But does it matter? Year 1 on the calendar wasn't determined until 5 centuries later by Dionysius Exiguus. Since they didn't start talking about decades and a meaningful way until modern journalism and history probably in the later half of the last century, it's not like we are tracking 200+ decades of information.
The whole point is to classify and organize things for telling stories. But largely, referring to the 80's, you are providing generalities (ie, cultural trends, politics, generational changes, etc) about a significant chunk of time. If that's the case, does it really matter to say 'we must begin at year 1, and include the next year that ends in a 0 in each decade. Because if I'm talking about the 1980s, I'm talking about the 10 years that begin 198, meaning 1980-1989. 1990 is not a year where the 3rd digit is 8 and the last three digits are in the 80s mathematically.
So on a decade level, it's much easier and more convenient to refer to decades as short hand by 80's instead of being pedantic and forcing everybody to say 1981-1990 since I will protest as loud as you if somebody demands including 1990 in the decade referred to as the 80's.
And if we are going to talk about decades and centuries, which is done primarily by historians and journalists, I don't mind them using a little short hand and making a slightly inaccurate convention that says decades are a period that have first 3 digits of the years the same, and centuries are all the years that have first two digits the same. It's convenient, and who cares if the first decade and century are short by one year. Nobody really discusses the first century and worries about whether year 100 was first century or second.
So, give it a rest, let the historians and journalists do their job, and don't worry, because there is no rule that says decades or centuries must start with year 1 or a probe will be thrown off course because of poor measurement, and we don't need everything counted like we are measuring something like an engineer or scientist. The whole point is classifying the messiness that is human existence and interaction, and who cares if the classification of decades and centuries if off by 1?
I saw an article that mentioned that a last week, but said there were sufficient deductions that nobody really paid that rate. Kennedy and Congress got rid of it for a reason.
Your numbers are too optimistic. The yield on the S%P 500 is at a multi decade average of 2.2% since the 1960s. That would be the highest sustainable return to expect from the market. If you go more than that, you will have to sell the companies and reduce future income. So in order to make this work, You would need assets of approximately 300 trillion. And this refuses to consider that you are probably hamstringing the capital allocation benefits of the stock market by making the government take over the companies since investors won't want to own them because all of the profits will be diverted to the UBI leaving nothing for individual investors.
This is why we should have within the rules about corporations that ownership should pass to the employees over time if the company gets over a certain size. After the company grows to 10 employees, then the employees get 5% of the company every year until the founder only owns 10%. The founder can retain all voting rights until he chooses to release them, then they go to the employees as well. The owner can only sell his shares to the employee group. Destroy the stock market, and the power of the big companies to ruin the economy in one big swoop. Get rid of the income disparity. Lots of good would come of this.
I thought this (4 page take from a robot in a similar situation as yours) was an interesting take on the status of comics today although I'm a webcomic guy, never been an actual comic BOOK reader, so I don't know if its accurate or not. You could also cast a wider net, and read some reviews and other discussion by searching for 'comic book reviews', 'comic book blogs', or other similar searches on your preferred search engine. Perhaps there may some sort of community on reddit, facebook, or another community site where people who are specifically into comics may have insight if nothing turns up here.
Have you considered Distributism? All of the free market prosperity without the corporate shenanigans and extreme concentration of wealth.
Because Socialism and Capitalism suffer from the same problem, concentration of economic power and therefore political power in the hands of a few well connected individuals.
I recently tried Google Keep after years of Wunderlist, and it suits me better.
My main usage is just monthly reminders to do around the home maintenance (1st Saturday, Car Maintenance, 2nd Yard work, 3rd change filter for heater, clean the Garage, check light bulbs, fire extinguishers and smoke detectors) 4th Other miscellaneous things), and taking the trash out every week.
The one feature I wish some task list would offer would be to remind after a certain amount of time since the last time I completed the task. So If I say remind me in 30 days to give the cat her flea medicine, and I put it off for 2 weeks, I'd like to be reminded 30 days after that, not 16. Instead, if I select the 30 days, it only starts counting for 30 days from the original reminder date.
What happens when the cost of mining (processing transactions) drops below the amount you would make in new coins? If it costs $4000 in energy to mine a coin and the cost of bitcoin drops below that price $4000, and intelligent miners turn off their rigs or switch to other coins, and the entire house of cards that is bitcoin will collapse.
It depends on if the search engine returns product searches for any retailers at all. If non, it may be an intentional choice, but at least they are consistent.
To your larger argument, isn't Amazon approaching a monopoly position in online retail? I think I read recently they are at over 50% in a huge market. And are they trying to leverage their position in online sales to reduce their competitor's sales in an unrelated business (retail to streaming hardware)? At this point, I think they should be classified as a monopoly, and forced to sell any product that anybody has as an alternative to something they already sell. If they are selling 1 streaming device, and they allow other sellers to sell the same or similar device, what non-anti-competitive reason can they give for not allowing Google?
Consider that the US has probably about 80 million households that have cable, and it is being slowly shifted to streaming services. If you only get 5 million customers, and you get $10 / month, that generates 600 million/year to create shows depending on what your distribution cost are.
Now, China, which probably never had the time to develop the same cable cartel as the US has a much higher population. Let's say 250 million households. Because you can get a much larger fan base for the same cost of production and distribution, you can lower the cost to generate the same revenue across more people. If 200 million people want to use different streaming services, it would only cost $3/ year to generate the same $600 million to fund programming. Obviously, if you could get a price more like 10 or 20 a year, you would have a lot of money to create programming, and you wouldn't even need to revert to commercials to pay the bills.
As a trained teacher of a method that uses temperatures, the way to indicate when to stop relations prior to ovulation is to use 6-12 months of history, and then subtract 7 from the earliest day of temperature rise when counting from the first day of menstruation. If the woman had 12 cycles, and never ovulated before the 17th day of her cycle, it would be 93+% effective to have relations on day 10 of the cycle.
That's not how the rate is calculated. 99% effective is based against 1 year of use, not 1 instance of intercourse.
So in the studies of the Sympto-thermal method (which uses both mucus observations and temperature, and which I teach), the real world effectiveness is 97% user (real world) and 99.6 method (ideal- no mistakes). These numbers are very similar to hormonal pills.
You would expect that out of 1000 women using this method, 30 would get pregnant (per year), 26 by accident and 4 in such a way that it wouldn't be obvious how the pregnancy happened.
So, if these couples have sex 100/year, you would have 30 pregnancies/100,000 instances of sex, or an accidental pregnancy about 1/3300 instances of sex, which for most women would probably be once per lifetime.
The old calendar/rhythm method was about 83% effective, and very prone to failure on months with irregular cycle lengths, would result in 170 babies per 1000 woman years. The condom has a real world rate of 10% which is 100 unintended pregnancies per 1000 women.
I'm not familiar with there studies, but I know that the German Health Department has approved an app. You can be sure that they required studies of effectiveness, and that the methods are sound.
Heck, this is the same way that farmers and zookeepers can track fertility in the animals they care for.
It doesn't make sense when you have pay a driver who isn't busy because of the lack of demand, and people don't have the money to pay for a driver on a regular basis. But if the cost of the driver goes away, and the cost of a taxi is similar to the cost of owning, and other benefits, then taxis will absolutely become common in rural areas.
But then you are the taxi owner, just under a less formal definition of the word. And somebody who makes it their business to own 50 cars, will be able to undercut you on the price because he will be more motivated to have his cars full all the time.
Individuals may not be able to afford it. But as a taxi with no labor cost (no driver), the car will be in use all the time, spreading the cost of the vehicle across a hundred trips per day instead of the 2-6 per day most individuals would make. With self-driving taxi's, I will only pay for the portion of the car I use. So, instead of buying a whole car, I pay for the wear and tear of one trip, plus the fuel, repairs, insurance, etc. that corresponds to my use of the vehicle. And instead of having to commit to the whole car, I only commit to paying for the car for today. Over the long term, the cost of owning (frugally) and using a self-driving taxi service will be a similar cost with the following differences:
I'll never have to make a large financial transaction to replace my vehicle. I don't have to worry that I'm buying a lemon. I won't have to have the expense of the car insurance, taxes, or registration. I don't have to make a space to park the vehicle off the roadway. I don't have to worry about somebody breaking into or stealing my vehicle. Crooks won't be able to tell if I'm home by if the car is in the drive. I don't have to take my vehicle in for maintenance. I don't have to fill it up with gas. I'll never have to pay for parking at the airport, downtown, or other pay parking situations. I will have the flexibility to have the vehicle I need when I want it. If it's just me, I can have them send out a two seat economy car, but if I'm taking along lots of family, I can have them send a larger model without having to pay for it all of the time, or going to the effort of renting it when I need it. If I'm not feeling well, or need to sleep, or I've been drinking, the movement of the vehicle is not impacted, and everybody is safer.
In the end, the cost of owning and taking a self driving taxi will probably be the same. Heck, for me, I'll probably be riding in a newer vehicle in a self driving taxi, with more convenience and at a similar cost. Sign me up.
It's not even who is paying more. It's about who will pay more in the future. Once you've bought the device, they don't have too many ways to get money from you, but people who want access to your device, they may be able to sell to them hundreds of times.
But why would we keep the DST? All that other stuff should be rescheduled an hour later. If you want schools to go with the later time, then have them start at 9:30 instead of 8:30, and have kids activities start an hour later. Have businesses start an hour later than they currently do, and have lunch breaks an hour later. You get the same thing without having to lie with clocks.
The AMA defines the codes that are used by billing, and because of Medicare, the AMA makes a huge amount of money from the Government. A great big racket built on lies, and for the benefit of corruption.. https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
The number elderly (who use most of the health care resources) is increasing far faster than the supply of doctors. We need to streamline and reduce the cost of getting young people through school and into medical fields in order to get a better balance which will tilt the cost balance in favor of the patient, not to mention reducing waiting times to get care.
I would like to see health care coops provided in locally were you pay a membership fee, and your care is taken care of. Whoever sells the membership promises to include care at the ER, hospital, cancer, and other chronic conditions for a reasonable cost, with an option on preventative care, and with multiple different groups competing somewhat on price to keep each other honest.
There is probably some other things that can be done with regard to making sure regulations are reasonable, etc.
Implement these, and I think you'd see costs move toward a more affordable level. The thing is neither side is interested in addressing the long term demographic need to have more doctors to care for a more elderly population because the medical provider lobby doesn't want them to because it keeps prices high and enriches the medical field at the cost of the rest of us.
But those who buy things with credit at today's value, then get to repay it at future prices after inflation do get a discount. It's why hyperinflation happens. When the entity that prints the money has a supersized debt problem, they have every incentive to print money to pay the bills until inflation is so bad that they are literally reissuing money multiple times a month because the old debt is a fraction of the size of the current money supply. If you buy a house, then the money inflates so your repayment of the house takes less than a month, then it will seem to everybody else who didn't get the same deal like you stole the house. That is, those without debt lose to the government while the one who bought a real asset that they basically didn't have to pay for came out way ahead.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose we could drop the number of hours people work to 20, and force them to employ more people for half the time for the same amount of work?
But does it matter? Year 1 on the calendar wasn't determined until 5 centuries later by Dionysius Exiguus. Since they didn't start talking about decades and a meaningful way until modern journalism and history probably in the later half of the last century, it's not like we are tracking 200+ decades of information.
The whole point is to classify and organize things for telling stories. But largely, referring to the 80's, you are providing generalities (ie, cultural trends, politics, generational changes, etc) about a significant chunk of time. If that's the case, does it really matter to say 'we must begin at year 1, and include the next year that ends in a 0 in each decade. Because if I'm talking about the 1980s, I'm talking about the 10 years that begin 198, meaning 1980-1989. 1990 is not a year where the 3rd digit is 8 and the last three digits are in the 80s mathematically.
So on a decade level, it's much easier and more convenient to refer to decades as short hand by 80's instead of being pedantic and forcing everybody to say 1981-1990 since I will protest as loud as you if somebody demands including 1990 in the decade referred to as the 80's.
And if we are going to talk about decades and centuries, which is done primarily by historians and journalists, I don't mind them using a little short hand and making a slightly inaccurate convention that says decades are a period that have first 3 digits of the years the same, and centuries are all the years that have first two digits the same. It's convenient, and who cares if the first decade and century are short by one year. Nobody really discusses the first century and worries about whether year 100 was first century or second.
So, give it a rest, let the historians and journalists do their job, and don't worry, because there is no rule that says decades or centuries must start with year 1 or a probe will be thrown off course because of poor measurement, and we don't need everything counted like we are measuring something like an engineer or scientist. The whole point is classifying the messiness that is human existence and interaction, and who cares if the classification of decades and centuries if off by 1?
Fool of a Took.
I saw an article that mentioned that a last week, but said there were sufficient deductions that nobody really paid that rate. Kennedy and Congress got rid of it for a reason.
Your numbers are too optimistic. The yield on the S%P 500 is at a multi decade average of 2.2% since the 1960s. That would be the highest sustainable return to expect from the market. If you go more than that, you will have to sell the companies and reduce future income. So in order to make this work, You would need assets of approximately 300 trillion. And this refuses to consider that you are probably hamstringing the capital allocation benefits of the stock market by making the government take over the companies since investors won't want to own them because all of the profits will be diverted to the UBI leaving nothing for individual investors.
You should look into Distributism.
This is why we should have within the rules about corporations that ownership should pass to the employees over time if the company gets over a certain size. After the company grows to 10 employees, then the employees get 5% of the company every year until the founder only owns 10%. The founder can retain all voting rights until he chooses to release them, then they go to the employees as well. The owner can only sell his shares to the employee group. Destroy the stock market, and the power of the big companies to ruin the economy in one big swoop. Get rid of the income disparity. Lots of good would come of this.
I thought this (4 page take from a robot in a similar situation as yours) was an interesting take on the status of comics today although I'm a webcomic guy, never been an actual comic BOOK reader, so I don't know if its accurate or not. You could also cast a wider net, and read some reviews and other discussion by searching for 'comic book reviews', 'comic book blogs', or other similar searches on your preferred search engine. Perhaps there may some sort of community on reddit, facebook, or another community site where people who are specifically into comics may have insight if nothing turns up here.
Here are some sites that may have interesting info:
https://comicbookroundup.com/
https://www.cbr.com/category/c...
https://comicsverse.com/
http://comicbook.com/
http://www.denofgeek.com/us/bo...
Have you considered Distributism? All of the free market prosperity without the corporate shenanigans and extreme concentration of wealth.
Because Socialism and Capitalism suffer from the same problem, concentration of economic power and therefore political power in the hands of a few well connected individuals.
I recently tried Google Keep after years of Wunderlist, and it suits me better.
My main usage is just monthly reminders to do around the home maintenance (1st Saturday, Car Maintenance, 2nd Yard work, 3rd change filter for heater, clean the Garage, check light bulbs, fire extinguishers and smoke detectors) 4th Other miscellaneous things), and taking the trash out every week.
The one feature I wish some task list would offer would be to remind after a certain amount of time since the last time I completed the task. So If I say remind me in 30 days to give the cat her flea medicine, and I put it off for 2 weeks, I'd like to be reminded 30 days after that, not 16. Instead, if I select the 30 days, it only starts counting for 30 days from the original reminder date.
Can't tell if you are serious or not.
What happens when the cost of mining (processing transactions) drops below the amount you would make in new coins? If it costs $4000 in energy to mine a coin and the cost of bitcoin drops below that price $4000, and intelligent miners turn off their rigs or switch to other coins, and the entire house of cards that is bitcoin will collapse.
It depends on if the search engine returns product searches for any retailers at all. If non, it may be an intentional choice, but at least they are consistent.
To your larger argument, isn't Amazon approaching a monopoly position in online retail? I think I read recently they are at over 50% in a huge market. And are they trying to leverage their position in online sales to reduce their competitor's sales in an unrelated business (retail to streaming hardware)? At this point, I think they should be classified as a monopoly, and forced to sell any product that anybody has as an alternative to something they already sell. If they are selling 1 streaming device, and they allow other sellers to sell the same or similar device, what non-anti-competitive reason can they give for not allowing Google?
Consider that the US has probably about 80 million households that have cable, and it is being slowly shifted to streaming services. If you only get 5 million customers, and you get $10 / month, that generates 600 million/year to create shows depending on what your distribution cost are.
Now, China, which probably never had the time to develop the same cable cartel as the US has a much higher population. Let's say 250 million households. Because you can get a much larger fan base for the same cost of production and distribution, you can lower the cost to generate the same revenue across more people. If 200 million people want to use different streaming services, it would only cost $3/ year to generate the same $600 million to fund programming. Obviously, if you could get a price more like 10 or 20 a year, you would have a lot of money to create programming, and you wouldn't even need to revert to commercials to pay the bills.
Human DNA.
As a trained teacher of a method that uses temperatures, the way to indicate when to stop relations prior to ovulation is to use 6-12 months of history, and then subtract 7 from the earliest day of temperature rise when counting from the first day of menstruation. If the woman had 12 cycles, and never ovulated before the 17th day of her cycle, it would be 93+% effective to have relations on day 10 of the cycle.
That's not how the rate is calculated. 99% effective is based against 1 year of use, not 1 instance of intercourse.
So in the studies of the Sympto-thermal method (which uses both mucus observations and temperature, and which I teach), the real world effectiveness is 97% user (real world) and 99.6 method (ideal- no mistakes). These numbers are very similar to hormonal pills.
You would expect that out of 1000 women using this method, 30 would get pregnant (per year), 26 by accident and 4 in such a way that it wouldn't be obvious how the pregnancy happened.
So, if these couples have sex 100/year, you would have 30 pregnancies/100,000 instances of sex, or an accidental pregnancy about 1/3300 instances of sex, which for most women would probably be once per lifetime.
The old calendar/rhythm method was about 83% effective, and very prone to failure on months with irregular cycle lengths, would result in 170 babies per 1000 woman years. The condom has a real world rate of 10% which is 100 unintended pregnancies per 1000 women.
I'm not familiar with there studies, but I know that the German Health Department has approved an app. You can be sure that they required studies of effectiveness, and that the methods are sound.
Heck, this is the same way that farmers and zookeepers can track fertility in the animals they care for.
It doesn't make sense when you have pay a driver who isn't busy because of the lack of demand, and people don't have the money to pay for a driver on a regular basis. But if the cost of the driver goes away, and the cost of a taxi is similar to the cost of owning, and other benefits, then taxis will absolutely become common in rural areas.
What happens if the price drops below the cost of mining and completing transactions?
But then you are the taxi owner, just under a less formal definition of the word. And somebody who makes it their business to own 50 cars, will be able to undercut you on the price because he will be more motivated to have his cars full all the time.
Individuals may not be able to afford it. But as a taxi with no labor cost (no driver), the car will be in use all the time, spreading the cost of the vehicle across a hundred trips per day instead of the 2-6 per day most individuals would make. With self-driving taxi's, I will only pay for the portion of the car I use. So, instead of buying a whole car, I pay for the wear and tear of one trip, plus the fuel, repairs, insurance, etc. that corresponds to my use of the vehicle. And instead of having to commit to the whole car, I only commit to paying for the car for today. Over the long term, the cost of owning (frugally) and using a self-driving taxi service will be a similar cost with the following differences:
I'll never have to make a large financial transaction to replace my vehicle. I don't have to worry that I'm buying a lemon.
I won't have to have the expense of the car insurance, taxes, or registration.
I don't have to make a space to park the vehicle off the roadway. I don't have to worry about somebody breaking into or stealing my vehicle. Crooks won't be able to tell if I'm home by if the car is in the drive.
I don't have to take my vehicle in for maintenance.
I don't have to fill it up with gas.
I'll never have to pay for parking at the airport, downtown, or other pay parking situations.
I will have the flexibility to have the vehicle I need when I want it. If it's just me, I can have them send out a two seat economy car, but if I'm taking along lots of family, I can have them send a larger model without having to pay for it all of the time, or going to the effort of renting it when I need it.
If I'm not feeling well, or need to sleep, or I've been drinking, the movement of the vehicle is not impacted, and everybody is safer.
In the end, the cost of owning and taking a self driving taxi will probably be the same. Heck, for me, I'll probably be riding in a newer vehicle in a self driving taxi, with more convenience and at a similar cost. Sign me up.
It's not even who is paying more. It's about who will pay more in the future. Once you've bought the device, they don't have too many ways to get money from you, but people who want access to your device, they may be able to sell to them hundreds of times.
+10 Ironic!!!!
But why would we keep the DST? All that other stuff should be rescheduled an hour later. If you want schools to go with the later time, then have them start at 9:30 instead of 8:30, and have kids activities start an hour later. Have businesses start an hour later than they currently do, and have lunch breaks an hour later. You get the same thing without having to lie with clocks.
There are bigger problems.
The AMA defines the codes that are used by billing, and because of Medicare, the AMA makes a huge amount of money from the Government. A great big racket built on lies, and for the benefit of corruption.. https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
The number elderly (who use most of the health care resources) is increasing far faster than the supply of doctors. We need to streamline and reduce the cost of getting young people through school and into medical fields in order to get a better balance which will tilt the cost balance in favor of the patient, not to mention reducing waiting times to get care.
I would like to see health care coops provided in locally were you pay a membership fee, and your care is taken care of. Whoever sells the membership promises to include care at the ER, hospital, cancer, and other chronic conditions for a reasonable cost, with an option on preventative care, and with multiple different groups competing somewhat on price to keep each other honest.
There is probably some other things that can be done with regard to making sure regulations are reasonable, etc.
Implement these, and I think you'd see costs move toward a more affordable level. The thing is neither side is interested in addressing the long term demographic need to have more doctors to care for a more elderly population because the medical provider lobby doesn't want them to because it keeps prices high and enriches the medical field at the cost of the rest of us.
But those who buy things with credit at today's value, then get to repay it at future prices after inflation do get a discount. It's why hyperinflation happens. When the entity that prints the money has a supersized debt problem, they have every incentive to print money to pay the bills until inflation is so bad that they are literally reissuing money multiple times a month because the old debt is a fraction of the size of the current money supply. If you buy a house, then the money inflates so your repayment of the house takes less than a month, then it will seem to everybody else who didn't get the same deal like you stole the house. That is, those without debt lose to the government while the one who bought a real asset that they basically didn't have to pay for came out way ahead.