FYI The baseload power argument has been wrong for over a decade now. Those who still make it are either horribly out of touch, shills, or just in denial.
Based on the other things you've said, you might belong in the "shill" bin. =Smidge=
I'm sure that if you survey the people who've been banned, there is a near 100% false-positive rate.
I have it on good authority that nobody has ever been banned from any game for actually cheating; it's always a mod they forgot to uninstall (cosmetic only, of course!), or some innocuous program they have running in the background, or someone hacked their account... =Smidge=
It's not about being easy, it's about being cost effective.
If you already have a lot invested in the equipment and infrastructure of using petroleum for your energy needs, it's a large financial outlay to invest in a whole new technology that you don't necessarily need (even if the long-term benefits are clear).
However, since Puerto Rico is now in the unfortunate position of having to rebuild much of their infrastructure anyway, and having to spend a ton of money to do so anyway, there's hardly any reason NOT to spend it on new technologies that save money in the long run... and also reduce dependence. =Smidge=
I feel a case can also be made that, since police have "less than lethal" options available, they are more likely to employ force instead of deescalation and discussion.
The options have gone from "talk them down vs. kill them" to "talk them down, kill them or just hurt them really bad in a way I won't get in trouble for."
I feel it's a significant part of why police violence is such a problem. =Smidge=
Also, now that I think about it, your math is wrong. You only pay the tax rate on the *portion* of the money within that bracket, not the whole thing.
So let's say you earn $53K.
For every dollar above $418,400 you pay 39.6%. We're well below that, though.
You then pay 35% on every dollar above $416,700 up to $418,400. Still below that.
Then it's 33% on every dollar above $191,650 up to $416,700. Still below that.
Then it's 28% on every dollar above $91,900 up to $191,650. Keep going...
Then it's 25% on every dollar above $37,950 up to $91,900. 25% of $15,050 is $3,762.50.
Then it's 15% on every dollar above $9,325 up to $37,950. 15% of $28,625 is $4,293.75.
Finally, you pay 10% on the first $9,325 you earn. 10% of that is $932.50.
Grand total: $8,988.75 which is an effective rate of 16.96% on $53,000. Multiply that by 3000 salaries and you get $26,966,250 not $39,750,000.
By contrast, someone making $100 million per year is paying $39,555,818.85 before any deductions... but this is only because you are so far above the lowest bracket threshold that the rest of it is basically noise. =Smidge=
The jobs are reported to average just over $53K in salary.
Okay, so what's the median salary?
There's a difference between 3000 people earning $53K each and a few people earning $1M+ with everyone else getting minimum wage, even if both scenarios result in an "average" of $53K. =Smidge=
In a free market, demand is always a function of price: the higher the price, the lower the demand.
Labor does not, and has never, followed the principles of supply and demand. You wasted a lot of time typing out a thesis based on a demonstrably false premise.
That said, I'll skip right to the end:
The only way to increase wages is to increase worker productivity.
Worker productivity has increased steadily while wages have not. There is virtually no link between them any more. Part of the argument for increasing minimum wage is to correct this divergence. =Smidge=
Based on that I'd expect the factory building itself to cost something like $600-$800 million depending on the construction methods. Even a metal shack building will cost over $30/sq.ft. and I'm sure a factory with all the things required to support the internal infrastructure will cost more than that. =Smidge=
It's more accurate to say that the battery pack has no active thermal management and is fairly poor in capacity to begin with compared to what's now available.
Nissan was not able to evolve their battery fast enough to keep pace with the technology and ended up taking it in the neck. =Smidge=
Those are the things that caused Network Neutrality to become an issue. I'm sure there's more, more subtle examples that have been less widely publicized too.
Now imagine if there was explicitly no legal framework to prevent this. Imagine if it was not only expressly legal but accepted. There would be no competition for online services, no innovation, and higher prices for inferior service.
So when you say shit like this:
If a problem comes along, and it is a REAL problem, THEN regulate.
We are repeatedly told , "net neutrality protects the little guy" â" a notion made rather suspect by the concern of the giants like Amazon.
I don't see a conflict here.
Amazon offers an on-demand video streaming service. Verizon offers an on-demand video streaming service. Verizon ALSO controls access to these services for its customers. Without Network Neutrality there is nothing to prevent Verizon from either snarling Amazon's traffic (making their service lower quality), and/or charging Amazon more for the speed/bandwidth everyone else is getting by default (making them less competitive on price).
So of course Amazon and others have a financial stake in this. The "little guy" does, too, since they're the ones who will end up paying more for inferior service at the end of the day.
The other side is new companies (aka the "little guys") that may be able to bring something innovative and new to the market, but would be hindered by anti-competitive practices by ISPs. Imagine, for example, if the major ISPs were all already offering video hosting and streaming services before YouTube was a thing... and decided that the fledgling YouTube would have to pay extra for the speed and bandwidth they needed to operate...
And if you want proof-in-the-pudding that Network Neutrality is a good thing, just look back to the bad old days before POTS providers were classified as common carrier. Once the Telecommunications Act of 1996 kicked in, competition increased and telephone service prices (especially long distance) dropped significantly, because the owners of the copper now had to treat all traffic - including the traffic of their competitors - equally. =Smidge=
20 years ago major ISPs were not directly competing with content providers, so there was no financial incentive to fuck with traffic.
It wasn't until data services started to compete with traditional telecom services that this became a problem. For example, VoIP, which used an internet connection instead of POTS lines, could make long distance calls for basically the same price as local calls (or even less if both parties had VoIP service). This became a direct competitor to the phone companies which, at the time, were also internet service providers. The result? VoIP traffic became snarled, making it less useful, less desirable, than traditional phone services.
Now, all the major ISPs are also content providers; they have their own streaming services, their own search engines, sometimes their own shopping networks. They have every incentive to leverage their control over the access to the internet to hinder their competition.
Network Neutrality is about ensuring fair access. It's about preventing service providers from abusing their position as gatekeeper to stifle competition, whether by traffic tampering or charging fees to make them less competitive. =Smidge=
You only need to disconnect he plant from the grid.
You don't think switching tens of megawatts of power on and of from the grid is going to cause problems?
Hint: to sell energy for a negative price to a different region/country, you need to make a desicion, set up the deal on a kind of stock market, wait for a buyer, and switch the grid to transport it that way.
Slashdot Mirror
https://skepticalscience.com/r...
FYI The baseload power argument has been wrong for over a decade now. Those who still make it are either horribly out of touch, shills, or just in denial.
Based on the other things you've said, you might belong in the "shill" bin.
=Smidge=
I can imagine that conversation....
"So, you're a field researcher? What do you study?"
"Great tits!"
"Ah, you're an ornithologist?"
"What? Oh, uh... yeah, sure..."
=Smidge=
I'm sure that if you survey the people who've been banned, there is a near 100% false-positive rate.
I have it on good authority that nobody has ever been banned from any game for actually cheating; it's always a mod they forgot to uninstall (cosmetic only, of course!), or some innocuous program they have running in the background, or someone hacked their account...
=Smidge=
It's not about being easy, it's about being cost effective.
If you already have a lot invested in the equipment and infrastructure of using petroleum for your energy needs, it's a large financial outlay to invest in a whole new technology that you don't necessarily need (even if the long-term benefits are clear).
However, since Puerto Rico is now in the unfortunate position of having to rebuild much of their infrastructure anyway, and having to spend a ton of money to do so anyway, there's hardly any reason NOT to spend it on new technologies that save money in the long run... and also reduce dependence.
=Smidge=
I was wanting to say, in the US the LEAF is only about 4-5% behind the Bolt in year-to-date sales as of a few months ago.
https://cleantechnica.com/2017...
"General Motors is the only other company within reach of Tesla" my ass. (Maybe if you cheat and include the Volt)
=Smidge=
Correlation does not imply causation, except when it does;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
=Smidge=
I feel a case can also be made that, since police have "less than lethal" options available, they are more likely to employ force instead of deescalation and discussion.
The options have gone from "talk them down vs. kill them" to "talk them down, kill them or just hurt them really bad in a way I won't get in trouble for."
I feel it's a significant part of why police violence is such a problem.
=Smidge=
Also, now that I think about it, your math is wrong. You only pay the tax rate on the *portion* of the money within that bracket, not the whole thing.
So let's say you earn $53K.
For every dollar above $418,400 you pay 39.6%. We're well below that, though.
You then pay 35% on every dollar above $416,700 up to $418,400. Still below that.
Then it's 33% on every dollar above $191,650 up to $416,700. Still below that.
Then it's 28% on every dollar above $91,900 up to $191,650. Keep going...
Then it's 25% on every dollar above $37,950 up to $91,900. 25% of $15,050 is $3,762.50.
Then it's 15% on every dollar above $9,325 up to $37,950. 15% of $28,625 is $4,293.75.
Finally, you pay 10% on the first $9,325 you earn. 10% of that is $932.50.
Grand total: $8,988.75 which is an effective rate of 16.96% on $53,000. Multiply that by 3000 salaries and you get $26,966,250 not $39,750,000.
By contrast, someone making $100 million per year is paying $39,555,818.85 before any deductions... but this is only because you are so far above the lowest bracket threshold that the rest of it is basically noise.
=Smidge=
If the top earners are taxed at 39.6%
You're a fool if you think they actually pay that.
When you have that much money, hiring an accountant to exploit the tax loopholes is a net profit.
=Smidge=
The jobs are reported to average just over $53K in salary.
Okay, so what's the median salary?
There's a difference between 3000 people earning $53K each and a few people earning $1M+ with everyone else getting minimum wage, even if both scenarios result in an "average" of $53K.
=Smidge=
In a free market, demand is always a function of price: the higher the price, the lower the demand.
Labor does not, and has never, followed the principles of supply and demand. You wasted a lot of time typing out a thesis based on a demonstrably false premise.
That said, I'll skip right to the end:
The only way to increase wages is to increase worker productivity.
Worker productivity has increased steadily while wages have not. There is virtually no link between them any more. Part of the argument for increasing minimum wage is to correct this divergence.
=Smidge=
RUBE is 20 years old...
https://github.com/catseye/RUB...
Though if you want something that looks like art, there's also Piet:
http://www.dangermouse.net/eso...
=Smidge=
The factory is said to be 20 million square feet.
Based on that I'd expect the factory building itself to cost something like $600-$800 million depending on the construction methods. Even a metal shack building will cost over $30/sq.ft. and I'm sure a factory with all the things required to support the internal infrastructure will cost more than that.
=Smidge=
It's more accurate to say that the battery pack has no active thermal management and is fairly poor in capacity to begin with compared to what's now available.
Nissan was not able to evolve their battery fast enough to keep pace with the technology and ended up taking it in the neck.
=Smidge=
Maybe 5%, probably less, in typical driving cycles.
You don't do a lot of driving in major cities, do you?
=Smidge=
Mueller put together a grand jury for the ongoing Russia investigations. Later that same day, Wikileaks releases more dirt on the CIA.
Honestly, how can anyone NOT at least suspect Wikileaks from being under Russia control at this point?
=Smidge=
I mean, it's worked so well in India, right?
=Smidge=
The standard is SAE J1772-2009.
The only EV manufacturer that doesn't have a J1772 port is Tesla, but they still include an adapter for it.
Some US manufacturers want to use the CCS1 plug style, which is backwards-compatible with J1772.
=Smidge=
But what if I want to stream Netflix to my phone so I can watch movies while my self-driving car takes me home from work?
=Smidge=
Because, if you're one of the vast majority of Americans, you don't actually HAVE an alternative?
I mean, I suppose you could get DSL in most places still, but you're still not going to be streaming video or anything like that.
Here's a challenge for you: If you live in the US, list all of the ISPs available in your area that provide download speeds 3Mbit or better.
=Smidge=
Yet, THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN.
Except when it does.
Not the first time either
Those are the things that caused Network Neutrality to become an issue. I'm sure there's more, more subtle examples that have been less widely publicized too.
Now imagine if there was explicitly no legal framework to prevent this. Imagine if it was not only expressly legal but accepted. There would be no competition for online services, no innovation, and higher prices for inferior service.
So when you say shit like this:
If a problem comes along, and it is a REAL problem, THEN regulate.
You clearly have your head in the sand.
=Smidge=
We are repeatedly told , "net neutrality protects the little guy" â" a notion made rather suspect by the concern of the giants like Amazon.
I don't see a conflict here.
Amazon offers an on-demand video streaming service. Verizon offers an on-demand video streaming service. Verizon ALSO controls access to these services for its customers. Without Network Neutrality there is nothing to prevent Verizon from either snarling Amazon's traffic (making their service lower quality), and/or charging Amazon more for the speed/bandwidth everyone else is getting by default (making them less competitive on price).
So of course Amazon and others have a financial stake in this. The "little guy" does, too, since they're the ones who will end up paying more for inferior service at the end of the day.
The other side is new companies (aka the "little guys") that may be able to bring something innovative and new to the market, but would be hindered by anti-competitive practices by ISPs. Imagine, for example, if the major ISPs were all already offering video hosting and streaming services before YouTube was a thing... and decided that the fledgling YouTube would have to pay extra for the speed and bandwidth they needed to operate...
And if you want proof-in-the-pudding that Network Neutrality is a good thing, just look back to the bad old days before POTS providers were classified as common carrier. Once the Telecommunications Act of 1996 kicked in, competition increased and telephone service prices (especially long distance) dropped significantly, because the owners of the copper now had to treat all traffic - including the traffic of their competitors - equally.
=Smidge=
20 years ago major ISPs were not directly competing with content providers, so there was no financial incentive to fuck with traffic.
It wasn't until data services started to compete with traditional telecom services that this became a problem. For example, VoIP, which used an internet connection instead of POTS lines, could make long distance calls for basically the same price as local calls (or even less if both parties had VoIP service). This became a direct competitor to the phone companies which, at the time, were also internet service providers. The result? VoIP traffic became snarled, making it less useful, less desirable, than traditional phone services.
Now, all the major ISPs are also content providers; they have their own streaming services, their own search engines, sometimes their own shopping networks. They have every incentive to leverage their control over the access to the internet to hinder their competition.
Network Neutrality is about ensuring fair access. It's about preventing service providers from abusing their position as gatekeeper to stifle competition, whether by traffic tampering or charging fees to make them less competitive.
=Smidge=
There's also CrashCourse which *is* free...
=Smidge=
You only need to disconnect he plant from the grid.
You don't think switching tens of megawatts of power on and of from the grid is going to cause problems?
Hint: to sell energy for a negative price to a different region/country, you need to make a desicion, set up the deal on a kind of stock market, wait for a buyer, and switch the grid to transport it that way.
https://www.cleanenergywire.or...
Hint: I worked nearly ten years for one of the mayour power companies here.
I'm not convinced you're even ten years old, let alone been involved in the industry that long.
=Smidge=