Apple is making a return on its investment. Why AMD is still in business is something of a mystery. So I'm not sure citing AMD's R&D spending is a good argument.
And for whatever Apple are spending on chip research they are getting a heck of an ROI and putting out amazing designs on a routine 2-year cycle.
- - - - When Apple's products are specifically designed to work less optimally after 2 years, - - - - -
Not really sure what this is supposed to mean. Apple iPhones easily last 3 years with a bit of care and 5 years for many, and Apple provide extensive OS updates with security patches throughout the reasonable lifespan of the device (compare to generic Android devices which almost never get updates). Batteries do tend to lose capacity over time - this has been known for a hundred years - and Apple has been working on making information about that degredation visible and providing OS optimizations to allow the user to manage that - some of those optimizations are not to all owners' taste and that subset was annoyed, true. Throughout the history of personal computing OSs and apps tend to get more complex over time leading to a perceived 'slowdown' of older devices; this is true for Apple devices but is not unique to them (loved my Nexus 7; it was rendered unusable by OS updates).
Repairabiliy? First point to remember is that the manufacturers have information on typical lifecycle costs that you do not. Second point is that techies' preferences are not the preferences of the typical human being. But it is a reality that much design of personal appliances (of all types) is moving to integrated monoblock units that are essentially "unrepairable" (sometimes at all, otherwise without a lot of effort). I suspect the cell phone manufacturers' next goal is a unit built as a single integrated piece of glass ala Tony Stark. You can dislike this trend, and you can claim that for your use case it is uneconomical, but you cannot claim without a lot of data you don't have that it is economically inefficient from a global analysis.
- - - - - Why not just set the inheritance tax at 100%? After all, the person is dead - - - - -
Historically many societies have done that, and as noted even under current US law when a person dies they are no longer a citizen. However, since we use open markets (which have mostly evolved into capitalism) to organize our economy it is considered a matter of incentive to allow some percentage of the accumulated wealth no longer owned by the dead body to pass to designated heirs - helps keep the rich at the coalface. Metaphorically speaking of course - the rich send others to die at the coalface for them.
- - - - - Why would you expect the effect of a minimum wage increase to always do the same thing, regardless of the size of the increase or other circumstances in the economy? - - - - -
Well, I wouldn't, but that is what Microeconomics 101 says (and Micro 401 just barely hints might not be entirely correct), and 90% of the Western world's economic policy since 1980 has been based on simplistic Micro 101 theories, so it directly affects all Citizens in those regions.
- - - - - Twenty-five years ago I was working in fast food. I was making about 2x minimum wage. Minimum wage was increased by 15%. On the day that minimum wage went up 15%, all of the fast food restaurants increased prices by 25%. That meant that the employees making minimum wage, the newest ones and the ones who were often stoned at work, got more *dollars* in their paycheck, but that paycheck could buy *fewer* burgers. The measure reduced their ability to buy, at least for products produced by near minimum-wage labor. - - - - -
Fifty years ago in the US, even 25 years ago, that might have been a problem for the general economy. However for the last 20 years (at least) productivity gains and real wage gains have been transferred almost exclusively to households in the top 10% of income, and the wealth gains have been transferred almost exclusively to households in the top 1% (or even 0.5%) in wealth. So if general prices rise by 25% today that money is not going to be extracted from the pockets of those in the 80% range because they don't have it - it will mostly be paid by those in the 10% and then transferred down. Which is what our personal and corporate income tax bracket structure and reasonable dead-people-are-not-citizens inheritance taxes accomplished prior to 1980.
- - - - - Well; they didn't exactly cause a crash on the freeway --- they clearly contributed to creating the setting by which events occured. By the sounds of it: the self-driving car was apparently very inconsiderate and didn't let a Camry merge on - a very bad move the safety driver should've intervened on, which resulted in a scenario arising the Camry driver had a duty to anticipate and respond to in a safe manner but was apparently unprepared for: causing an accident, and the Camry would have been 100% at fault if it collided with another vehicle on the freeway.
If you are merging, and the other vehicles on the other side of the merge are being rude and creating no opening: you still have to ensure you are driving at such speed that you can safely stop shorter than the end of your merge lane and wait for a clearing in traffic, and stop if required. - - - - -
100% agree with the quote and your entire post. That said, five days a week I enter the motorway at an entrance where there are 4 lanes of traffic moving at 90 kph in the left lane and 15 kph in the right lane, joined by two merging lanes generally with traffic at 14 kph in the _left_ lane and 45 kph in the right, with an exit-only lane and another similar merge 3 km ahead. If everyone operated exactly according to the letter of the law we would bring the whole 5 km stretch to a crashing stop every day. People experienced in the region obey the norms and conventions of the metro area and that stretch of highway; those who are not observe and adapt in realtime. If 'autonomous' vehicles can't do this they the only way they could be used is if 100% of the vehicles on the road converted overnight - and even then I'm not sure how they would deal with my daily merge.
It is amazing how much new infrastructure "needs" to be built and how many global and regional conventions and norms of practical driving that human beings "must" unlearn in order for high-tech 'autonomous' vehicles to work.
- - - - - - WHAT hit and run? There was NO hit (the Google car was never impacted). - - - - -
Unless a video still exists we will never know exactly what happened, and as discussed above a driver that causes an accident by violating the norms and conventions of a maneuver and/or region can always fall back to the letter of the law to claim they weren't at fault.
With that said, your statement raises a bit of concern for the future in that if autonomous vehicles are good at anything it will be dancing around a potential point of impact, thus saving themselves from collision at the price of forcing other vehicles into unrecoverable situations. Unless these vehicles explicitly implement the Three Laws the result of putting 5% of them into the driving population may not be the accident reduction nirvana their proponents claim - a bit of unintended consequence may well intervene.
There are zero consequences for these corporate PII losses and security breaches, so the rational Friemanite response for a corporation and its fiduciaries is to ignore them. Pay a small fine here and there; admit no fault. Good to go.
Yeah. Once you have gone down the rabbit hole once - and the document leaks of the last 5 years have taken anyone who is technically inclined there at least once - you will have a hard time NOT thinking something like this is what happened.
= = = What makes me doubt it is how blatant it would have been. The Chinese government would have had to develop and manufacture this chip, and then get it installed on Supermicro boards which means either getting Supermicro in on it or getting the factory in on it, because I can't see them being able to alter the PCB CAD files and get a part added to the bill of materials without anyone noticing. = = =
There are a lot of difference factions in the government of the PRC and in the military of the PRC and in the branches of the military of the PRC. Some of those factions overlap and some compete, some have a variety of alliances for specific purposes.
And any Western company that sets up shop in the PRC will have one of those factions involved in its business explicitly or clandestinely, whether it knows it or not. Back in the oughts I got yelled at because "my" computer system would not open CAD files received from the joint venture 'partner' in the PRC. A bit of snooping in the headers with a hex editor revealed that these were native files for a propriatary CAD system developed by and used only within the People's Liberation Army Air Force. Since I had been explictly told that there was no PRC government or military involvement in the joint venture I sent that info to our VP of business development; he never responded but we did get the drawings in DXF format the next week.
Assuming for argument that the substitution described in the Bloomberg article occurred, the group within Apple working on it may (a) have higher security clearances than Tim Cook and the VP of Communications (b) be under national security letter gag orders to say nothing to anyone including their bosses. In which case the executive levels of Apple management may sincerely believe that the situation did not happen when it actually did.
- - - - - Aside from flu shots there's quarantine procedures, extra steps to be taken at hospitals and clinics, keeping water clean, etc, etc. - - - - -
One of the problems with the 1918 epidemic was the the US Army was getting really well organized to provide emergency medical care. So when the first round of rapid spread influenza (now believed to have originated in a Kansas training depot) knocked down or killed the on-site nurses and doctors the Army rapidly shipped in replacements. Repeat that a few cycles and you can guess what the result was.
For cameras openly mounted in the vehicle, sure. The parent post specified hidden camera unknown to the employee though which is a different legal and ethical situation.
"Calvinist/Presbyterian worship of toil needs another boost given that our society's ability to generate wealth and security has again outrun the fear that religionists love".
IANAL, but I can see Musk's lawyer arguing that for Tesla and Musk that Twitter is more universal and instantaneous than Bloomburg or PR Newswire for making market-moving announcements. Of course, that would leave him with the problem of whether or not the announcement so made was true...
- - - - - - t's "critically important" that Congress pass federal legislation on autonomous vehicles. - - - - -
Let me guess what is "critically important" in this legislation: 1. Elimination of all liability on the part of the automakers for accidents involving self-driving cars 1a. Federal preemption of local and state criminal charges against automakers for accidents involving self-driving cars, including fatalities 2. Huge dollar subsidies to manufacturers of self-driving cars 3. Re-orientation of federal infrastructure spending toward self-driving cars [ I would add 3a. at the expense of pedestrians and human-centered development, but I'd just be repeating 3 ]
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is making a return on its investment. Why AMD is still in business is something of a mystery. So I'm not sure citing AMD's R&D spending is a good argument.
And for whatever Apple are spending on chip research they are getting a heck of an ROI and putting out amazing designs on a routine 2-year cycle.
Not really sure what this is supposed to mean. Apple iPhones easily last 3 years with a bit of care and 5 years for many, and Apple provide extensive OS updates with security patches throughout the reasonable lifespan of the device (compare to generic Android devices which almost never get updates). Batteries do tend to lose capacity over time - this has been known for a hundred years - and Apple has been working on making information about that degredation visible and providing OS optimizations to allow the user to manage that - some of those optimizations are not to all owners' taste and that subset was annoyed, true. Throughout the history of personal computing OSs and apps tend to get more complex over time leading to a perceived 'slowdown' of older devices; this is true for Apple devices but is not unique to them (loved my Nexus 7; it was rendered unusable by OS updates).
Repairabiliy? First point to remember is that the manufacturers have information on typical lifecycle costs that you do not. Second point is that techies' preferences are not the preferences of the typical human being. But it is a reality that much design of personal appliances (of all types) is moving to integrated monoblock units that are essentially "unrepairable" (sometimes at all, otherwise without a lot of effort). I suspect the cell phone manufacturers' next goal is a unit built as a single integrated piece of glass ala Tony Stark. You can dislike this trend, and you can claim that for your use case it is uneconomical, but you cannot claim without a lot of data you don't have that it is economically inefficient from a global analysis.
Define "successful". Most units installed? Sure. Make any return on it? Well....
Historically many societies have done that, and as noted even under current US law when a person dies they are no longer a citizen. However, since we use open markets (which have mostly evolved into capitalism) to organize our economy it is considered a matter of incentive to allow some percentage of the accumulated wealth no longer owned by the dead body to pass to designated heirs - helps keep the rich at the coalface. Metaphorically speaking of course - the rich send others to die at the coalface for them.
Well, I wouldn't, but that is what Microeconomics 101 says (and Micro 401 just barely hints might not be entirely correct), and 90% of the Western world's economic policy since 1980 has been based on simplistic Micro 101 theories, so it directly affects all Citizens in those regions.
Fifty years ago in the US, even 25 years ago, that might have been a problem for the general economy. However for the last 20 years (at least) productivity gains and real wage gains have been transferred almost exclusively to households in the top 10% of income, and the wealth gains have been transferred almost exclusively to households in the top 1% (or even 0.5%) in wealth. So if general prices rise by 25% today that money is not going to be extracted from the pockets of those in the 80% range because they don't have it - it will mostly be paid by those in the 10% and then transferred down. Which is what our personal and corporate income tax bracket structure and reasonable dead-people-are-not-citizens inheritance taxes accomplished prior to 1980.
You are conveniently leaving out "or by inaction allow human beings to come to harm".
Can't really agree, particularly when complex situations such as multiple speeds/multiple merges are involved.
100% agree with the quote and your entire post. That said, five days a week I enter the motorway at an entrance where there are 4 lanes of traffic moving at 90 kph in the left lane and 15 kph in the right lane, joined by two merging lanes generally with traffic at 14 kph in the _left_ lane and 45 kph in the right, with an exit-only lane and another similar merge 3 km ahead. If everyone operated exactly according to the letter of the law we would bring the whole 5 km stretch to a crashing stop every day. People experienced in the region obey the norms and conventions of the metro area and that stretch of highway; those who are not observe and adapt in realtime. If 'autonomous' vehicles can't do this they the only way they could be used is if 100% of the vehicles on the road converted overnight - and even then I'm not sure how they would deal with my daily merge.
It is amazing how much new infrastructure "needs" to be built and how many global and regional conventions and norms of practical driving that human beings "must" unlearn in order for high-tech 'autonomous' vehicles to work.
Unless a video still exists we will never know exactly what happened, and as discussed above a driver that causes an accident by violating the norms and conventions of a maneuver and/or region can always fall back to the letter of the law to claim they weren't at fault.
With that said, your statement raises a bit of concern for the future in that if autonomous vehicles are good at anything it will be dancing around a potential point of impact, thus saving themselves from collision at the price of forcing other vehicles into unrecoverable situations. Unless these vehicles explicitly implement the Three Laws the result of putting 5% of them into the driving population may not be the accident reduction nirvana their proponents claim - a bit of unintended consequence may well intervene.
There are zero consequences for these corporate PII losses and security breaches, so the rational Friemanite response for a corporation and its fiduciaries is to ignore them. Pay a small fine here and there; admit no fault. Good to go.
Yeah. Once you have gone down the rabbit hole once - and the document leaks of the last 5 years have taken anyone who is technically inclined there at least once - you will have a hard time NOT thinking something like this is what happened.
There are a lot of difference factions in the government of the PRC and in the military of the PRC and in the branches of the military of the PRC. Some of those factions overlap and some compete, some have a variety of alliances for specific purposes.
And any Western company that sets up shop in the PRC will have one of those factions involved in its business explicitly or clandestinely, whether it knows it or not. Back in the oughts I got yelled at because "my" computer system would not open CAD files received from the joint venture 'partner' in the PRC. A bit of snooping in the headers with a hex editor revealed that these were native files for a propriatary CAD system developed by and used only within the People's Liberation Army Air Force. Since I had been explictly told that there was no PRC government or military involvement in the joint venture I sent that info to our VP of business development; he never responded but we did get the drawings in DXF format the next week.
Assuming for argument that the substitution described in the Bloomberg article occurred, the group within Apple working on it may (a) have higher security clearances than Tim Cook and the VP of Communications (b) be under national security letter gag orders to say nothing to anyone including their bosses. In which case the executive levels of Apple management may sincerely believe that the situation did not happen when it actually did.
One of the problems with the 1918 epidemic was the the US Army was getting really well organized to provide emergency medical care. So when the first round of rapid spread influenza (now believed to have originated in a Kansas training depot) knocked down or killed the on-site nurses and doctors the Army rapidly shipped in replacements. Repeat that a few cycles and you can guess what the result was.
A four-year-old wouldn't though: she would name the objects then say "why is there an elephant in the living room?".
For cameras openly mounted in the vehicle, sure. The parent post specified hidden camera unknown to the employee though which is a different legal and ethical situation.
Violation of federal labor law. This isn't Uber we are talking about here, so probably not.
"Calvinist/Presbyterian worship of toil needs another boost given that our society's ability to generate wealth and security has again outrun the fear that religionists love".
What about moist and crumbly? Thixotropic?
IANAL, but I can see Musk's lawyer arguing that for Tesla and Musk that Twitter is more universal and instantaneous than Bloomburg or PR Newswire for making market-moving announcements. Of course, that would leave him with the problem of whether or not the announcement so made was true...
There's a reliable data source, free from built-in bias ("INQPTJLMNOP!") and hidden assumptions ("INTROVERT!")
Let me guess what is "critically important" in this legislation:
1. Elimination of all liability on the part of the automakers for accidents involving self-driving cars
1a. Federal preemption of local and state criminal charges against automakers for accidents involving self-driving cars, including fatalities
2. Huge dollar subsidies to manufacturers of self-driving cars
3. Re-orientation of federal infrastructure spending toward self-driving cars
[ I would add 3a. at the expense of pedestrians and human-centered development, but I'd just be repeating 3 ]
Anything I missed?
"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"