California did not stop the forest service from doing controlled burns... ever. I live in a wooded area in California (mostly National Forest surrounds me, some state parks) and there have been controlled burns every year since I've lived here (42 years).
My favorite quote from TFA: Some companies are pushing back: In a recent video, T-Mobile’s John Legere took on the topic of ageist stereotypes while promoting a T-Mobile service for adults age 55-plus. He chided competitors for what he called their belittling treatment of older adults in marketing campaigns that emphasize large-size phone buttons and imply that boomers are tech idiots. “Degrading at the highest level,” Legere calls it. “The carriers assume boomers are a bunch of old people stuck in the past who can’t figure out how the internet works. Newsflash, carriers: Boomers invented the internet.”
I have an older MacBook Air. I fell in love with the hardware but never really liked OSX (in any of the versions since I bought it) and each version "upgrade" seemed to cripple the hardware more and more. Linux gives me an option to use my "made obsolete by Apple" hardware. Of course, there is now a lot of very nice hardware that will run Linux from non-Apple vendors so I don't see myself buying Apple again.
It seems that the semiconductor industry goes through these cycles periodically. Whenever they run up against limits to single chip integration, they go back to this strategy of wiring together separate chips together. Ultimately, this proves to be inefficient and once technology improves, they return to putting everything on a single chip.
Training is important and my experience with these implementations are that they do spend a lot of time on training. However, the basic problem is that the systems are too cumbersome to use with too many requirements and a poor user interface. Basically, health care before computers allowed practitioners to skip over a lot of steps (some OK to skip, others maybe not) but the computer systems codified all of steps and required a lot more data entry, leading to chaos.
I know they're doing a few electric cars here and there. They're not particular serious about it, as far as I can tell. 25% by 2030 is much too slow, in my opinion. They need to get on it.
The problem with your opinion is that it isn't realistic.
As GM is in the business of making money, and not losing it, they have to be realistic.
If GM announced tomorrow that all of their vehicles would be electric going forward, they would next be announcing that they are going out of business due to lack of sales.
Electric cars are cool and all, but for most people they are not an option.
GM probably can't make a profit on EVs but Tesla sure is... and is selling every car they make and ramping up production. Tesla seems to have figured out how to make EVs at a profit and people are standing in line to buy them. GM will go out of business if they can't make EVs at a profit or will go out of business if they don't make EVs... either way, looks like they are going out of business.
From TFA: "For A.P.S., a two-hundred-million-dollar gas-fuel plant would be more lucrative than a twenty-million-dollar solar array because the utility can charge higher rates to recoup its investment costs. Kris Mayes, a former Republican A.C.C. commissioner, who helped write the language of Prop 127, told me the Averch-Johnson effect explains why, in 2017, A.P.S. called for more than five thousand megawatts of new natural-gas additions, and almost no utility-scale renewables. “If they were truly acting in public interest,” Mayes said, “they would not be proposing fifty-four hundred megawatts of new natural-gas plants.”
Well, they don't put it under their matresses. They "invest" it in stocks and bonds to get a return. They only invest in growing a company if there is demand and they can convince peons to buy more stuff. That depends on peons having money to buy stuff. Pay people low wages and they won't have much money to buy stuff. Pay them well and they will buy a lot of stuff. That's why high wages (and high minimum wage) is good for the economy and for companies.
Generally, they do horde the money (often offshore to avoid taxes). Sometimes they spend it on boats and airplanes or extra houses. Rarely they will have some guilt and give some to "charity" where they get to pick the most deserving "causes" (art museums are popular, so is putting their name on a building, Andrew Carnegie had a thing for church organs) They only spend it on expanding the business if the demand from peons justifies it. Assets hoarded by corporations and individuals are at record levels today. Thanks to last year's tax cuts, private wealth is up by 20% this year.
Yes, the Federal government should increase spending during recessions and save up when the economy is going well. As you point out, the politicians are stupid and mostly just give money to their donors... i.e. cut taxes for the rich and cut spending on anything that might benefit everyone else regardless of the economy. State and local government does have the constraint that they have to have balanced budgets so they tend to spend less when tax receipts go down during a recession.
Just read this morning that Argentina has destroyed 25% of it's forest in the past few years to grow soybeans to feed to animals for meat. It seems that it would be a good idea to stop cutting down trees first. (Also, stop eating meat.)
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.theverge.com/2016/...
Zipline International
Rwanda delivers blood and medication to remote clinics by drone. Fast, safe.
That's a pretty lame excuse... paying for someone to blame.
Has Microsoft paid for any of it's screwups?
People pay to use a word processor?
That says nothing about California suing
That says nothing about controlled burns.
Try basic reading comprehension.
Facts?
These articles don't say anything about the Forest Service being prevented from doing controlled burns.
California did not stop the forest service from doing controlled burns... ever. I live in a wooded area in California (mostly National Forest surrounds me, some state parks) and there have been controlled burns every year since I've lived here (42 years).
My favorite quote from TFA:
Some companies are pushing back: In a recent video, T-Mobile’s John Legere took on the topic of ageist stereotypes while promoting a T-Mobile service for adults age 55-plus. He chided competitors for what he called their belittling treatment of older adults in marketing campaigns that emphasize large-size phone buttons and imply that boomers are tech idiots. “Degrading at the highest level,” Legere calls it. “The carriers assume boomers are a bunch of old people stuck in the past who can’t figure out how the internet works. Newsflash, carriers: Boomers invented the internet.”
(Also, computers, etc.)
I have an older MacBook Air. I fell in love with the hardware but never really liked OSX (in any of the versions since I bought it) and each version "upgrade" seemed to cripple the hardware more and more.
Linux gives me an option to use my "made obsolete by Apple" hardware. Of course, there is now a lot of very nice hardware that will run Linux from non-Apple vendors so I don't see myself buying Apple again.
It seems that the semiconductor industry goes through these cycles periodically. Whenever they run up against limits to single chip integration, they go back to this strategy of wiring together separate chips together. Ultimately, this proves to be inefficient and once technology improves, they return to putting everything on a single chip.
Yes, it basically boils down to poor design.
Training is important and my experience with these implementations are that they do spend a lot of time on training.
However, the basic problem is that the systems are too cumbersome to use with too many requirements and a poor user interface.
Basically, health care before computers allowed practitioners to skip over a lot of steps (some OK to skip, others maybe not) but the computer systems codified all of steps and required a lot more data entry, leading to chaos.
I know they're doing a few electric cars here and there. They're not particular serious about it, as far as I can tell. 25% by 2030 is much too slow, in my opinion. They need to get on it.
The problem with your opinion is that it isn't realistic.
As GM is in the business of making money, and not losing it, they have to be realistic.
If GM announced tomorrow that all of their vehicles would be electric going forward, they would next be announcing that they are going out of business due to lack of sales.
Electric cars are cool and all, but for most people they are not an option.
GM probably can't make a profit on EVs but Tesla sure is... and is selling every car they make and ramping up production. Tesla seems to have figured out how to make EVs at a profit and people are standing in line to buy them.
GM will go out of business if they can't make EVs at a profit or will go out of business if they don't make EVs... either way, looks like they are going out of business.
I had the same thing happen. I took the loan (and got a better deal on the car) then paid it off the next month with cash.
From TFA:
"For A.P.S., a two-hundred-million-dollar gas-fuel plant would be more lucrative than a twenty-million-dollar solar array because the utility can charge higher rates to recoup its investment costs. Kris Mayes, a former Republican A.C.C. commissioner, who helped write the language of Prop 127, told me the Averch-Johnson effect explains why, in 2017, A.P.S. called for more than five thousand megawatts of new natural-gas additions, and almost no utility-scale renewables. “If they were truly acting in public interest,” Mayes said, “they would not be proposing fifty-four hundred megawatts of new natural-gas plants.”
Well, they don't put it under their matresses. They "invest" it in stocks and bonds to get a return.
They only invest in growing a company if there is demand and they can convince peons to buy more stuff. That depends on peons having money to buy stuff.
Pay people low wages and they won't have much money to buy stuff. Pay them well and they will buy a lot of stuff. That's why high wages (and high minimum wage) is good for the economy and for companies.
Generally, they do horde the money (often offshore to avoid taxes). Sometimes they spend it on boats and airplanes or extra houses. Rarely they will have some guilt and give some to "charity" where they get to pick the most deserving "causes" (art museums are popular, so is putting their name on a building, Andrew Carnegie had a thing for church organs)
They only spend it on expanding the business if the demand from peons justifies it. Assets hoarded by corporations and individuals are at record levels today. Thanks to last year's tax cuts, private wealth is up by 20% this year.
I thought we needed to wait 20-30 years.
Profits today benefit owners today. That's all.
If you expect any loyalty from a company where you have sold your soul, you are very naive.
I think you need to read what you've just written. If you don't see a problem there, seek help.
It will be interesting to see if giving minimum wage earners more money translates to an improved economy as many economists predict.
Yes, the Federal government should increase spending during recessions and save up when the economy is going well. As you point out, the politicians are stupid and mostly just give money to their donors... i.e. cut taxes for the rich and cut spending on anything that might benefit everyone else regardless of the economy.
State and local government does have the constraint that they have to have balanced budgets so they tend to spend less when tax receipts go down during a recession.
Do profits matter more than people?
Just read this morning that Argentina has destroyed 25% of it's forest in the past few years to grow soybeans to feed to animals for meat.
It seems that it would be a good idea to stop cutting down trees first. (Also, stop eating meat.)
He is just following orders.