That does not eliminate all of the blind spots. For one the "head turn" is considered unsafe, and a source of rear-end crashes. But is required in some cars if your mirrors are adjusted with any overlap of the rearview.
To adjust mine, I simply park on a long straight road and adjust each side mirror until the image on the inside edge just overlaps the image on the outside edge of the center mirror.
A bicycle has a profile roughly the same as a pedestrian. Have someone stand beside your car, just behind your right rear tire. Can you see them then? The overlap-at-infinity that many use will miss a bicycle close to the car, and adjusting for that will have excessive overlap.
Worse? I see at least one person per day driving while reading a book or magazine. I'd estimate that at least 1% are using their cell phones illegally at any given time (about 10% breaking it occasionally) , and, even with regular inspections mandated, it seems like 1-10% of the cars wouldn't pass an inspection.
And the "good drivers" can't change lanes, don't know how to merge, fail to keep a proper lookout. There isn't a computer dumb enough to be worse than the average driver, and a reasonable one would beat all but the best professional drivers. The best computers would be better than the best humans.
To me, it looked more like they thought it was time to make some governmental standards (or put a government stamp on corporate standards) for the developing safety gear, much like the government did with seatbelts and bumpers.
You are assuming the worst possible implementation, then attacking somthing that doesn't exist. Do any of the problems you are mentioning get worse if the government steps in and mandates interoperability and open standards for V2V communications?
V2V is happening today. Unregulated and with no standards at all. Why are you asserting that a nascent technology with no standards and no oversight is safer than one with?
You've asserted that a laser is less predictable than balllistics. When you are in ship to ship and your fighter fires on one at a higher altitude, what will the ballistics do? Fall. Possibly on someone. We could theoretically calculate exactly where, but we can't because we don't know all the variables at the moment of release. But the laser will go up, forever, endangering nobody, except a near-zero chance of an unintentional hit on the space station. In that case, the laser is infinitely more safe than ballistics. Even when firing down, the spread of destruction will be lower with the laser. I can't see how someone could have the stance that a laser is more dangerous to bystanders than sprayed high rate of fire lead, or even better uranium (or is that mainly tank shells).
The same fighter fires a stream of lead at another fighter, missing and the lead raining down on a school below. How does the laser do any more/worse damage?
May I take that as a signal that you are aware that your money devaluates ? The only thing we than need to talk about is the reasons for that devaluation.
My money doesn't devaluate. A given amount of my money will devaluate, but the total sum of money, the portion that's "my money" doesn't devaluate.
I figured that out at about age 12. I saved money ever since, putting myself through college with no debt (making choices like living in a non-air-conditioned dorm in south/central Texas to save money), working the whole time, two jobs every summer and winter. Saved up to buy a house, getting on the housing ladder. Paying as much interest on it as practical to get the large tax deductions. Pay as little tax as possible, earn as much as possible, spend as little as possible. Repeat every year for 30 years, and you can get to where you own enough that inflation won't hurt you either.
Nope. Why would you think such a thing? Even the liberal orgnaizations use tax law for the most adventageous standing, why shouldn't you and I do what we can?
find it odd that in 100 or so replies people have attempted to explain it to you but you are too dense to grasp it.
And what is "it"? That ROI matching inflation results in a net change in the value of the money? In which direction?
Like I say, you don't address my assertion, but go off on some tangent. OPEC controls inflation of the USD more than the Federal reserve does? I don't agree with that, but it's irrelevant to the point that inflation isn't theft, as was asserted by the person I initially disagreed with. So, what's your stance on "inflation is theft"? since you assert that the governemnt doesn't even control it, then it can't be theft by the government, right? So you agree with me in disagreeing with the AC that asserted inflation is theft, but are so disagreeable, you must twist that agreement into an argument.
No, the purchasing power of money does NOT correspond to any return.
So $100 saved for a year at 5% return will not buy $105 in goods at the end of that period? Return of an investment has NO relation to the purchasing power?
That sounds really stupid, and like you are trying really really hard to prove me wrong, so much so you don't even care what's being said. Care to try again?
what does that mean? of course 105=105. Are you trying to say that 100 + 5% return = 100 + 5% inflation? They do not because "money" doesn't get any return.
Money saved/invested does get some return. Why are you storing your cash under your mattress? If you only store your cash under your mattress, then yes, you won't get any return on it. But lots of things get return, like stocks, bonds, CDs and such. And they cost "money".
Your "salary" does not adjust up 5% just because inflation does.
You've never gotten, and never heard of cost-of-living adjustments?
Inflation erodes wealth.
Ok, so like most people, my most expensive item (the holder of "wealth") is my house. After inflation, is my house worth *more* or *less*? Oh, inflation doesn't erode wealth... Don't worry, if you keep making statements, perhaps one of them may, one day, be right.
It is also a weird thing to write, not sure why you want to force people to agree with you, or make weird assertions like this.
I'm happy to be proven right. I'm just waiting for someone to try. So far, it's just denials and abuse. If someone could prove me right, there have been 100+ posts in the sub thread, and nobdody has even tried (well, there was the one AC that claimed that 5% interest of $100 would leave you with $95 a year later, but no, I'm not considering that a serious try).
When Tesla has a large bank of chargers and Nissan doesn't, Nissan will license the connection from Tesla, and the non-standard will become a de-facto standard. So many standards came about this way.
You didnt write this? "Yes. Someone gets it. When the rates cancel out, "inflation" doesn't directly hurt you." You may not have "asserted" it, but you agreed and it is NOT accurate. Risk free rates are independent of inflation.
I didn't say "risk free rate" in my post. I said "when they cancel out..." You are inferring something that isn't there, then attacking the thing I didn't say. I don't care if you call it the RFR or historical DOW return or whatever. When your return is 5% and your inflation is 5%, you do not lose money.
If inflation is "good"
I never said it was "good" Why are you making up so many things about what I say? If I'm so wrong, it should be able to show it, not have to make up so many strawmen to disprove.
As others have pointed out in this thread stop trying to put forward flawled logic, then stating people agree with you when they dont.
When they disagree with the logic, I'll stop stating they agree with me. They almost always agree with the logic and the outcome, but disagree with the example given. That's more agreement than not, and nobody has yet asserted that $105 after 5% inflation is "worse" than $100 without 5% inflation. As nobody has yet to disagree with my assertion, that's violent agreement. People instead presume my personal opinion (like you implying I think inflation is "good") and then attack that, or attack me personally for demystifying inflation.
If you want to disagree with my $105=$105, then please do so. Anything else will be taken as agreement with that statement.
In your own words, what does this sentence mean to you? "A general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money."
This is the definition of "Inflation" yet you seem to come here and argue over and over again that inflation means something else.
I never asserted it meant anything else. Where did I? Go ahead, quote it. Don't worry, I probably won't be able to demonstrate your violent agreement with me much longer. There's a daily cap in posts, and with 100+ posts under my initial comment, and so many people asserting that my logic is flawless, but must be wrong, because they don't like their opinion of the result of the implications, which I'm challenging all the nay-sayers to find any flaw in the logic or initial assertion, I'm sure I'll hit that cap soon and be cut off for a bit.
"A general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money."
If the fall of the purchasing power of money corresponds to the return of some stored money, is that money going to be able to buy as much after the inflation as before? Nothing I've said indicates any misunderstanding of that definition. I've had at least 10 people tell me I don't understand what inflation is, or define it for me. Yet nobody can point out any definition I've given, or how anything I've said contradicts the definitions given.
I honestly want to understand why so many people are so uncomfortable with my assertion. Nobody has disagreed with it, but everyone has complained about it. If I had used "X" and a variable, would that have elimiated the complaints?
You have $100 today. You put it in an account that returns X%. One year from now, X% inflation has occurred (yes, X=X). Will the money in the account buy more or less then, than last year?
So what's the answer to that? Why is that so objectionable? People are asserting that X% return is hard? Is that really all it is? Because most complaints weren't about that.
Gold has value for the same reason government paper has value. People assert it does. In the case of a nuclear war, eliminating all industry and electrical generation, iron will be worth 10x gold, or more. In previous times, that's been true. The price for a rock hammer in a gold boom town was more than its weight in gold, because gold was worth something if you walked 2000 miles with it, but the iron could get you more gold.
Again, bull. Its not the gouverments commitment that pays for all that funny money, its *you* that pays for it, by seeing your cash, savings and even your income devalue as there is more money to go around.
My income goes up with inflation (not strictly 1:1. but close enough). My savings is not in liquid form, so it's not devaluing. My cash devalues, but I have a single $2 bill as a novelty as my only cash (though some cash equielent in liquid accounts). And anything the government pays for is me paying for it. The "government" isn't a thing, it's an extension of me (and everyone else). The government "owns" nothing. I have a 1/300,000,000 share in everything the government "owns".
So then make up your mind.
At first you said money in the bank is equal to inflation, now its your 401k?
My 401(k) is with a "bank".
1) Why did US sell bills and bonds with negative yields during the financial crisis?
Because some idiot would buy them? Why would anyone buy a bond with a negative yield?
Seperately: What is a $100 bill if not a bond with no expiration with a negative yield?
Shit like that is why I get my money out of USD cash. You can set up a ForEx trading account with as little as a few hundred dollars. Then keep your money in a low-interest account in something other than USD. And it's safe from anything the Federal Reserve does. Or, become a gold bug and buy gold certificates from private for-profit companies, and hope they aren't a ponzi. They seem to mostly be, but that doesn't stop the gold bugs.
So the return requires risk. But the math behind it is flawless (at least based on the hundreds of hate replies, without a single complaint about the math). I get a return better than inflation for the less-cash savings.
What am I shilling? A site of a friend? I didn't build the site, or have any input into the site, but I do appear on it, as I did go on a number of the outdoor adventures with him. I gain nothing from anyone visiting the site in my sig. So I'm confused what I'm "shilling" (As generally that's a comment about advocating something in the post, not based on a sig). I haven't advocated anything in my posts that benefits anyone, other than readers who take my advice and inflation-proof their holdings.
One last thing and its similar to what you have been told before. Please stop saying I agree with you,
Then disagree if you don't agree. Tell me how $105 after 5% inflation will not buy what $100 would before, or how 5% return won't make $100 into $105 over the same period. That is the entirity of my assertion, and you've never addressed it. You've just taken issue with where the 5% return comes from, or other things unrelated to the assertion I've made. When I return to the base assertion, you accuse me of "moving the goalposts" for not being lead down the rabbit hole you are trying to dig.
Given the general contentious nature of Slashdot, that's the closest to an agreement I've seen. People that agree generally don't post. If you can't state a clear disagreement with it, I'll continue to take it as an agreement.
Where did I assert "risk free" Someone else posted it, and I pointed out that he got the logic, though others have taken issue with the numbers he used.
Where is the flaw in logic? There isn't one? You are agreeing on the logic, but taking issue with the details of the example? As much as you claim you are disagreeing by agreeing, it still looks like an agreement.
Ah yes, more confirmation I'm right. You are assuming my logic is right, then arguing about the values used for argument's sake. That's a confirmation and agreement, at least for the logic. The stock market is still out-performing inflation. So have a good mix of investments for your money, and you'll meet or beat inflation. Then what is the disagreement if your "savings" match inflation?
I take it you do recognise it must be balanced by *something* ?
If it wasn't, it would have *no* value, and thus wouldn't be used. At the very least, it's backed by the government forcing you to take it for debts, and requiring it for taxes. That was true with gold, and still is true with paper. Even if the "something" is the commitment of the government, that's still "something".
Slashdot Mirror
The owner/driver of the car is not affected by Uber's liability (except possibly to his benefit). So again, why should I be concerned about liability?
To adjust mine, I simply park on a long straight road and adjust each side mirror until the image on the inside edge just overlaps the image on the outside edge of the center mirror.
A bicycle has a profile roughly the same as a pedestrian. Have someone stand beside your car, just behind your right rear tire. Can you see them then? The overlap-at-infinity that many use will miss a bicycle close to the car, and adjusting for that will have excessive overlap.
Plenty of that happens today, so I'm still not seeing the down side.
Why would it be unreasonable to have "automated cars only" areas of cities and roads?
This will make people worse drivers.
Worse? I see at least one person per day driving while reading a book or magazine. I'd estimate that at least 1% are using their cell phones illegally at any given time (about 10% breaking it occasionally) , and, even with regular inspections mandated, it seems like 1-10% of the cars wouldn't pass an inspection.
And the "good drivers" can't change lanes, don't know how to merge, fail to keep a proper lookout. There isn't a computer dumb enough to be worse than the average driver, and a reasonable one would beat all but the best professional drivers. The best computers would be better than the best humans.
To me, it looked more like they thought it was time to make some governmental standards (or put a government stamp on corporate standards) for the developing safety gear, much like the government did with seatbelts and bumpers.
You are assuming the worst possible implementation, then attacking somthing that doesn't exist. Do any of the problems you are mentioning get worse if the government steps in and mandates interoperability and open standards for V2V communications?
V2V is happening today. Unregulated and with no standards at all. Why are you asserting that a nascent technology with no standards and no oversight is safer than one with?
He learned it from Bush.
You've asserted that a laser is less predictable than balllistics. When you are in ship to ship and your fighter fires on one at a higher altitude, what will the ballistics do? Fall. Possibly on someone. We could theoretically calculate exactly where, but we can't because we don't know all the variables at the moment of release. But the laser will go up, forever, endangering nobody, except a near-zero chance of an unintentional hit on the space station. In that case, the laser is infinitely more safe than ballistics. Even when firing down, the spread of destruction will be lower with the laser. I can't see how someone could have the stance that a laser is more dangerous to bystanders than sprayed high rate of fire lead, or even better uranium (or is that mainly tank shells).
The same fighter fires a stream of lead at another fighter, missing and the lead raining down on a school below. How does the laser do any more/worse damage?
May I take that as a signal that you are aware that your money devaluates ? The only thing we than need to talk about is the reasons for that devaluation.
My money doesn't devaluate. A given amount of my money will devaluate, but the total sum of money, the portion that's "my money" doesn't devaluate.
I figured that out at about age 12. I saved money ever since, putting myself through college with no debt (making choices like living in a non-air-conditioned dorm in south/central Texas to save money), working the whole time, two jobs every summer and winter. Saved up to buy a house, getting on the housing ladder. Paying as much interest on it as practical to get the large tax deductions. Pay as little tax as possible, earn as much as possible, spend as little as possible. Repeat every year for 30 years, and you can get to where you own enough that inflation won't hurt you either.
Nope. Why would you think such a thing? Even the liberal orgnaizations use tax law for the most adventageous standing, why shouldn't you and I do what we can?
find it odd that in 100 or so replies people have attempted to explain it to you but you are too dense to grasp it.
And what is "it"? That ROI matching inflation results in a net change in the value of the money? In which direction?
Like I say, you don't address my assertion, but go off on some tangent. OPEC controls inflation of the USD more than the Federal reserve does? I don't agree with that, but it's irrelevant to the point that inflation isn't theft, as was asserted by the person I initially disagreed with. So, what's your stance on "inflation is theft"? since you assert that the governemnt doesn't even control it, then it can't be theft by the government, right? So you agree with me in disagreeing with the AC that asserted inflation is theft, but are so disagreeable, you must twist that agreement into an argument.
No, the purchasing power of money does NOT correspond to any return.
So $100 saved for a year at 5% return will not buy $105 in goods at the end of that period? Return of an investment has NO relation to the purchasing power?
That sounds really stupid, and like you are trying really really hard to prove me wrong, so much so you don't even care what's being said. Care to try again?
what does that mean? of course 105=105. Are you trying to say that 100 + 5% return = 100 + 5% inflation? They do not because "money" doesn't get any return.
Money saved/invested does get some return. Why are you storing your cash under your mattress? If you only store your cash under your mattress, then yes, you won't get any return on it. But lots of things get return, like stocks, bonds, CDs and such. And they cost "money".
Your "salary" does not adjust up 5% just because inflation does.
You've never gotten, and never heard of cost-of-living adjustments?
Inflation erodes wealth.
Ok, so like most people, my most expensive item (the holder of "wealth") is my house. After inflation, is my house worth *more* or *less*? Oh, inflation doesn't erode wealth... Don't worry, if you keep making statements, perhaps one of them may, one day, be right.
It is also a weird thing to write, not sure why you want to force people to agree with you, or make weird assertions like this.
I'm happy to be proven right. I'm just waiting for someone to try. So far, it's just denials and abuse. If someone could prove me right, there have been 100+ posts in the sub thread, and nobdody has even tried (well, there was the one AC that claimed that 5% interest of $100 would leave you with $95 a year later, but no, I'm not considering that a serious try).
So we need weather TVs that work on battery power or have those cool cranks.
When Tesla has a large bank of chargers and Nissan doesn't, Nissan will license the connection from Tesla, and the non-standard will become a de-facto standard. So many standards came about this way.
You didnt write this? "Yes. Someone gets it. When the rates cancel out, "inflation" doesn't directly hurt you." You may not have "asserted" it, but you agreed and it is NOT accurate. Risk free rates are independent of inflation.
I didn't say "risk free rate" in my post. I said "when they cancel out..." You are inferring something that isn't there, then attacking the thing I didn't say. I don't care if you call it the RFR or historical DOW return or whatever. When your return is 5% and your inflation is 5%, you do not lose money.
If inflation is "good"
I never said it was "good" Why are you making up so many things about what I say? If I'm so wrong, it should be able to show it, not have to make up so many strawmen to disprove.
As others have pointed out in this thread stop trying to put forward flawled logic, then stating people agree with you when they dont.
When they disagree with the logic, I'll stop stating they agree with me. They almost always agree with the logic and the outcome, but disagree with the example given. That's more agreement than not, and nobody has yet asserted that $105 after 5% inflation is "worse" than $100 without 5% inflation. As nobody has yet to disagree with my assertion, that's violent agreement. People instead presume my personal opinion (like you implying I think inflation is "good") and then attack that, or attack me personally for demystifying inflation.
If you want to disagree with my $105=$105, then please do so. Anything else will be taken as agreement with that statement.
In your own words, what does this sentence mean to you? "A general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money." This is the definition of "Inflation" yet you seem to come here and argue over and over again that inflation means something else.
I never asserted it meant anything else. Where did I? Go ahead, quote it. Don't worry, I probably won't be able to demonstrate your violent agreement with me much longer. There's a daily cap in posts, and with 100+ posts under my initial comment, and so many people asserting that my logic is flawless, but must be wrong, because they don't like their opinion of the result of the implications, which I'm challenging all the nay-sayers to find any flaw in the logic or initial assertion, I'm sure I'll hit that cap soon and be cut off for a bit.
"A general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money."
If the fall of the purchasing power of money corresponds to the return of some stored money, is that money going to be able to buy as much after the inflation as before? Nothing I've said indicates any misunderstanding of that definition. I've had at least 10 people tell me I don't understand what inflation is, or define it for me. Yet nobody can point out any definition I've given, or how anything I've said contradicts the definitions given.
I honestly want to understand why so many people are so uncomfortable with my assertion. Nobody has disagreed with it, but everyone has complained about it. If I had used "X" and a variable, would that have elimiated the complaints?
You have $100 today. You put it in an account that returns X%. One year from now, X% inflation has occurred (yes, X=X). Will the money in the account buy more or less then, than last year?
So what's the answer to that? Why is that so objectionable? People are asserting that X% return is hard? Is that really all it is? Because most complaints weren't about that.
Again, bull. Its not the gouverments commitment that pays for all that funny money, its *you* that pays for it, by seeing your cash, savings and even your income devalue as there is more money to go around.
My income goes up with inflation (not strictly 1:1. but close enough). My savings is not in liquid form, so it's not devaluing. My cash devalues, but I have a single $2 bill as a novelty as my only cash (though some cash equielent in liquid accounts). And anything the government pays for is me paying for it. The "government" isn't a thing, it's an extension of me (and everyone else). The government "owns" nothing. I have a 1/300,000,000 share in everything the government "owns".
Inflation is theft is pushed by the "taxes is theft" crowd. And the "you don't own land because Emminant Domain can take it" crowd.
So then make up your mind. At first you said money in the bank is equal to inflation, now its your 401k?
My 401(k) is with a "bank".
1) Why did US sell bills and bonds with negative yields during the financial crisis?
Because some idiot would buy them? Why would anyone buy a bond with a negative yield?
Seperately: What is a $100 bill if not a bond with no expiration with a negative yield?
Shit like that is why I get my money out of USD cash. You can set up a ForEx trading account with as little as a few hundred dollars. Then keep your money in a low-interest account in something other than USD. And it's safe from anything the Federal Reserve does. Or, become a gold bug and buy gold certificates from private for-profit companies, and hope they aren't a ponzi. They seem to mostly be, but that doesn't stop the gold bugs.
So the return requires risk. But the math behind it is flawless (at least based on the hundreds of hate replies, without a single complaint about the math). I get a return better than inflation for the less-cash savings.
What am I shilling? A site of a friend? I didn't build the site, or have any input into the site, but I do appear on it, as I did go on a number of the outdoor adventures with him. I gain nothing from anyone visiting the site in my sig. So I'm confused what I'm "shilling" (As generally that's a comment about advocating something in the post, not based on a sig). I haven't advocated anything in my posts that benefits anyone, other than readers who take my advice and inflation-proof their holdings.
One last thing and its similar to what you have been told before. Please stop saying I agree with you,
Then disagree if you don't agree. Tell me how $105 after 5% inflation will not buy what $100 would before, or how 5% return won't make $100 into $105 over the same period. That is the entirity of my assertion, and you've never addressed it. You've just taken issue with where the 5% return comes from, or other things unrelated to the assertion I've made. When I return to the base assertion, you accuse me of "moving the goalposts" for not being lead down the rabbit hole you are trying to dig.
Given the general contentious nature of Slashdot, that's the closest to an agreement I've seen. People that agree generally don't post. If you can't state a clear disagreement with it, I'll continue to take it as an agreement.
Where did I assert "risk free" Someone else posted it, and I pointed out that he got the logic, though others have taken issue with the numbers he used.
Where is the flaw in logic? There isn't one? You are agreeing on the logic, but taking issue with the details of the example? As much as you claim you are disagreeing by agreeing, it still looks like an agreement.
Ah yes, more confirmation I'm right. You are assuming my logic is right, then arguing about the values used for argument's sake. That's a confirmation and agreement, at least for the logic. The stock market is still out-performing inflation. So have a good mix of investments for your money, and you'll meet or beat inflation. Then what is the disagreement if your "savings" match inflation?
I take it you do recognise it must be balanced by *something* ?
If it wasn't, it would have *no* value, and thus wouldn't be used. At the very least, it's backed by the government forcing you to take it for debts, and requiring it for taxes. That was true with gold, and still is true with paper. Even if the "something" is the commitment of the government, that's still "something".