV for long range travel, and that opinion is stated in my other posts on this topic. However, that was not the point the OP was making.
As a short-range EV owner, this is not true. I no longer have to go to a gas station to fill up, which saves me significant time and smell. I don't even use 240V to charge--it takes 8-12 hours to charge, which is plenty for each day's driving.
There's decreased maintenance because there are less parts, which makes my local driving much cheaper. The car is far more fun to drive because it's super quiet and has instant acceleration. There's no transmission or shifting, which is a huge plus for ride quality and responsiveness. The fuel to power the car costs less, even including battery replacement costs. I paid < $6k for my car, which doesn't exactly quality for "conspicuous consumption".
As a two car family with a lot of short-range travel, the EV was a slam dunk. We still have an ICE for long distance trips.
Can confirm. Never going to a gas station for my Leaf is amazing.
The 350kW chargers exist, but the cars do not.
12 minutes to do an 80% charge is ~3C, which no automotive EV batteries are capable of right now. The ideal charge rate for LiPO batteries is 1C. Higher charge rates reduce battery lifespan for most chemistries. In fact, Tesla, which has remarkably reliable battery packs, has seen premature failures in some cars due to high use of supercharging [1]. Tesla superchargers max out at 120kW and typically are around 70-90kW. 350kW chargers are 3-5x that rate.
It's good they're installing future-proof chargers... batteries are getting bigger and handling higher charge rates as they improve. Tesla Semis will likely require even more than 350kW to charge at an optimal rate. But the 12 minute charge for 3 hours of driving is still a long way off.
[1] https://insideevs.com/ruin-tes...
As an EV owner, your examples for long trips are very misleading. I live in a midwest city with over 2000 deployed EV charging stations, and yet, most places that I go, there's no EV charging station nearby. Of the 2k stations, less than 5 are fast chargers, excluding the Tesla supercharger network.
Typical use on long trips:
EV (Non-Tesla): Pick from a limited set of restaurants that have Level 2 chargers nearby. Eat for an hour, then wait 5 more hours for the car to fully charge. Drive half the range of an ICE and repeat.
Tesla: Go to a supercharger and eat at one of the restaurants nearby, which is a very limited selection (0-2).
ICE: Fill up for 5 minutes, then eat wherever you want.
I'm a huge EV advocate and I think they really are the future, but let's not oversell the reality that is today's very limited charging network.
Tracking how much we have left makes all the difference. We will consistently overspend the budget using a card attached to an "endless" money bucket, but an envelope of cash that runs out changes the psychology.
So yes, the psychological (not mathematical) effects of cash has saved us tons of money. Some of those effects would likely affect you as well. The only way to know is to measure and try it.
Sorry, was on my phone and forgot to add proper formatting. :-(
Nexus 6 (Motorola) The CPU is very power hungry and the phone throttles heavily below 50% battery and disables cores. Aftermarket ROMS often remove this restriction, which causes unexpected random poweroff events at below 30-40% if your battery is old. Replacing the battery resolves the random shutoff events. The only difference is the Nexus 6 did this from day one, whereas Apple introduced it later after release. As a very happy owner of a Nexus 6 (purchased on launch date), I don't consider this a design defect. I've had to replace my battery once ($45). I really don't see the big deal with the iPhone battery "fiasco", and I'm not an Apple fanboy. Everything gets old and wears out eventually. $45 every few years isn't too much to keep a multi-hundred $ device running. Honestly, CPUs of that age were a bit like the P4 netburst--they pushed power and speed too much and started getting power and thermal throttling issues. New tech and die shrinks have just really improved things.
You may think you do, but you don't.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blo...
Lowered our grocery bill from $800/mth to $300/mth by switching from credit cards to cash (temporarily, to pay off all our debt). Best financial decision we ever made. Yes, it sucked for a while.
What health care really needs is the sticker price posted right in the window.
That's what this group is trying to do:
https://brokenhealthcare.org/
Almost passed in Colorado. Killed by the insurance lobbyists.
I drive a Nissan Leaf with the telematics disabled. It's extremely easy to do on any 2011-2017 Nissan leaf. I'm assuming the 2018 is the same, but they did do a redesign. It took 15 minutes of my time and one screwdriver to disable the TCU, and I'm very much a beginner with cars.
https://www.mynissanleaf.com/v...
You still have options, for now.
I agree with this. Sexual abuse and harassment against any person, whether they be female, male, intrasex, or otherwise is wrong. As I understand it, steam rules exist to prevent harassment, and topics that are political or flamebait get locked by moderators quickly, like your above topic.
It's right in the steam topic that you created, before it got locked:
Ask for rules that protect everyone.
Wait, the rules are there.
Report and move on.
I suspect you're not getting the support you want from the Steam and Slashdot crowds because many of us are against identity politics. Instead of identifying and grouping people based on aspects of their identity, many of us (myself included) prefer to deem harassment, sexual assault and vitrol as unwanted and bad against ALL users and put in place rules to protect everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or other aspects of one's identity.
I fully recognize that certain groups of individuals may encounter harassment, assault, and vitrol more than others, but that simply means that the rules provide those people more protection and redress, which is a GOOD THING(tm).
+1
So far, one person has died from automated car driving testing. While it's terrible that they died, when you put that in the context of the 101 people that died on average every day last year from car accidents, it's pretty clear that automated cars will be a net benefit for society.
We've become extremely adverse to risk and death in our society. Progress costs human lives, whether they end suddenly or as a result of years of toil at a job. Google employs 88,100 full time employees. Assuming a 40 hour work-week, and the 78.6 year life expectancy in the US, this means that they burn through 235 human lives each year. If you account for human work-hours, that number exceeds 500.
Even if you only care about sudden, unexpected deaths, we're doing well compared to before. Over 100 people died making the Hoover dam[1]. The pyramids claimed orders of magnitude more.
To make the world better, people will die. This is today's reality. It may occur suddenly, or gradually over time. Maybe with technological improvement in the future, this could change. But I will not support changing public policy to halt progress over the tragic loss of a single life.
Sources:
[1] https://io9.gizmodo.com/589318...
Thanks for the correction. Ignore the AC :)