I was pretty excited to buy my Fusion Hybrid. That was three years ago. I still am pretty excited to drive it. It's fun, comfy, has a great sound system, and gets 40mpg. Too bad I won't have that option for my next car.
100 years ago 95% of the US labor force was in the agricultural sector. Now, it's just a few percent.
I guess you can just handwave away the two world wars, massive depression, and enormous economic upheavals that occurred in the meantime. But that doesn't mean that there was no cost to this shift.
Say all the easy jobs go may away. I think people will get smarter and the average intelligence will rise.
That takes time, and assumes that the people who can't make a living just go away peacefully. But history is littered with the corpses of societies where they did not.
Even if people don't get smarter, they will still need to find a place to live, eat, etc.
Our current economy only cares if those people have the money to pay for places to live, eat, etc. Need is only demand if it is coupled with the ability to spend. Without that ability, it doesn't get addressed.
LED lights so far don't seem particularly better than CFLs. They certainly don't seem to be lasting longer.
Huh. That's not my experience at all. I started switching to LEDs about a decade ago. Before that it was a mix of incandescent and CFL. Now, the only non-LED lights in my house are the colored CFLs in my den (CFL is fantastic for mood lighting of that sort) and a few incandescents for which I haven't found LED replacements. I haven't replaced a single LED bulb yet. Anecdotal, I know, but it jibes with the research and ratings.
Business taxes are not much of a hindrance to startups. Businesses are taxed on profits. Startups take time to become profitable, and in the meantime their losses can be carried forward to offset the profits when they come.
The EPA enforces the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Both have been enormous successes, and have been a boon to communities and individuals throughout the nation. You might not think the huge reductions of smog in major cities, or rivers that can now be home to fish that feed wildlife, or toxic sites that have been cleaned up and repurposed don't benefit people. I strongly disagree, and I think you'll find most people do as well.
This isn't requiring researchers open their data. This is banning the agency from using existing data. It's not the same thing, it won't have the same result, and it isn't intended to.
Science provides all sorts of answers to "ought-questions". You just have to frame them in terms of an objective. For example, if we want an object to fly, we ought to provide it with airfoils with sufficient surface area to provide lift at the speed we're able to move the object. If we want to reduce mortality due to infectious diseases, we ought to require comprehensive vaccination regimes for those who attend public schools. If we want to prevent environmental disasters caused by excessive CO2 in the atmosphere, we ought to cap emissions and fund ways to reduce existing CO2 levels.
The applicability of blame to one does not alleviate the applicability of blame to others. Trump signed this PoS, so he gets blame. The vast majority of both Democrats and Republicans in congress voted for it, so they get blame. It's not a zero-sum game.
Fair enough, that's your right and I respect it. But consider this: evidence of those bad intentions abounds throughout this thread, and any thread about any sort of safety net. It wasn't something I made up out of whole cloth.
I can't help but notice that there's nothing in your screed about the effects of automation. Seems relevant given that it is likely to eliminate a lot of the work that used to be able to support a family, and that it has the potential to create the amounts of wealth necessary for a UBI scheme to work.
It only has to be as good as, or better than, humans...
For what? To improve highway safety? Perhaps, though that really depends on how automated vehicles handle being in traffic with human drivers.
But they also have to be economically viable, and that requires not just that they be better than the average person, but that they be perceived to be better than the individual buying them. That's a much higher threshold, given that most people think they are better than the average driver. But people won't want to buy a vehicle that they think won't be as safe as they themselves are.
Also, which $30K Ford has:
1. a giant touch screen with built-in maps & navigation
All of them.
2. lane assist, collision avoidance, auto-breaking
It's available on all of them, but might push you closer to 35K.
3. 5 star crash rating
Fusion at least.
4. backup camera
All of them.
5. power lift-gate
Not sure, don't care. I'm not an SUV person.
6. > 60 cubic feet of cargo volume
Not sure, but probably the Escape and Explorer.
Tesla's big advantage is that it's fast and it's electric. Which is plenty. They'd be in much better shape right now if they had really focused on the electric advantage and not tried to half-ass the autonomous driving bit.
Yes, he was required to appoint a Republican to maintain ideological diversity, rather that going with the best qualified candidate, who would certainly not have been Republican.
Slashdot Mirror
You seriously underestimate how high oil prices have to be for it to be economically worthwhile to extract the remaining US oil.
I was pretty excited to buy my Fusion Hybrid. That was three years ago. I still am pretty excited to drive it. It's fun, comfy, has a great sound system, and gets 40mpg. Too bad I won't have that option for my next car.
Lower vehicles get into fewer accidents, and are less likely to flip when they do.
You forgot to mention how much your private health insurance costs,
(which costs $600/yr before taking into account the $500/yr tax credits I get for having it)
100 years ago 95% of the US labor force was in the agricultural sector. Now, it's just a few percent.
I guess you can just handwave away the two world wars, massive depression, and enormous economic upheavals that occurred in the meantime. But that doesn't mean that there was no cost to this shift.
Say all the easy jobs go may away. I think people will get smarter and the average intelligence will rise.
That takes time, and assumes that the people who can't make a living just go away peacefully. But history is littered with the corpses of societies where they did not.
Even if people don't get smarter, they will still need to find a place to live, eat, etc.
Our current economy only cares if those people have the money to pay for places to live, eat, etc. Need is only demand if it is coupled with the ability to spend. Without that ability, it doesn't get addressed.
LED lights so far don't seem particularly better than CFLs. They certainly don't seem to be lasting longer.
Huh. That's not my experience at all. I started switching to LEDs about a decade ago. Before that it was a mix of incandescent and CFL. Now, the only non-LED lights in my house are the colored CFLs in my den (CFL is fantastic for mood lighting of that sort) and a few incandescents for which I haven't found LED replacements. I haven't replaced a single LED bulb yet. Anecdotal, I know, but it jibes with the research and ratings.
Business taxes are not much of a hindrance to startups. Businesses are taxed on profits. Startups take time to become profitable, and in the meantime their losses can be carried forward to offset the profits when they come.
The EPA enforces the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Both have been enormous successes, and have been a boon to communities and individuals throughout the nation. You might not think the huge reductions of smog in major cities, or rivers that can now be home to fish that feed wildlife, or toxic sites that have been cleaned up and repurposed don't benefit people. I strongly disagree, and I think you'll find most people do as well.
Now, I hate Pruitt and everyone else involved in this shitshow, but ... it looks like they actually did something positive for a change.
That's exactly their intent - to LOOK like they did something positive, when in fact it is a major setback for science-based policy.
It's called a track record.
This isn't requiring researchers open their data. This is banning the agency from using existing data. It's not the same thing, it won't have the same result, and it isn't intended to.
Yup, along with Ceremonial Burial, Horseback Riding, Alphabet, The Wheel, Masonry, and Bronze Working.
You say that as though libertarianism were a stable form of government.
Science provides all sorts of answers to "ought-questions". You just have to frame them in terms of an objective. For example, if we want an object to fly, we ought to provide it with airfoils with sufficient surface area to provide lift at the speed we're able to move the object. If we want to reduce mortality due to infectious diseases, we ought to require comprehensive vaccination regimes for those who attend public schools. If we want to prevent environmental disasters caused by excessive CO2 in the atmosphere, we ought to cap emissions and fund ways to reduce existing CO2 levels.
The applicability of blame to one does not alleviate the applicability of blame to others. Trump signed this PoS, so he gets blame. The vast majority of both Democrats and Republicans in congress voted for it, so they get blame. It's not a zero-sum game.
Fair enough, that's your right and I respect it. But consider this: evidence of those bad intentions abounds throughout this thread, and any thread about any sort of safety net. It wasn't something I made up out of whole cloth.
This is a law for the people, by the people.
Harumph. Sounds like the exact sort of socialist nonsense that American soldiers fought against and died to prevent.
I can't help but notice that there's nothing in your screed about the effects of automation. Seems relevant given that it is likely to eliminate a lot of the work that used to be able to support a family, and that it has the potential to create the amounts of wealth necessary for a UBI scheme to work.
What happens when you Give Poor People Cash? They spend it on the things that it makes the most sense to them to spend it on. Things like livestock, tools, and housing repairs. Things like health care and education.
It's almost as though the idea that helping people is bad comes from miserable SOBs who are only ever happy when other people are miserable, too.
It only has to be as good as, or better than, humans...
For what? To improve highway safety? Perhaps, though that really depends on how automated vehicles handle being in traffic with human drivers.
But they also have to be economically viable, and that requires not just that they be better than the average person, but that they be perceived to be better than the individual buying them. That's a much higher threshold, given that most people think they are better than the average driver. But people won't want to buy a vehicle that they think won't be as safe as they themselves are.
Also, which $30K Ford has: 1. a giant touch screen with built-in maps & navigation
All of them.
2. lane assist, collision avoidance, auto-breaking
It's available on all of them, but might push you closer to 35K.
3. 5 star crash rating
Fusion at least.
4. backup camera
All of them.
5. power lift-gate
Not sure, don't care. I'm not an SUV person.
6. > 60 cubic feet of cargo volume
Not sure, but probably the Escape and Explorer.
Tesla's big advantage is that it's fast and it's electric. Which is plenty. They'd be in much better shape right now if they had really focused on the electric advantage and not tried to half-ass the autonomous driving bit.
Pai's a "diversity" hire by Obama iirc.
Yes, he was required to appoint a Republican to maintain ideological diversity, rather that going with the best qualified candidate, who would certainly not have been Republican.
He wasn't Obama's FCC chairman. Wheeler was. It was Trump who made him chair.
More shit is flushed out every day.
Too bad it's all been the shit that Trump and company brought with them to DC.