Tariffs are only a sneaky way to tax US consumers to make political insiders rich. There is no "foreign advantage" all trade is a two way street. Every dollar we spend overseas comes back either as purchases of goods, services or investment.
Understand that all benefits and payroll taxes come out of the employee's wages. Mandating them just means employees will make less in cash income, without ever giving them the choice.
Personally at my startup I have to strongly consider paying my early employees under the table. I had one employee a couple years ago, paid him legally and it ended up creating a ton of work filing various tax forms and withholdings every quarter, and getting called by the state because they didn't get my statement even though I sent them my statement it was the wrong statement, etc. All time I couldn't spend finding customers to keep the business going.
Well, it's not being spent on private jet rides and ferraris. It's in banks being loaned out to companies, so that's beneficial too.
And lots of cases where companies have huge sums tucked away are because they are off-shore profits, if they bring those home they'd lose around 40% to taxes (depending upon their home state). If we eliminated corporate income tax you'd never see that, trillions of overseas dollars would be repatriated instantly, some reinvested, and most dividended to shareholders. If we made dividends just ordinary income taxed at taxed at regular income rates in exchange for eliminating corporate income taxes the government probably wouldn't lose that much in income taxes, and the system would much more favor investing in the US.
I agree with you there is a business strategy reason for pre-announcing, but it doesn't make your product better, it's just an attempt to freeze sales of competitors, and I don't think it works except in very special circumstances. For the market to care, you have to announce something that is going to be better/cheaper, and you have to have a track record in that space of delivering quality products.
Microsoft has no VR/AR track record, there isn't a VR/AR market to speak of, it has a track history of announcing then canceling products (every tablet ever until the Surface), of shipping disappointing first release products (every product ever including the Surface and Xbox), etc. Pre-announcing Hololens is giving away every innovative idea to competitors well ahead of launch, even ahead of fixing the problems with the product.
Microsoft has massive resources, it can silently develop hololens for years until it's truly ready, and when it launches it will make a big splash. No one needed to be teased about the iPod.
I'm building my own startup and I think about Jobs' demanding attention to detail every day, especially when I think about half-assing how a feature works. I always realize that the customer isn't going to know or care about my need to get to market ASAP, if I half-ass it they are just going to say "this doesn't work right" or worse "this doesn't work at all", so I go the extra mile to polish and make it work intuitively and well.
It's the same process that produced the iPod, iPhone and iPad. And ironically Apple is know for how frugal and efficient it's R&D spending is. Or how underfunded it's R&D is, from the perspective of analysts focused on comparing that line item in their income statements to other public companies.
The truth is Apple has proven it knows how to build quality consumer products at the right price points. Even post jobs, the Apple Watch, priced at surprisingly high price points, had higher revenues than probably any watch in history it's first year, and more revenues than the iPhone did it's first year. It had lots of competition from cheaper, less capable smartwaches, but sales results say Apple hit the sweet spot of what customers wanted.
And Apple hasn't had a significant product flop since the Newton, which pre-dated Job's return and entire restructuring of product development and R&D. It's product development process is the best in the hardware side of the business (it's web services on the other hand...).
I'm fine with NASA's manned flights taking more risk to accomplish more and sooner, but it seems like the Dragon capsule is the "safer risk" given it's inherent safety mechanisms.
Look at my other comment about the nearly 10 year development time line Jobs had for the iPad, and how he canceled it at least once and had the team start over. You can do lots of highly experimental products without releasing them, and keep going back to redo them and make them better.
Jobs was also paranoid about any innovations they came up with not being leaked to competitors, which I think is a reasonable fear. The iPhone was the first touchscreen phone to actually work well because of a lot of little innovations like proximity sensing that made it possible to confidently make phone calls without accidentally launching other apps with your cheek. Once someone sees that it's "duh obvious" to rip that off and get it their products. Why announce/show/launch 2 years early when the product isn't as good, and everyone gets to see all your best ideas before you are able to polish them and make the product as good as it needs to be?
Yea, but no product release thats the point. Both companies have pressure from the outside to show they are doing something in VR/AR, but Apple has always (since Jobs return) had the discipline to not ship products until they were ready. A couple articles with minor leaks doesn't change that, Apple has done no public demos. So either those leaks were corporate blessed to calm down analysis's, or just random employee leaks.
The best example is the iPad. It was actually ready for production but canceled by Jobs last minute because he didn't think it was a good enough product. Instead he sent the team back to see if they could take their ideas and make a phone out of it, and we got the iPhone instead. When the iPhone became a success, the team was allowed to go back and redo the iPad, and only then did Jobs deem it ready for the market.
An example that that mentality is still strong in product marketing at Apple would be the Apple Watch. Whether you think it was a finished product or not (it definitely had rough edges), it was a successful one ($6B+ first year sales, probably 10x the rest of the smartwatch market combined, biggest watch launch ever). Very little was leaked before it's launch other than the idea Apple was working on a watch.
The Senate Launch System is an adequate replacement for the Shuttle, it will waste almost as much taxpayer money, but at least be able to lift crews out of LEO.
Isn't it a bit strange that they won't approve a Dragon capsule for human use without a full unmanned test, yet now they are going to risk lives without a test on the SLS? At least the Dragon has a reasonable escape system.
A far better place for a base launching deep space missions would be the lagrange points on earth orbits. There are near earth asteroids that can be hollowed out, and mined for fuel without the immense costs of DeltaV to land massive amounts of mining/production/power plant equipment on the moon, and launch ships from it. An extra 2.5 Km/sec gets you lots of places in the solar system quite a bit faster.
Until it was ready for release. It's just bad product management to tease products that aren't ready for release yet, solve the main problems behind locked doors first.
I don't want a job or your benefits. You are advocating a tax on me, a contractor, that's going to lower my wages and make it harder for me to find work.
Dems have always fought means-testing, most social security money goes to the wealthiest part of our society (much of the elderly are high net worth individuals).
Meanwhile we just whistle past the graveyard as the governments share of the GDP is far higher than any time in our history and it piles up debt at an astounding rate for our children to pay (or default on).
Yes he's arguing to end progress, we apparently have everything we need. It's really one of the dumbest ideas ever.
Every bit of progress the human race has made has eliminated jobs. See how many people it took to make a car in 1920 (and how crappy that car was).
Automation is just going to make us wealthier and create new jobs, like it always has. I've lived through Malthusians telling me we were out of resources in 1973, as well as peak oil, etc, etc. Malthusians have a 300 year track record of being wrong every single time.
And thank god we have corporations. Human progress would have been substantially slower if we still had debtors prisons and groups of people were reluctant to pool their capital to create new advances.
No we should just shred all corporate income taxes, to stop taxing investment/capital. Corporate income taxes are the dumbest, most self destructive taxes a country can impose and the US has some of the highest rates (over 40% with average state taxes). Corporate income is capital for new investments, it's also the reward for making investments. Our entire corporate income tax system is a massive disincentive to investing capital in the US, which is why trillions of profits of foreign subsidiaries are trapped overseas.
"Closing loopholes" is just code for making US companies entirely uncompetitive with foreign firms that have much better tax systems.
Android sells more units but Apple makes almost all of the profits in the smartphone space. In Android presumably Google makes a good profits off ad delivery, and Samsung makes decent profits (used to be higher but never even a fraction of Apples), and the rest of the handset makers break even or lose money.
As a developer I stay on iOS because the revenues are so much higher for iOS apps, still about double the Google play store last I checked. The implication is that most android phones are used as "feature phones", their owners don't buy apps or spend money. Apple's refusal to go downmarket and make $100 or $200 phones hasn't hurt them, even though Android has always out-volumed them over the last 5 years. I'm not sure that will change in the future.
The difference between iOS/Android and Macintosh/Windows back when they launched is that Windows could run most all your existing software, while today iOS has the best apps. Adopting Macintosh in the 80s meant replacing your PCs and adopting new applications, adopting Windows meant running Lotus 123 in dos mode while slowly adopting new applications and slowly replacing PCs. Today apps probably mean a lot less, and where it does iOS has the best apps, partly due to market size and also because of ease of development (massive rapid penetration of current OS versions, a small set of screen sizes, etc).
You both aren't understanding the abstract. The abstract says it has a "positive predictive value" of 81%, that's the number of diagnoses that turn out to be true. Sensitivity was 88%, that's the percent of autistic kids detected by the test.
So if a population has 2% autistic rate, and you ran this test on 1,000 children, 20 kids will later turn out to be autistic, and a Sensitivity rate of 88% says that somewhere between 17 and 18 will have been detected by the test. The positive prediction value says that for every 4 correctly identified as autistic, slightly more than 1 child will be falsely identified as autistic, in 1,000 kid example that means around 5 falsely identified.
As I said elsewhere, autism isn't really a thing, it's actually autism spectrum disorders, and it's a range of behaviors. My daughter was diagnosed with 7 out of 13 behaviors and was barely into the autistic scale on the behaviors she evidenced. Still it was enough for her to have lost most of her social skills in less than a year. The question is what spectrum disorders is this test predicting and how accurately for each one?
yea, the gluten and casein eviction stuff is just nonsense, it's just another in autism's long history of quack treatments.
What has been proven to work is ABA therapy and it's derivatives. But it's not a panacea, it's track record is about 50-50 on curing kids. My daughter was diagnosed at three and a half years, and after 5 years of ABA therapy she was mainstreamed in school and made the honor roll. We were able to discontinue therapy as she is pretty much normal now (though still quirky).
There is no such thing as "autism", there is a number of different behaviors on the autistic spectrum. The study references the spectrum, but I'm not going to spend $32 to find out which behaviors they correlated with.
Example: My daughter was diagnosed as Autistic at age 3 & 1/2, she was given a 13 point test by a psychologist, and she scored over on 7 of the tests (I think scoring over on 6 is considered autistic), but she was barely over on those. She was given the test because her vocabulary had started to decline precipitously once she turned three. She's had 5 years of ABA therapy, was in special ed until mainstreaming in 3rd grade, and now making the honor roll in 4th.
I always felt she had a good opportunity to recover, given that she only evidenced about half the behaviors and didn't measure highly autistic on any of the behaviors she evidenced. Would this test have detected her autism, or would it not be severe enough? Would it detect autism in kids who later only evidence 3 or 4 of the traits? False positives is a big issue, because parents can get crazy about this stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Tariffs are only a sneaky way to tax US consumers to make political insiders rich. There is no "foreign advantage" all trade is a two way street. Every dollar we spend overseas comes back either as purchases of goods, services or investment.
Understand that all benefits and payroll taxes come out of the employee's wages. Mandating them just means employees will make less in cash income, without ever giving them the choice.
Personally at my startup I have to strongly consider paying my early employees under the table. I had one employee a couple years ago, paid him legally and it ended up creating a ton of work filing various tax forms and withholdings every quarter, and getting called by the state because they didn't get my statement even though I sent them my statement it was the wrong statement, etc. All time I couldn't spend finding customers to keep the business going.
Well, it's not being spent on private jet rides and ferraris. It's in banks being loaned out to companies, so that's beneficial too.
And lots of cases where companies have huge sums tucked away are because they are off-shore profits, if they bring those home they'd lose around 40% to taxes (depending upon their home state). If we eliminated corporate income tax you'd never see that, trillions of overseas dollars would be repatriated instantly, some reinvested, and most dividended to shareholders. If we made dividends just ordinary income taxed at taxed at regular income rates in exchange for eliminating corporate income taxes the government probably wouldn't lose that much in income taxes, and the system would much more favor investing in the US.
I agree with you there is a business strategy reason for pre-announcing, but it doesn't make your product better, it's just an attempt to freeze sales of competitors, and I don't think it works except in very special circumstances. For the market to care, you have to announce something that is going to be better/cheaper, and you have to have a track record in that space of delivering quality products.
Microsoft has no VR/AR track record, there isn't a VR/AR market to speak of, it has a track history of announcing then canceling products (every tablet ever until the Surface), of shipping disappointing first release products (every product ever including the Surface and Xbox), etc. Pre-announcing Hololens is giving away every innovative idea to competitors well ahead of launch, even ahead of fixing the problems with the product.
Microsoft has massive resources, it can silently develop hololens for years until it's truly ready, and when it launches it will make a big splash. No one needed to be teased about the iPod.
You said it better than I did.
I'm building my own startup and I think about Jobs' demanding attention to detail every day, especially when I think about half-assing how a feature works. I always realize that the customer isn't going to know or care about my need to get to market ASAP, if I half-ass it they are just going to say "this doesn't work right" or worse "this doesn't work at all", so I go the extra mile to polish and make it work intuitively and well.
It's the same process that produced the iPod, iPhone and iPad. And ironically Apple is know for how frugal and efficient it's R&D spending is. Or how underfunded it's R&D is, from the perspective of analysts focused on comparing that line item in their income statements to other public companies.
The truth is Apple has proven it knows how to build quality consumer products at the right price points. Even post jobs, the Apple Watch, priced at surprisingly high price points, had higher revenues than probably any watch in history it's first year, and more revenues than the iPhone did it's first year. It had lots of competition from cheaper, less capable smartwaches, but sales results say Apple hit the sweet spot of what customers wanted.
And Apple hasn't had a significant product flop since the Newton, which pre-dated Job's return and entire restructuring of product development and R&D. It's product development process is the best in the hardware side of the business (it's web services on the other hand...).
I'm fine with NASA's manned flights taking more risk to accomplish more and sooner, but it seems like the Dragon capsule is the "safer risk" given it's inherent safety mechanisms.
Look at my other comment about the nearly 10 year development time line Jobs had for the iPad, and how he canceled it at least once and had the team start over. You can do lots of highly experimental products without releasing them, and keep going back to redo them and make them better.
Jobs was also paranoid about any innovations they came up with not being leaked to competitors, which I think is a reasonable fear. The iPhone was the first touchscreen phone to actually work well because of a lot of little innovations like proximity sensing that made it possible to confidently make phone calls without accidentally launching other apps with your cheek. Once someone sees that it's "duh obvious" to rip that off and get it their products. Why announce/show/launch 2 years early when the product isn't as good, and everyone gets to see all your best ideas before you are able to polish them and make the product as good as it needs to be?
Yea, but no product release thats the point. Both companies have pressure from the outside to show they are doing something in VR/AR, but Apple has always (since Jobs return) had the discipline to not ship products until they were ready. A couple articles with minor leaks doesn't change that, Apple has done no public demos. So either those leaks were corporate blessed to calm down analysis's, or just random employee leaks.
The best example is the iPad. It was actually ready for production but canceled by Jobs last minute because he didn't think it was a good enough product. Instead he sent the team back to see if they could take their ideas and make a phone out of it, and we got the iPhone instead. When the iPhone became a success, the team was allowed to go back and redo the iPad, and only then did Jobs deem it ready for the market.
An example that that mentality is still strong in product marketing at Apple would be the Apple Watch. Whether you think it was a finished product or not (it definitely had rough edges), it was a successful one ($6B+ first year sales, probably 10x the rest of the smartwatch market combined, biggest watch launch ever). Very little was leaked before it's launch other than the idea Apple was working on a watch.
The Senate Launch System is an adequate replacement for the Shuttle, it will waste almost as much taxpayer money, but at least be able to lift crews out of LEO.
Isn't it a bit strange that they won't approve a Dragon capsule for human use without a full unmanned test, yet now they are going to risk lives without a test on the SLS? At least the Dragon has a reasonable escape system.
A far better place for a base launching deep space missions would be the lagrange points on earth orbits. There are near earth asteroids that can be hollowed out, and mined for fuel without the immense costs of DeltaV to land massive amounts of mining/production/power plant equipment on the moon, and launch ships from it. An extra 2.5 Km/sec gets you lots of places in the solar system quite a bit faster.
Are we talking about the $200B Space Shuttle that killed two crews? The one that had the same payload capacity as a $60M Falcon 9?
Can't wait for the Senate Launch System to start putting crews in space for more than 10x the cost of a Falcon Heavy.
Until it was ready for release. It's just bad product management to tease products that aren't ready for release yet, solve the main problems behind locked doors first.
I don't want a job or your benefits. You are advocating a tax on me, a contractor, that's going to lower my wages and make it harder for me to find work.
Dems have always fought means-testing, most social security money goes to the wealthiest part of our society (much of the elderly are high net worth individuals).
Meanwhile we just whistle past the graveyard as the governments share of the GDP is far higher than any time in our history and it piles up debt at an astounding rate for our children to pay (or default on).
Yes he's arguing to end progress, we apparently have everything we need. It's really one of the dumbest ideas ever.
Every bit of progress the human race has made has eliminated jobs. See how many people it took to make a car in 1920 (and how crappy that car was).
Automation is just going to make us wealthier and create new jobs, like it always has. I've lived through Malthusians telling me we were out of resources in 1973, as well as peak oil, etc, etc. Malthusians have a 300 year track record of being wrong every single time.
And thank god we have corporations. Human progress would have been substantially slower if we still had debtors prisons and groups of people were reluctant to pool their capital to create new advances.
So I can't create a job without a massively expensive set of benefits and commitments? Ok, I'm not hiring then.
What's our unemployment rate again?
No we should just shred all corporate income taxes, to stop taxing investment/capital. Corporate income taxes are the dumbest, most self destructive taxes a country can impose and the US has some of the highest rates (over 40% with average state taxes). Corporate income is capital for new investments, it's also the reward for making investments. Our entire corporate income tax system is a massive disincentive to investing capital in the US, which is why trillions of profits of foreign subsidiaries are trapped overseas.
"Closing loopholes" is just code for making US companies entirely uncompetitive with foreign firms that have much better tax systems.
Every time someone invents a way to make things cheaper and faster we should heavily tax it, until we are back in the dark ages.
Android sells more units but Apple makes almost all of the profits in the smartphone space. In Android presumably Google makes a good profits off ad delivery, and Samsung makes decent profits (used to be higher but never even a fraction of Apples), and the rest of the handset makers break even or lose money.
As a developer I stay on iOS because the revenues are so much higher for iOS apps, still about double the Google play store last I checked. The implication is that most android phones are used as "feature phones", their owners don't buy apps or spend money. Apple's refusal to go downmarket and make $100 or $200 phones hasn't hurt them, even though Android has always out-volumed them over the last 5 years. I'm not sure that will change in the future.
The difference between iOS/Android and Macintosh/Windows back when they launched is that Windows could run most all your existing software, while today iOS has the best apps. Adopting Macintosh in the 80s meant replacing your PCs and adopting new applications, adopting Windows meant running Lotus 123 in dos mode while slowly adopting new applications and slowly replacing PCs. Today apps probably mean a lot less, and where it does iOS has the best apps, partly due to market size and also because of ease of development (massive rapid penetration of current OS versions, a small set of screen sizes, etc).
You both aren't understanding the abstract. The abstract says it has a "positive predictive value" of 81%, that's the number of diagnoses that turn out to be true. Sensitivity was 88%, that's the percent of autistic kids detected by the test.
So if a population has 2% autistic rate, and you ran this test on 1,000 children, 20 kids will later turn out to be autistic, and a Sensitivity rate of 88% says that somewhere between 17 and 18 will have been detected by the test. The positive prediction value says that for every 4 correctly identified as autistic, slightly more than 1 child will be falsely identified as autistic, in 1,000 kid example that means around 5 falsely identified.
As I said elsewhere, autism isn't really a thing, it's actually autism spectrum disorders, and it's a range of behaviors. My daughter was diagnosed with 7 out of 13 behaviors and was barely into the autistic scale on the behaviors she evidenced. Still it was enough for her to have lost most of her social skills in less than a year. The question is what spectrum disorders is this test predicting and how accurately for each one?
yea, the gluten and casein eviction stuff is just nonsense, it's just another in autism's long history of quack treatments.
What has been proven to work is ABA therapy and it's derivatives. But it's not a panacea, it's track record is about 50-50 on curing kids. My daughter was diagnosed at three and a half years, and after 5 years of ABA therapy she was mainstreamed in school and made the honor roll. We were able to discontinue therapy as she is pretty much normal now (though still quirky).
There is no such thing as "autism", there is a number of different behaviors on the autistic spectrum. The study references the spectrum, but I'm not going to spend $32 to find out which behaviors they correlated with.
Example: My daughter was diagnosed as Autistic at age 3 & 1/2, she was given a 13 point test by a psychologist, and she scored over on 7 of the tests (I think scoring over on 6 is considered autistic), but she was barely over on those. She was given the test because her vocabulary had started to decline precipitously once she turned three. She's had 5 years of ABA therapy, was in special ed until mainstreaming in 3rd grade, and now making the honor roll in 4th.
I always felt she had a good opportunity to recover, given that she only evidenced about half the behaviors and didn't measure highly autistic on any of the behaviors she evidenced. Would this test have detected her autism, or would it not be severe enough? Would it detect autism in kids who later only evidence 3 or 4 of the traits? False positives is a big issue, because parents can get crazy about this stuff.