Yes, because they were headed for a population crash, where the working generations would be substantially smaller than the generations it was replacing. Additionally, while the official policy was rescinded, the cultural impacts will still be felt for generations, and the skewing of gender birth rates can also impact population growth, as men outnumber women 118 to 100 at birth, meaning that population growth could not be as rapid per capita, as while men are important in reproduction, they do not do the majority of the work, nor are they the rate limiting factor.
China will start seeing it's population reduce in size. Depending on cultural factors, they may continue to decline in population, even if they hit replacement birth rates for the latest generations, due to the size of those generations being substantially smaller than those before them. They may accelerate the decline, should they like many industrialized nations, end up settling at a birth rate that is slightly below the replacement rate over the long term (See Germany, Japan). They may rebound and either stabilize, or begin growing again, if culturally they end up convinced to exceed the replacement rate, which would be best for China's economy (contraction of the demand and labor pools are typically bad for markets), while being worst for the environment.
However, we also need to watch India, Africa, and the middle-east, as those regions have large growth potential. Should India get sanitation and infant mortality under control, their population will grow even faster (until the normal cultural reductions in birth rate occur, if they do). Should Africa or the middle-east get their various armed conflicts under control, and stop losing so many men, women, and children to warfare, they may very well see population booms due to that, as well as likely seeing some increase in reproduction due to the increased wealth from no longer diverting resources to destruction.
Yes. A phone or camera vendor has a finite number of variations, usually related to various regions a model might be released in. A car manufacturer, other than Tesla, will build the same trim of car to the same design for pretty much an entire year. It simplifies service, since these are durable goods that cannot just be replaced. How the parts get put together or made may change. But they may start out with different factories doing it different ways due to different floor plans, and not change for the year.
Kanban is about largely optimizing the process, not changing the product. That's something that AniMoJo got wrong. But you proved you don't understand it either with your response. You optimize stock, tools, ordering time, assembly order, packaging, machining strategies, etc. But the print you build the part to should not change.
You also seem to have a strong interest in saying that anyone criticizing Agile is wrong, while saying anyone who listens to clients or adapts to changing circumstances is essentially doing Agile. If that's Agile, then of course it will only result in success, since you've disqualified all failures, and most people don't actually need to pay any attention to Agile coaches or manifestos, since basic common sense and customer service handle the most important parts of it.
There's something similar in the US. Retail electrical prices are regulated, and are kept at a limited profit margin based on investment and costs. Wholesale prices include a large number of generators, transmission operators, etc, and are constantly moving. Now, to protect the consumer from these rapidly fluctuating prices, and to allow the grid to be paid for, most residential and commercial customers are on fixed rate or time of use metering. Some kilowatts you get are much more expensive that what you pay, while others the utility is paid to take. Industrial customers will often enough purchase at wholesale or arrange other contracts (see Apple buying all renewable energy for it's operations)
However, that is plug limited, and requires more maintenance. I'm no Tesla fanboy, but a whole home battery is worth 1500-1800, even for short run times, so long as it also deals with low voltage events (brownouts). I spend probably 60$ a year maintaining a trio of UPS's that size (replacing one set of batteries per year, doesn't include potential waste charges for SLA batteries), which only handles network gear and a pair of desktops.
So, presuming that it lasts the ten years of a powerwall warranty, I'm looking at 180$ a year, if I spread the cost out. Compared to the three Trip-lite units I have, at a purchase price of call it 200$ each (600$ total, which is around what I spend, since I bought two on sale and was given the third when someone moved), I have 120$ per year in costs. That starts looking much more attractive. Add in that many people will also get their load centers modernized, which can save a lot of cash, plus the maintenance is somebody else's problem. That's quite nice.
Maybe because gamers are budget constrained. If I have 300$, I can't buy a 500$ card that will run my games the way I want, since the original 300$ MSRP is inflated due to demand. Because I can't buy that card in the first place, I can't mine with it. Or, I happen to not live in one of the areas where the power costs make that break even. Perhaps my computer can't be left on at night because the fans/lights keep me awake.
I don't like miners because they are mostly wasting a shit-load of electricity, stealing CPU cycles, or hardware, driving up prices of anything with graphics hardware (GDDR and generic DRAM shortages), and functioning as essentially a high-tech form of scrip, or perhaps monopoly money, with little to nothing backing it (See the open question about if tether actually has the cash to back their tokens that they claim to, since they printed a few hundred million since declaring their bank transfers in and out had been blocked, or perhaps any of the other scams, like Bitconnect, or Pincoin). The vast majority of the "Value" of these currencies is in coins that have never been traded for cash, many of which are out of circulation. Thus the fantastic value numbers are more representative of the last few dozen coins trading price multiplied by the total sum of coins. Logically, because the exchanges never took in sums in the billions of dollars, they can't pay it out. So it's all an illusion of worth, even more so than fiat currency or a standard bank account, because you can't pay nearly as many vendors with it, so it's utility is less, especially since most people don't understand that they are pseudonymous systems, rather than complete anonymous setups. Even the big names in privacy, like Monero, have had it breached. Most are less private than a credit card, because those at least are bound not to release all your info to anyone who calls to ask.
There is some amount of damage due to electro-migration. There is also the potential for damage due to running on a sagging supply rail due to the sheer number of cards, but that would mostly apply to the power delivery stages, which are repairable, and only be found in relatively poorly built mining rigs. There's also the potential drying of the thermal paste, or it's migration. The warmer the environment, the more liquid many become, and the cards are not always designed to run in a vertical orientation. Cleaning, and potential dust contamination of the PCB is also a concern, with any GPU, not just a mining card.
Overall, if you want something you don't have to worry about, only buy used if you can get two for the price of one new, because the new one has a proper warranty, while a used one may have the warranty canceled for you being a secondary purchaser, or because it was used commercially.
I owe money for the meal. I offer cash. You say "No, I only take the finest paypal electrons." I can now consider it satisfied in the eyes of the law, as I offered legal currency, and you refused.
I get your point, but your explanation needs work.
Average age of cars is 11.4 years. Now, if we aim for 50% or more electric, then if you sell 50% electric cars, then you need to make somewhere around 8 million of them (17.6 million cars sold in the US last year), and given we have 236 million cars on the road, then you would need around 15 years to have produced enough to replace half of the fleet, even assuming none are scrapped. On the other hand, it would take 13.4 years, if we sold nothing but electric cars, to replace the whole fleet, (or just under seven years for half), assuming none of the electric cars are scrapped/totaled.
Back to our 50% numbers. That puts it into the territory of many of those cars needing new batteries or drive units by the end of it, since Tesla offers 8 years of battery/drive unit warranty (or 100K miles, but we'll ignore that conditional), and we will assume (contrary to current evidence, as they have been replacing drive units, and some cars are on their third one, but we'll give them the assumption that by the time they ramp up to making some fraction of the 8 million electric cars being sold at the predicated rate of 50%, they will have largely engineered out the premature failures). The drive unit and battery are a significant fraction of the cost of the car, while the cabins and frame will likely have been damaged by being driven for several years, as well as stylings and materials having moved on. Meaning that likely most people will want to just buy a new one instead of replacing just the drive unit and battery pack. If you presume that say, 25% of the remaining cars from a given year will be taken off the road after the eight years of warranty (as the whole car warranty is shorter) due to drive-train, battery, or frame issues (IE, uneconomical to repair), this does mean that a gradually increasing amount of production goes to replace cars that are at end of life, extending the time frame to hit 50%.
So, in short, your guess was incorrect Re: age of cars. But a simple math model shows that at 7 years, not far from your guess of 6 years, if the Most buying electric from your statement was extrapolated to nearly 100%, then you could have the slim majority of cars on the road be electric. After that time period, however, EV's would increasingly replace previous generation EV's, due to longevity concerns on the batteries, and how much of a percentage of cars cost they make up, while gas cars would be hitting parts starvation, at least for the lower end cars, for drive-train specific components, as very few would or could be shared with EV's, while the 3rd party parts are going to be more expensive, as fewer and fewer people will be buying them. I suspect we would have to see at least initially, a backslide in longevity and increases in sales, or else the car fleet would contract (likely both), making it so that fewer people have cars of their own.
Premium hardware versus software product. Apple doesn't support the version of iOS that come out on the 5S with much of anything. You can upgrade it to the latest, or mostly suffer without software support. On the other hand, for the phones with the option to upgrade to Windows phone 10, you still get a modicum of support, admittedly, not very much beyond bare minimums.
Look at Google, they don't support 4 year old software, and nor do they or most manufacturers support 4 year plus old phones. If you want any support, you need to flash new ROMs for your android device, and most manufacturers try to make that hard.
I won't say this is a non-issue, but in comparison to other manufacturers, a clear EoL policy, and Microsoft's usual attempts to enable you to upgrade to their latest software means that while the app store is currently hosed, they may very well fix that, and if they don't, they made it pretty clear that they were getting ready to shelve it. Unlike say, Nextbit, or dozens of other smaller phone manufacturers, or even the big ones, who have folded, or simply stopped updating it, with the only notice that they stopped being that things gradually fail.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because they were headed for a population crash, where the working generations would be substantially smaller than the generations it was replacing. Additionally, while the official policy was rescinded, the cultural impacts will still be felt for generations, and the skewing of gender birth rates can also impact population growth, as men outnumber women 118 to 100 at birth, meaning that population growth could not be as rapid per capita, as while men are important in reproduction, they do not do the majority of the work, nor are they the rate limiting factor.
China will start seeing it's population reduce in size. Depending on cultural factors, they may continue to decline in population, even if they hit replacement birth rates for the latest generations, due to the size of those generations being substantially smaller than those before them. They may accelerate the decline, should they like many industrialized nations, end up settling at a birth rate that is slightly below the replacement rate over the long term (See Germany, Japan). They may rebound and either stabilize, or begin growing again, if culturally they end up convinced to exceed the replacement rate, which would be best for China's economy (contraction of the demand and labor pools are typically bad for markets), while being worst for the environment.
However, we also need to watch India, Africa, and the middle-east, as those regions have large growth potential. Should India get sanitation and infant mortality under control, their population will grow even faster (until the normal cultural reductions in birth rate occur, if they do). Should Africa or the middle-east get their various armed conflicts under control, and stop losing so many men, women, and children to warfare, they may very well see population booms due to that, as well as likely seeing some increase in reproduction due to the increased wealth from no longer diverting resources to destruction.
Yes. A phone or camera vendor has a finite number of variations, usually related to various regions a model might be released in. A car manufacturer, other than Tesla, will build the same trim of car to the same design for pretty much an entire year. It simplifies service, since these are durable goods that cannot just be replaced. How the parts get put together or made may change. But they may start out with different factories doing it different ways due to different floor plans, and not change for the year.
Kanban is about largely optimizing the process, not changing the product. That's something that AniMoJo got wrong. But you proved you don't understand it either with your response. You optimize stock, tools, ordering time, assembly order, packaging, machining strategies, etc. But the print you build the part to should not change.
You also seem to have a strong interest in saying that anyone criticizing Agile is wrong, while saying anyone who listens to clients or adapts to changing circumstances is essentially doing Agile. If that's Agile, then of course it will only result in success, since you've disqualified all failures, and most people don't actually need to pay any attention to Agile coaches or manifestos, since basic common sense and customer service handle the most important parts of it.
There's something similar in the US. Retail electrical prices are regulated, and are kept at a limited profit margin based on investment and costs. Wholesale prices include a large number of generators, transmission operators, etc, and are constantly moving. Now, to protect the consumer from these rapidly fluctuating prices, and to allow the grid to be paid for, most residential and commercial customers are on fixed rate or time of use metering. Some kilowatts you get are much more expensive that what you pay, while others the utility is paid to take. Industrial customers will often enough purchase at wholesale or arrange other contracts (see Apple buying all renewable energy for it's operations)
However, that is plug limited, and requires more maintenance. I'm no Tesla fanboy, but a whole home battery is worth 1500-1800, even for short run times, so long as it also deals with low voltage events (brownouts). I spend probably 60$ a year maintaining a trio of UPS's that size (replacing one set of batteries per year, doesn't include potential waste charges for SLA batteries), which only handles network gear and a pair of desktops.
So, presuming that it lasts the ten years of a powerwall warranty, I'm looking at 180$ a year, if I spread the cost out. Compared to the three Trip-lite units I have, at a purchase price of call it 200$ each (600$ total, which is around what I spend, since I bought two on sale and was given the third when someone moved), I have 120$ per year in costs. That starts looking much more attractive. Add in that many people will also get their load centers modernized, which can save a lot of cash, plus the maintenance is somebody else's problem. That's quite nice.
Maybe because gamers are budget constrained. If I have 300$, I can't buy a 500$ card that will run my games the way I want, since the original 300$ MSRP is inflated due to demand. Because I can't buy that card in the first place, I can't mine with it. Or, I happen to not live in one of the areas where the power costs make that break even. Perhaps my computer can't be left on at night because the fans/lights keep me awake.
I don't like miners because they are mostly wasting a shit-load of electricity, stealing CPU cycles, or hardware, driving up prices of anything with graphics hardware (GDDR and generic DRAM shortages), and functioning as essentially a high-tech form of scrip, or perhaps monopoly money, with little to nothing backing it (See the open question about if tether actually has the cash to back their tokens that they claim to, since they printed a few hundred million since declaring their bank transfers in and out had been blocked, or perhaps any of the other scams, like Bitconnect, or Pincoin). The vast majority of the "Value" of these currencies is in coins that have never been traded for cash, many of which are out of circulation. Thus the fantastic value numbers are more representative of the last few dozen coins trading price multiplied by the total sum of coins. Logically, because the exchanges never took in sums in the billions of dollars, they can't pay it out. So it's all an illusion of worth, even more so than fiat currency or a standard bank account, because you can't pay nearly as many vendors with it, so it's utility is less, especially since most people don't understand that they are pseudonymous systems, rather than complete anonymous setups. Even the big names in privacy, like Monero, have had it breached. Most are less private than a credit card, because those at least are bound not to release all your info to anyone who calls to ask.
There is some amount of damage due to electro-migration. There is also the potential for damage due to running on a sagging supply rail due to the sheer number of cards, but that would mostly apply to the power delivery stages, which are repairable, and only be found in relatively poorly built mining rigs. There's also the potential drying of the thermal paste, or it's migration. The warmer the environment, the more liquid many become, and the cards are not always designed to run in a vertical orientation. Cleaning, and potential dust contamination of the PCB is also a concern, with any GPU, not just a mining card.
Overall, if you want something you don't have to worry about, only buy used if you can get two for the price of one new, because the new one has a proper warranty, while a used one may have the warranty canceled for you being a secondary purchaser, or because it was used commercially.
I owe money for the meal. I offer cash. You say "No, I only take the finest paypal electrons." I can now consider it satisfied in the eyes of the law, as I offered legal currency, and you refused.
I get your point, but your explanation needs work.
Average age of cars is 11.4 years. Now, if we aim for 50% or more electric, then if you sell 50% electric cars, then you need to make somewhere around 8 million of them (17.6 million cars sold in the US last year), and given we have 236 million cars on the road, then you would need around 15 years to have produced enough to replace half of the fleet, even assuming none are scrapped. On the other hand, it would take 13.4 years, if we sold nothing but electric cars, to replace the whole fleet, (or just under seven years for half), assuming none of the electric cars are scrapped/totaled.
Back to our 50% numbers. That puts it into the territory of many of those cars needing new batteries or drive units by the end of it, since Tesla offers 8 years of battery/drive unit warranty (or 100K miles, but we'll ignore that conditional), and we will assume (contrary to current evidence, as they have been replacing drive units, and some cars are on their third one, but we'll give them the assumption that by the time they ramp up to making some fraction of the 8 million electric cars being sold at the predicated rate of 50%, they will have largely engineered out the premature failures). The drive unit and battery are a significant fraction of the cost of the car, while the cabins and frame will likely have been damaged by being driven for several years, as well as stylings and materials having moved on. Meaning that likely most people will want to just buy a new one instead of replacing just the drive unit and battery pack. If you presume that say, 25% of the remaining cars from a given year will be taken off the road after the eight years of warranty (as the whole car warranty is shorter) due to drive-train, battery, or frame issues (IE, uneconomical to repair), this does mean that a gradually increasing amount of production goes to replace cars that are at end of life, extending the time frame to hit 50%.
So, in short, your guess was incorrect Re: age of cars. But a simple math model shows that at 7 years, not far from your guess of 6 years, if the Most buying electric from your statement was extrapolated to nearly 100%, then you could have the slim majority of cars on the road be electric. After that time period, however, EV's would increasingly replace previous generation EV's, due to longevity concerns on the batteries, and how much of a percentage of cars cost they make up, while gas cars would be hitting parts starvation, at least for the lower end cars, for drive-train specific components, as very few would or could be shared with EV's, while the 3rd party parts are going to be more expensive, as fewer and fewer people will be buying them. I suspect we would have to see at least initially, a backslide in longevity and increases in sales, or else the car fleet would contract (likely both), making it so that fewer people have cars of their own.
Premium hardware versus software product. Apple doesn't support the version of iOS that come out on the 5S with much of anything. You can upgrade it to the latest, or mostly suffer without software support. On the other hand, for the phones with the option to upgrade to Windows phone 10, you still get a modicum of support, admittedly, not very much beyond bare minimums. Look at Google, they don't support 4 year old software, and nor do they or most manufacturers support 4 year plus old phones. If you want any support, you need to flash new ROMs for your android device, and most manufacturers try to make that hard. I won't say this is a non-issue, but in comparison to other manufacturers, a clear EoL policy, and Microsoft's usual attempts to enable you to upgrade to their latest software means that while the app store is currently hosed, they may very well fix that, and if they don't, they made it pretty clear that they were getting ready to shelve it. Unlike say, Nextbit, or dozens of other smaller phone manufacturers, or even the big ones, who have folded, or simply stopped updating it, with the only notice that they stopped being that things gradually fail.