Removing features is what made Firefox great. Firefox became a well-known piece of utter shit when it had added feature after feature and bloated to an enormous, complicated hulk of options lost in hundreds of options. Then alternate browsers came along with their slimmed-down feature sets, and people moved.
Chrome is ditching menu items few people use. It might not die of featuritis.
Everyone seems focused on the farmers and their poor little butthurt selves.
What about the downstream cost? These failures reduce productivity and thus increase the cost of food. They draw money to John Deere for no value-add (rent-seeking). These things reduce the total number of products you can buy with your money (wealth), and reduce the number of people receiving (jobs) the money spent for a given investment of labor-hours (wages).
The inefficiencies of requiring a tech to stop by just to sign-off on a hardware change that actually works--and to charge $500 for the tech to do so--result in a reduction of wealth across the entire economy at every income level, and a loss of (primarily lower-income) jobs. This is an attack on all Americans and on all recipients of American agricultural exports.
Are we getting zram configured with swap device size = 4x RAM, mem_limit = 50% RAM, vm.swappiness = 100? That will give effective doubling of RAM for approximately no performance hit.
've not found the performance asymptote yet. The crude theoretical limit is exchanging 100% of working RAM for 3x the compressed space (100% compressed to an average 3:1, although 4:1 happens sometimes--typically you average 3:1). The frequency of page decompression increases as you reduce the working RAM (the part not holding compressed data). Page decompression takes approximately twice as much time as a worst-case CPU cache miss (full row-precharge, RAS, and CAS), so decompressing pages with relative infrequency is cheap, and can be effectively free.
Generally, a block of code operates multiple instructions per byte of an immediate working set, so e.g. 16KiB eats 400,000 CPU cycles decompressing and then the application spends 4,000,000 cycles operating on that area. The application will use part of its hot working set as well, so the time spent working on that page spans more cycles than just that. Depending on how fast the program works through working set, you can end up expending approximately 0% of CPU on swapping into zram; or, if the working set space is tiny and swapping is frequent, you can expend much of your time swapping in and out.
Prefetching and caching further complicates this. The Linux kernel can background-prefetch swap by reading sequential pages ahead or by taking explicit hints via madvise() such as WILLNEED (get the page ready), SEQUENTIAL (aggressive read-ahead), or RANDOM (read-ahead not useful) from the application. If the system uses 99.7% of the CPU, then there are 3mS per 1 second interval to decompress pages into a cache (without freeing from zram), and to compress pages into zram (without freeing from RAM--mark as not-dirty). That's 4.8 million cycles per 1.6GHz core--on a 4 core phone, that's plenty to compress many pages per second, and decompression is way fast. Efficient prediction can really reduce the cost of swapping into zram to a real-time 0.
As I said: that's if you have the CPU time unused. At 3mS per 1 second interval, as above, with 26 cycles per byte, a 4k page takes 106,496 cycles to decompress. With four cores loaded to 99.7%, that's 45 pages per core or 180 pages, 720k per second you can afford to swap in--no room for swapping out. If you're not running through that much cold-set data per second, zram costs power usage, but not performance. As well, the amount of data you can churn through is limited by nominal CPU usage, and the churn in practice is nowhere near the theoretical limit (effectively a MOV %eax,$addr loop with $addr+=4096 iterations), so low-CPU-usage operation would tend to inflict less power consumption.
I didn't go looking for the performance asymptote because the return between 2x and 3x RAM capacity isn't worth bothering with. With half the working set, the amount of swapping is negligible; even when you start digging deep into swap, the rate of data moving in and out of zram is low enough to not inflict a visible performance impact. The real-time impact vanishes as soon as the CPU is more-idle, so if there's a 30mS stall every 10 seconds you suddenly have time to catch up on 3mS of slowdown and break even. This is, thus, a fine place to simply settle for now, without worrying about the variability of workloads like you'd have to if you pushed to the limit based on large data analysis of common workloads.
There's actually a girl petitioning to have Twitter ban anyone who says something mean. She's complaining that people say violent things or threaten to rape women... which, of course, we all recognize from third grade when everyone would threaten to blow you up or something. We're pretend-adults now, and that means sometimes someone 5,000 miles starts yammering about how they would rape you, as if he could.
Capitalism is a system which can generate flaws due to outside meddling. Businesses are part of the capitalist system, but can do things to manipulate it--hence why we have things like anti-trust laws to keep illegal cartels from price-fixing everything and breaking capitalism.
There's a point to minimum wage, and a lot of artifacts caused by it--the drift of minimum wage by inflation creates an excess of wage-depressed jobs (inflation lowers the wage), and then adjusting the wage reduces the number of available jobs. I think minimum wage is outdated; at a point, technical progress makes the cost of supplying basic needs cheap, and so welfare services can transition to a Universal Basic Income.
Structuring a UBI that isn't destructive is still hard--I designed a Universal Social Security which has to control for risks and handle transitions--and that warrants a lot of thought and consideration before just screaming that we should "give everyone free money." A viable basic income acts as a patch on capitalism, as well: it ensures that people have both a share of the economy (at least, my USS does) and thus benefit from trade and technical progress in full and it gives them an alternate option. Instead of working 40 hours at $8/hr or working 0 hours for $0, you can work 40 hours at $8/hr plus the benefit or work 0 hours for just the benefit (i.e. work 0 hours for more than $0).
The thing about having money is more money is worth less. If I make $40/hr, I can get $5/hr by doing more work... but it's only a little better off than current, and I don't want to work 80 hours per week for $1,800 when I can work just 40 hours for $1,600. If I make $5/hr, an extra $5/hr means I bump from $200 to $400, which is a huge boost in my standard-of-living (imagine living on $800/month, and then suddenly you have $1,600/month). Imagine if you have enough money for subsistence--you can get a roof over your head, enough food to eat, utilities, and soap to wash yourself, but not much of anything more at all--and suddenly someone's offering you 100% more on top of that. You can squarely give them the finger if they offer you $50/week to break your back, but you're going to benefit hugely if they offer to double your income.
Setting the standard-of-living like that and allowing people to rationalize about the improvement in their quality-of-life cuts to the heart of capitalism's assumption of rational actors: people aren't going to die without the money, so you have to offer them a wage which benefits them. At some point, that wage is going to be worth the 40 hours of work to a sufficient number of employees.
They basically lied about what the purpose of the app was, calling it a ride-sharing service when it's a taxi service.
Everyone else also lied about the purpose of the app, which allows independent drivers and passengers to find each other, in a bid to declare Uber drivers are employees--yet nobody has declared Amazon Mechanical Turk users "employees".
We're not really equipped to understand the gig economy.
Once Uber is gone, we can go back to having no centralized system to distribute ride hails and ride offers. Independent ride-sharers can struggle to find passengers; passengers can pay inflated prices and have longer wait times trying to find a driver, while drivers can spend more time driving around without passengers and make less money per hour despite charging passengers more for the time spent actually transporting them.
IBM to practice discriminatory hiring practices against 2,000 students over 4 years in a bid to reduce the likelihood of qualified college graduates receiving degrees. Inflation of the supply market for degree students and subsequent downward pressure on salaries to save billions over the next decade. Landlords gearing up for the Evict College Students To House More Veterans Credit.
America has outsourced manufacture to China, reaping the benefits of a great trade advantage: with under 5% unemployment, we have access to cheap goods and have a smaller export economy than import economy. We go out to people who make crap cheap, get that crap from them, and sell them relatively little.
When robot automation--the tag we're giving to the next visible step in technical progress--takes over manufactories, one of three things will happen.
If that automation comes at a pace the economy can handle, then the purchasing power increase will turn over jobs at a non-critical rate. China's manufacturing labor force, as a particular example, will experience a small nudge upwards in unemployment, and will recover those jobs as prices come crashing down and export markets dramatically expand to create new demand. They'll end up needing 10 Chinese workers where they previously needed 50, and selling 50 products where they could only sell 10, getting a net zero loss of employment.. America and Europe will end up wealthy as all hell importing Chinese goods to the same specifications as always (which, face it, is typically a WalMart supplier demanding cheap-cheap-cheap, although there are plenty of high-quality goods coming out of China), but at a fraction of the cost.
If that automation comes at a rapid pace beyond what the economy can handle, China will experience loss of employment exceeding expansion speed of its exports. Unemployment will soar, and it will take years for China's economy to recover. The goods produced will still be cheap, so America and Europe stay wealthy--and the export market to those continents will at least help China recover.
If that automation makes it cheaper for America to produce goods at home than to import them from China, then China's export market collapses. America ends up with locally-made goods because Chinese goods are more-expensive than USA-made goods; meanwhile America is insulated from loss of export markets because its export markets are small, as it has the great advantage of an import trade without the risk of an export trade.
America's market is self-sustaining, in large part. We produce a lot of economic activity servicing domestic needs, rather than exporting; we're insulated from global market shifts in that way, so anything that boosts the productivity of foreign nationals just makes us stronger, since we can import their stuff and make something else here for ourselves.
Imports make us strong. Exports make us the lap dogs of other nations, subject to their whims lest they embargo us.
That's a liberal lie. Unemployment under Obama was like 40%. It's 4% now under Trump because he saved the world and made America great again. The unemployment numbers were faked up until January 8th.
that $77k probably goes further if you don't have kids, or at least are able to split child care duties with a spouse.
That depends. The low-income bar to raise a child to age 18 is somewhere around $140k; the median is often cited at around $1M. The low bar is some $8k/year; the first dependent nets you a $3,000 child care credit for up to 35% of expenses; plus your spouse and child are both dependent deductables ($4,025 each), giving you some $2,000 of reduction there. With $10k of expenses, you can get child care down to around $5k/year or $416/month, representing roughly $7k of salary, when factoring in those deductions; low-income households might get aid, but that's irrelevant here.
So the median household with a spouse and child can afford a car at a price between $20k and $25k, using me as a model.
Do note I look at my accounts and project my next several paychecks and debt management strategies every morning for about 10-15 minutes, along with strategies to make major purchases, reduce my expenses, and so forth. I put $18k into my 401(k) last year and $3,500 into HSA, so I was working with about $54,000 of pre-tax income. I had a room in my house torn down and rebuilt, new insulation, draft elimination, fresh paint, the works, $7,600; my heating bill dropped from 9% more gas used than the 20% most-efficient utility customers fitting my profile in my area to 1% less than their usage.
It's not just brute-force income; I'm strung out on debts, but I'm aware of it and I'm constantly planning and executing to correct that debt. I'm in debt because I take debts as appropriate: I bought a $2,000 motorcycle because I wasn't getting a motorcycle for less than ~$5,000 and the opportunity presented itself, and then my car broke down and I had to scrape together about $1,200 and take an $11,000 loan to get a 2013 Chevrolet Volt (nice car btw). I put my entire tax return on an old loan, and I'll terminate that loan this month or early next month; I'm looking at $5,000-ish for another insulation job to cut about 30% of the remaining heating costs, so I can't just wipe out the car loan or credit cards this year either. I could take $30,000 of loans to do electrical upgrades, add solar panels, buy appliances, and finish some home projects right now; that would be... an inappropriate amount of uncontrolled financial risk.
Most people do not have six competing financial strategies, four financial contingencies, $25,000 of immediately-available debt if needed, emergency funds, and a daily financial planning session. Most people have things they want to buy and a paycheck coming Friday; by Saturday, they're broke. People at my income level are generally oblivious to the fact that people with one minimum-wage income and two kids somehow manage to pay their rent, car insurance, and heating bill while not starving; they just complain everything's expensive and they're underpaid--while, as you observed, we're making above the average and doing quite well. I'm not handling my finances as well as the minimum-wage single mother across the street.
So they can afford a $25,000 car; they already spent the money on some other bullshit, though. That's okay, since we don't all need to run out right now and buy $25,000 cars.
Yes, and people who can afford an $11k car aren't the rich and famous top-1%, either. I can actually afford to buy a $40k car, and I make $77k; the average purchase price for cars tended to hover around 56% of income up through 2000, last I looked (back as far as the 1950s). I actually considered buying a $35,000 car, and would have needed about 5 months to save up a down payment to get me under $300/month payments--that is, $15k purchase price. If you make $32k/year ($16/hr), that's a car payment representing around 11% of your income.
The median income is $27/hr, dude. Not everyone makes minimum wage; and many people who can afford a $15k car can't afford a $42k car.
Actually, if the car had more than 100 miles of range, I could keep it topped up with night time charging. Generally speaking, if I get home as late as 10pm and run this at 120V 12A until 8am, that puts 40 miles on the car; if I drove 40 miles every day in a Mazda 3, I'd have to refuel it every 6 days, at a cost of $158/month. I spent $50/month on fuel and refueled every 12-16 days; I drive about 30 miles on the average day.
I'll drop in a 240V circuit because, at 3.3kW, that bumps me 10 miles instead of 4 miles of range per hour of charging. If I get home from work at 5pm and then leave at 6pm to go shopping, I have 20 miles of range instead of 10. With the Generation 2 Volt, I'd have 30 miles of range when I got home anyway, since it carries 58 miles of range instead of 38.
US power is center-tapped. There's a 240V transformer on the pole that feeds the house, and a wire fed from the center of the secondary. Peak to center tap from either side is equidistant, and the voltage state is essentially the ground reference for the transformer on the center wire. That's our neutral, and either wire to neutral is 120V. 240V is just the full high-voltage off the transformer.
Working hours invested in purchasing food have decreased dramatically. The average American household income was $4,200 in 1950, of which $1,400 went to food; in 2015, it was $54,000, of which $6,500 went to food. That's 2,000 working hours either way; it's 12,850% as many dollars income, but 4,640% as many dollars spent on food. The cost of a median household's food for a year in 1950 was 660 labor-hours; in 2015, it was 240. 240 is less than 660, so food is cheaper.
Clothing, same way, 240 hours in 1950, 70 hours in 2015.
Housing, average 983sqft new single-family in 1950, 28% of the budget including rent or mortgage, utilities, maintenance and supplies, and other operational costs; that's 570 hours worked per 1,000 square foot of housing afforded. 2005, a new single-family home was 2,300 average, 33% of the budget in total; that's 287 hours worked per 1,000 square foot of housing afforded. 287 is less than 570.
Decade after decade, we spend fewer hours to purchase our food, our clothing, our basic personal care needs. We buy bigger houses, better cars, more and better healthcare, and a greater load of luxuries. The American work week was 90+ hours in 1900, with 40% of that going to just food for the home; by 1950, the work week was 40 hours, with 33% going to food--barely more than a third as many hours worked to feed the household.
Everything gets cheaper. It's the only way it can happen. That's what technical progress does.
I just bought a 2013 Chevrolet Volt for $11,000 plus fees ($12,295 total). The car is in excellent condition, even at 68,000 miles; the internal combustion engine has been run way more than necessary, with only 3% of its lifetime drive being on battery.
The 2013 Volt is an excellent car. The battery lasts about 38 miles, and I have a 13 mile commute; I use 66% of the battery both ways. The generation-2 Volt has a 53 mile all-electric range; 90% of commutes are below 60 miles, and 68% are below 15 miles, so the 2016 and later Chevrolet Volt runs all-electric nearly 100% of the time for over 90% of daily commuters, and the 2015 and earlier Volt runs all-electric nearly 100% of the time for over 75% of daily commuters.
The 2013 Chevrolet Volt had an MSRP of $41,000. I got mine for $11,000. The car was bought by my dealer in October, 2016.
Rich people's cars go out the door in 3 years for newer, fancier cars. Look at the Chevrolet Volt battery and structural support members, and compare that to the Chevrolet Bolt battery and its base panel. By re-enginering the Chevy Volt battery base panel to be a stressed member battery pack, like the Bolt, you could get another 50-75 miles of range--raising the 58 mile range of the Generation 2 Volt to a 108 or 133 mile range without crowding out the existing supports. This would add several thousand dollars to the cost, although newer technology (including more automation in factories) will bring that down.
The end result: a PHEV with 108+ miles of all-electric range and a total 475+ miles of combined range, with an electric recharge time (at 3.3kW, 240V at 13.75A) of under 8 hours (under 4 hours with a 6.6kW circuit--240V on a 30A circuit). Recharge rate at 3.3kW is 14.5 miles per each hour of charging; if the charge circuit were re-specced to 6.6kW for this hypothetical vehicle, it would recharge 29 miles of range per each hour--nearly the full range of the Generation 1 Volt.
Note that upgrading my home electrical to add a 40 amp, 240V charging station (9.6kW) for the Volt and future EVs will cost me under $1,000. Using a Level 1 charger plugged into a normal 15-amp receptacle (no electrical upgrade) restores 4 miles per hour of charge, making an overnight charge (8pm to 8am) a 48-mile top-off. The Chevrolet Volt includes such a charger.
So rich people are eating the cost of these new, high-end cars (okay, GM made a non-shitty vehicle; I'm impressed); and non-rich people are purchasing them for around $10k-$15k (I actually saw a 2015 Volt with under 5,000 miles for $16k! They're over $30k MSRP!). Essentially, some rich guy bought me a $30,000 car, and I bought the other $11,000. I got my last car (a 2004 Mazda 3) for $14,000.
The total pollution produced by a Chevy Volt is lower than the total pollution produced by a Toyota Prius, including its total manufacture and electrical refueling. My utility offers me EV charging rates with 3.8 cents distribution, plus taxes, plus 20 cents per kWh peak electrical rate and 9.3 cents per kWh off-peak; I currently pay 8.79 cents per kWh at all times (no off-peak advantage) to an electrical supplier who ensures generation of 100% solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal for every kWh I consume, which is less than the off-peak rate. My total current electricity cost is 15 cents per kWh, versus EV rates (using 70% coal, 5% oil, and a lot of natural gas) of 15.51 cents per kWh.
Currently I'm driving on 100% clean energy. The Generation 1 Voltec platform, from 2011 vehicles, has seen regular lifecycles in excess of 90% electrical miles and 100,000 miles, including several samples exceeding
Food is cheaper, houses are bigger, cars come packed with more tech, I have a supercomputer in my pocket, instant communications with everyone and everything are available 24/7 in my pocket, and I've got more access to medical care and entertainment--and spend more of my budget on these things.
Americans at all income levels--especially the poorer and middle-class--have easier access to basic needs and spend more of their money on entertainment and on previously-inadequately-fulfilled needs (e.g. buying more healthcare because they have the cash flow available) than they did 10, 20, and 50 years ago.
Do you really think they are buying all this technology for their people and not for military use? If you do, you don't know North Korea.
I'm saying a high-tech military machine cannot sustain itself on top of a low-tech, undeveloped economy..
So apparently you don't understand how cults work. Besides, you only need a few smart people in each sector to organize the other people.
...and the economic basis to maintain "a few smart people" and get the other people technically-literate enough to organize is also fairly critical.
You can't have a few smart people and a shitload of serfs in backwater west Africa support a high-tech, industrialized military machine. It doesn't work. You need an industrialized economy to support an industrialized government.
North Korea was actually quite modern before Kim II Sung declared war and created his cult nation.
It's de-modernized now why? Was it too hard to control the population of a developed, wealthier nation? If they have to make the people wealthier and more-independent again to produce a barely-functional industrialized military, how well is that going to work for the cult of Jong-Un?
I'm not saying ZTE didn't break the law; I'm saying ZTE's actions aren't inherently harmful and would seem to lead toward a desirable end goal for all parties aside from unstable government administrations.
Iran isn't very "developed" if CISCO routers are high tech. What are we talking about? 1940s United States?
If you work 40 hours per week to afford rice, a mud hut, and a pail to go fetch water from the river, you're poor. In the US, we work 40 hours per week and spend a tiny fraction of our income on food (12% of the median household's consumer spending) and running hot water (lol, $45/month here); and only represent about a third of our expenses with large houses with insulation, glass windows, running electricity, and heated space.
The difference is technology. When you do something in a developed country, you use machines and advanced techniques to invest very little human labor and produce enormous output. If 10 people all work together to produce 1,000 units of a thing in an hour with the median-income wage of $27/hr, that's $270 / 1,000 or $0.27 per thing--which might sound meaningful in its own right, but essentially boils down to that thing selling for a price no less than 36 seconds of the median earner's labor. If those 10 people were only able to produce 10 units of that thing with their combined labor, then it's going to cost $27 or 1 hour (3,600 seconds!) of the median earner's labor.
How stable do you think North Korea's government would be in an environment that had to support higher technology? North Korea can bring advanced weapons against us in a war if we sell them advanced weapons; it can't produce advanced weapons. To produce advanced weapons, North Korea needs technologically-advanced factories, which means they need a highly-educated population skilled in all forms of engineering, business management, logistics, and a broad array of the sciences. That's not enough: they need to be able to support the population which provides these things, meaning they need to apply technology in the private sector so as to improve access to food, running water, and so forth, reducing the amount of labor they expend on keeping their population alive and freeing that labor for their military machine.
Does that sound like the kind of blind, raving, fanatical population that would tolerate Kim Jong-Un?
By the time any of these people developed an economy which could support their war effort, they'd have an educated population used to a high standard-of-living and utterly disinterested in their political bullshit. They'd face military coups if nothing else, because their government support structure would also need sufficient education to raise their country to a state capable of supporting the kind of war we're afraid they'd bring to us--and then their intelligence community and their military power centers would quickly recognize the tactical instability brought by the existing government, and tear it down in any way expedient.
They can't become a threat to us without acquiring a steady stream of ready-to-go weapons from a highly-developed third party seeking to wage war without the political consequences of war or simply collapsing internally along the way as the political basis of a developed country fails to support mindless and self-destructive war-mongering.
Economic sanctions are an ineffective and dangerous way to handle undeveloped ratholes.
Every product in history didn't exist during the time after it was conceived and before it was delivered. The most important time to involve stakeholders is when the project is first conceived. Project initiating has exactly two components: Developing the project charter and identifying project stakeholders.
The "identifying project stakeholders" part--which is done before the project planning has even started--produces a stakeholder register which names the stakeholders; identifies their basic stake in the project; notates their currently-understood position on the project (against, neutral, supportive, leading) and the position in which we need them to occupy; and even identifies the most-effective means of communicating with those stakeholders. This is all identified at the point where your project is, essentially, "A car", "A 3D computer graphics program", or "A laptop", with no other explanation of what capabilities, costs, or other attributes describe the product you intend to deliver.
So, again: stakeholders are identified before a vision of the product and a description of its scope are even conceived. They aren't just identified before a single line of code is written, before a single component is selected, or before we decide how big the damn thing is going to be; they're identified before we can even say what it is we want to make.
Think about it. It would be ludicrous to come up with something with no use case and then say, "Well, we're going to build this, and then we're going to find somebody on whom we can force it!" Does that sound like a way to develop a product targeting the needs of your customers? Of course not! Before you can even imagine a product, you have to identify your customers--the stakeholders--and sort out what exactly they might want.
Slashdot Mirror
Removing features is what made Firefox great. Firefox became a well-known piece of utter shit when it had added feature after feature and bloated to an enormous, complicated hulk of options lost in hundreds of options. Then alternate browsers came along with their slimmed-down feature sets, and people moved.
Chrome is ditching menu items few people use. It might not die of featuritis.
Everyone seems focused on the farmers and their poor little butthurt selves.
What about the downstream cost? These failures reduce productivity and thus increase the cost of food. They draw money to John Deere for no value-add (rent-seeking). These things reduce the total number of products you can buy with your money (wealth), and reduce the number of people receiving (jobs) the money spent for a given investment of labor-hours (wages).
The inefficiencies of requiring a tech to stop by just to sign-off on a hardware change that actually works--and to charge $500 for the tech to do so--result in a reduction of wealth across the entire economy at every income level, and a loss of (primarily lower-income) jobs. This is an attack on all Americans and on all recipients of American agricultural exports.
Are we getting zram configured with swap device size = 4x RAM, mem_limit = 50% RAM, vm.swappiness = 100? That will give effective doubling of RAM for approximately no performance hit.
've not found the performance asymptote yet. The crude theoretical limit is exchanging 100% of working RAM for 3x the compressed space (100% compressed to an average 3:1, although 4:1 happens sometimes--typically you average 3:1). The frequency of page decompression increases as you reduce the working RAM (the part not holding compressed data). Page decompression takes approximately twice as much time as a worst-case CPU cache miss (full row-precharge, RAS, and CAS), so decompressing pages with relative infrequency is cheap, and can be effectively free.
Generally, a block of code operates multiple instructions per byte of an immediate working set, so e.g. 16KiB eats 400,000 CPU cycles decompressing and then the application spends 4,000,000 cycles operating on that area. The application will use part of its hot working set as well, so the time spent working on that page spans more cycles than just that. Depending on how fast the program works through working set, you can end up expending approximately 0% of CPU on swapping into zram; or, if the working set space is tiny and swapping is frequent, you can expend much of your time swapping in and out.
Prefetching and caching further complicates this. The Linux kernel can background-prefetch swap by reading sequential pages ahead or by taking explicit hints via madvise() such as WILLNEED (get the page ready), SEQUENTIAL (aggressive read-ahead), or RANDOM (read-ahead not useful) from the application. If the system uses 99.7% of the CPU, then there are 3mS per 1 second interval to decompress pages into a cache (without freeing from zram), and to compress pages into zram (without freeing from RAM--mark as not-dirty). That's 4.8 million cycles per 1.6GHz core--on a 4 core phone, that's plenty to compress many pages per second, and decompression is way fast. Efficient prediction can really reduce the cost of swapping into zram to a real-time 0.
As I said: that's if you have the CPU time unused. At 3mS per 1 second interval, as above, with 26 cycles per byte, a 4k page takes 106,496 cycles to decompress. With four cores loaded to 99.7%, that's 45 pages per core or 180 pages, 720k per second you can afford to swap in--no room for swapping out. If you're not running through that much cold-set data per second, zram costs power usage, but not performance. As well, the amount of data you can churn through is limited by nominal CPU usage, and the churn in practice is nowhere near the theoretical limit (effectively a MOV %eax,$addr loop with $addr+=4096 iterations), so low-CPU-usage operation would tend to inflict less power consumption.
I didn't go looking for the performance asymptote because the return between 2x and 3x RAM capacity isn't worth bothering with. With half the working set, the amount of swapping is negligible; even when you start digging deep into swap, the rate of data moving in and out of zram is low enough to not inflict a visible performance impact. The real-time impact vanishes as soon as the CPU is more-idle, so if there's a 30mS stall every 10 seconds you suddenly have time to catch up on 3mS of slowdown and break even. This is, thus, a fine place to simply settle for now, without worrying about the variability of workloads like you'd have to if you pushed to the limit based on large data analysis of common workloads.
There's actually a girl petitioning to have Twitter ban anyone who says something mean. She's complaining that people say violent things or threaten to rape women... which, of course, we all recognize from third grade when everyone would threaten to blow you up or something. We're pretend-adults now, and that means sometimes someone 5,000 miles starts yammering about how they would rape you, as if he could.
People like to look at a trend and project it must continue forever.
Capitalism is a system which can generate flaws due to outside meddling. Businesses are part of the capitalist system, but can do things to manipulate it--hence why we have things like anti-trust laws to keep illegal cartels from price-fixing everything and breaking capitalism.
There's a point to minimum wage, and a lot of artifacts caused by it--the drift of minimum wage by inflation creates an excess of wage-depressed jobs (inflation lowers the wage), and then adjusting the wage reduces the number of available jobs. I think minimum wage is outdated; at a point, technical progress makes the cost of supplying basic needs cheap, and so welfare services can transition to a Universal Basic Income.
Structuring a UBI that isn't destructive is still hard--I designed a Universal Social Security which has to control for risks and handle transitions--and that warrants a lot of thought and consideration before just screaming that we should "give everyone free money." A viable basic income acts as a patch on capitalism, as well: it ensures that people have both a share of the economy (at least, my USS does) and thus benefit from trade and technical progress in full and it gives them an alternate option. Instead of working 40 hours at $8/hr or working 0 hours for $0, you can work 40 hours at $8/hr plus the benefit or work 0 hours for just the benefit (i.e. work 0 hours for more than $0).
The thing about having money is more money is worth less. If I make $40/hr, I can get $5/hr by doing more work... but it's only a little better off than current, and I don't want to work 80 hours per week for $1,800 when I can work just 40 hours for $1,600. If I make $5/hr, an extra $5/hr means I bump from $200 to $400, which is a huge boost in my standard-of-living (imagine living on $800/month, and then suddenly you have $1,600/month). Imagine if you have enough money for subsistence--you can get a roof over your head, enough food to eat, utilities, and soap to wash yourself, but not much of anything more at all--and suddenly someone's offering you 100% more on top of that. You can squarely give them the finger if they offer you $50/week to break your back, but you're going to benefit hugely if they offer to double your income.
Setting the standard-of-living like that and allowing people to rationalize about the improvement in their quality-of-life cuts to the heart of capitalism's assumption of rational actors: people aren't going to die without the money, so you have to offer them a wage which benefits them. At some point, that wage is going to be worth the 40 hours of work to a sufficient number of employees.
They basically lied about what the purpose of the app was, calling it a ride-sharing service when it's a taxi service.
Everyone else also lied about the purpose of the app, which allows independent drivers and passengers to find each other, in a bid to declare Uber drivers are employees--yet nobody has declared Amazon Mechanical Turk users "employees".
We're not really equipped to understand the gig economy.
Once Uber is gone, we can go back to having no centralized system to distribute ride hails and ride offers. Independent ride-sharers can struggle to find passengers; passengers can pay inflated prices and have longer wait times trying to find a driver, while drivers can spend more time driving around without passengers and make less money per hour despite charging passengers more for the time spent actually transporting them.
IBM to practice discriminatory hiring practices against 2,000 students over 4 years in a bid to reduce the likelihood of qualified college graduates receiving degrees. Inflation of the supply market for degree students and subsequent downward pressure on salaries to save billions over the next decade. Landlords gearing up for the Evict College Students To House More Veterans Credit.
Pretty much a few people are inconvenienced, so the resolution is to make it worse for everybody.
I can't afford a Tesla, so we should ban electric cars because they're too expensive and it's not fair to poor people.
America has outsourced manufacture to China, reaping the benefits of a great trade advantage: with under 5% unemployment, we have access to cheap goods and have a smaller export economy than import economy. We go out to people who make crap cheap, get that crap from them, and sell them relatively little.
When robot automation--the tag we're giving to the next visible step in technical progress--takes over manufactories, one of three things will happen.
If that automation comes at a pace the economy can handle, then the purchasing power increase will turn over jobs at a non-critical rate. China's manufacturing labor force, as a particular example, will experience a small nudge upwards in unemployment, and will recover those jobs as prices come crashing down and export markets dramatically expand to create new demand. They'll end up needing 10 Chinese workers where they previously needed 50, and selling 50 products where they could only sell 10, getting a net zero loss of employment.. America and Europe will end up wealthy as all hell importing Chinese goods to the same specifications as always (which, face it, is typically a WalMart supplier demanding cheap-cheap-cheap, although there are plenty of high-quality goods coming out of China), but at a fraction of the cost.
If that automation comes at a rapid pace beyond what the economy can handle, China will experience loss of employment exceeding expansion speed of its exports. Unemployment will soar, and it will take years for China's economy to recover. The goods produced will still be cheap, so America and Europe stay wealthy--and the export market to those continents will at least help China recover.
If that automation makes it cheaper for America to produce goods at home than to import them from China, then China's export market collapses. America ends up with locally-made goods because Chinese goods are more-expensive than USA-made goods; meanwhile America is insulated from loss of export markets because its export markets are small, as it has the great advantage of an import trade without the risk of an export trade.
America's market is self-sustaining, in large part. We produce a lot of economic activity servicing domestic needs, rather than exporting; we're insulated from global market shifts in that way, so anything that boosts the productivity of foreign nationals just makes us stronger, since we can import their stuff and make something else here for ourselves.
Imports make us strong. Exports make us the lap dogs of other nations, subject to their whims lest they embargo us.
Melting arctic sea ice won't raise sea levels.
No, in the stock market, it really is a zero-sum game. Money that comes out is money someone else put in.
The stock market isn't the economy.
That's a liberal lie. Unemployment under Obama was like 40%. It's 4% now under Trump because he saved the world and made America great again. The unemployment numbers were faked up until January 8th.
Average American household income is around $55k
Yes, $27/hr, as I said.
Congratulations, you're doing well.
40% better than the average.
that $77k probably goes further if you don't have kids, or at least are able to split child care duties with a spouse.
That depends. The low-income bar to raise a child to age 18 is somewhere around $140k; the median is often cited at around $1M. The low bar is some $8k/year; the first dependent nets you a $3,000 child care credit for up to 35% of expenses; plus your spouse and child are both dependent deductables ($4,025 each), giving you some $2,000 of reduction there. With $10k of expenses, you can get child care down to around $5k/year or $416/month, representing roughly $7k of salary, when factoring in those deductions; low-income households might get aid, but that's irrelevant here.
So the median household with a spouse and child can afford a car at a price between $20k and $25k, using me as a model.
Do note I look at my accounts and project my next several paychecks and debt management strategies every morning for about 10-15 minutes, along with strategies to make major purchases, reduce my expenses, and so forth. I put $18k into my 401(k) last year and $3,500 into HSA, so I was working with about $54,000 of pre-tax income. I had a room in my house torn down and rebuilt, new insulation, draft elimination, fresh paint, the works, $7,600; my heating bill dropped from 9% more gas used than the 20% most-efficient utility customers fitting my profile in my area to 1% less than their usage.
It's not just brute-force income; I'm strung out on debts, but I'm aware of it and I'm constantly planning and executing to correct that debt. I'm in debt because I take debts as appropriate: I bought a $2,000 motorcycle because I wasn't getting a motorcycle for less than ~$5,000 and the opportunity presented itself, and then my car broke down and I had to scrape together about $1,200 and take an $11,000 loan to get a 2013 Chevrolet Volt (nice car btw). I put my entire tax return on an old loan, and I'll terminate that loan this month or early next month; I'm looking at $5,000-ish for another insulation job to cut about 30% of the remaining heating costs, so I can't just wipe out the car loan or credit cards this year either. I could take $30,000 of loans to do electrical upgrades, add solar panels, buy appliances, and finish some home projects right now; that would be ... an inappropriate amount of uncontrolled financial risk.
Most people do not have six competing financial strategies, four financial contingencies, $25,000 of immediately-available debt if needed, emergency funds, and a daily financial planning session. Most people have things they want to buy and a paycheck coming Friday; by Saturday, they're broke. People at my income level are generally oblivious to the fact that people with one minimum-wage income and two kids somehow manage to pay their rent, car insurance, and heating bill while not starving; they just complain everything's expensive and they're underpaid--while, as you observed, we're making above the average and doing quite well. I'm not handling my finances as well as the minimum-wage single mother across the street.
So they can afford a $25,000 car; they already spent the money on some other bullshit, though. That's okay, since we don't all need to run out right now and buy $25,000 cars.
Yes, and people who can afford an $11k car aren't the rich and famous top-1%, either. I can actually afford to buy a $40k car, and I make $77k; the average purchase price for cars tended to hover around 56% of income up through 2000, last I looked (back as far as the 1950s). I actually considered buying a $35,000 car, and would have needed about 5 months to save up a down payment to get me under $300/month payments--that is, $15k purchase price. If you make $32k/year ($16/hr), that's a car payment representing around 11% of your income.
The median income is $27/hr, dude. Not everyone makes minimum wage; and many people who can afford a $15k car can't afford a $42k car.
Actually, if the car had more than 100 miles of range, I could keep it topped up with night time charging. Generally speaking, if I get home as late as 10pm and run this at 120V 12A until 8am, that puts 40 miles on the car; if I drove 40 miles every day in a Mazda 3, I'd have to refuel it every 6 days, at a cost of $158/month. I spent $50/month on fuel and refueled every 12-16 days; I drive about 30 miles on the average day.
I'll drop in a 240V circuit because, at 3.3kW, that bumps me 10 miles instead of 4 miles of range per hour of charging. If I get home from work at 5pm and then leave at 6pm to go shopping, I have 20 miles of range instead of 10. With the Generation 2 Volt, I'd have 30 miles of range when I got home anyway, since it carries 58 miles of range instead of 38.
US power is center-tapped. There's a 240V transformer on the pole that feeds the house, and a wire fed from the center of the secondary. Peak to center tap from either side is equidistant, and the voltage state is essentially the ground reference for the transformer on the center wire. That's our neutral, and either wire to neutral is 120V. 240V is just the full high-voltage off the transformer.
Imagine if there was no center tap.
Graph.
Source.
Working hours invested in purchasing food have decreased dramatically. The average American household income was $4,200 in 1950, of which $1,400 went to food; in 2015, it was $54,000, of which $6,500 went to food. That's 2,000 working hours either way; it's 12,850% as many dollars income, but 4,640% as many dollars spent on food. The cost of a median household's food for a year in 1950 was 660 labor-hours; in 2015, it was 240. 240 is less than 660, so food is cheaper.
Clothing, same way, 240 hours in 1950, 70 hours in 2015.
Housing, average 983sqft new single-family in 1950, 28% of the budget including rent or mortgage, utilities, maintenance and supplies, and other operational costs; that's 570 hours worked per 1,000 square foot of housing afforded. 2005, a new single-family home was 2,300 average, 33% of the budget in total; that's 287 hours worked per 1,000 square foot of housing afforded. 287 is less than 570.
Decade after decade, we spend fewer hours to purchase our food, our clothing, our basic personal care needs. We buy bigger houses, better cars, more and better healthcare, and a greater load of luxuries. The American work week was 90+ hours in 1900, with 40% of that going to just food for the home; by 1950, the work week was 40 hours, with 33% going to food--barely more than a third as many hours worked to feed the household.
Everything gets cheaper. It's the only way it can happen. That's what technical progress does.
I just bought a 2013 Chevrolet Volt for $11,000 plus fees ($12,295 total). The car is in excellent condition, even at 68,000 miles; the internal combustion engine has been run way more than necessary, with only 3% of its lifetime drive being on battery.
The 2013 Volt is an excellent car. The battery lasts about 38 miles, and I have a 13 mile commute; I use 66% of the battery both ways. The generation-2 Volt has a 53 mile all-electric range; 90% of commutes are below 60 miles, and 68% are below 15 miles, so the 2016 and later Chevrolet Volt runs all-electric nearly 100% of the time for over 90% of daily commuters, and the 2015 and earlier Volt runs all-electric nearly 100% of the time for over 75% of daily commuters.
The 2013 Chevrolet Volt had an MSRP of $41,000. I got mine for $11,000. The car was bought by my dealer in October, 2016.
Rich people's cars go out the door in 3 years for newer, fancier cars. Look at the Chevrolet Volt battery and structural support members, and compare that to the Chevrolet Bolt battery and its base panel. By re-enginering the Chevy Volt battery base panel to be a stressed member battery pack, like the Bolt, you could get another 50-75 miles of range--raising the 58 mile range of the Generation 2 Volt to a 108 or 133 mile range without crowding out the existing supports. This would add several thousand dollars to the cost, although newer technology (including more automation in factories) will bring that down.
The end result: a PHEV with 108+ miles of all-electric range and a total 475+ miles of combined range, with an electric recharge time (at 3.3kW, 240V at 13.75A) of under 8 hours (under 4 hours with a 6.6kW circuit--240V on a 30A circuit). Recharge rate at 3.3kW is 14.5 miles per each hour of charging; if the charge circuit were re-specced to 6.6kW for this hypothetical vehicle, it would recharge 29 miles of range per each hour--nearly the full range of the Generation 1 Volt.
Note that upgrading my home electrical to add a 40 amp, 240V charging station (9.6kW) for the Volt and future EVs will cost me under $1,000. Using a Level 1 charger plugged into a normal 15-amp receptacle (no electrical upgrade) restores 4 miles per hour of charge, making an overnight charge (8pm to 8am) a 48-mile top-off. The Chevrolet Volt includes such a charger.
So rich people are eating the cost of these new, high-end cars (okay, GM made a non-shitty vehicle; I'm impressed); and non-rich people are purchasing them for around $10k-$15k (I actually saw a 2015 Volt with under 5,000 miles for $16k! They're over $30k MSRP!). Essentially, some rich guy bought me a $30,000 car, and I bought the other $11,000. I got my last car (a 2004 Mazda 3) for $14,000.
The total pollution produced by a Chevy Volt is lower than the total pollution produced by a Toyota Prius, including its total manufacture and electrical refueling. My utility offers me EV charging rates with 3.8 cents distribution, plus taxes, plus 20 cents per kWh peak electrical rate and 9.3 cents per kWh off-peak; I currently pay 8.79 cents per kWh at all times (no off-peak advantage) to an electrical supplier who ensures generation of 100% solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal for every kWh I consume, which is less than the off-peak rate. My total current electricity cost is 15 cents per kWh, versus EV rates (using 70% coal, 5% oil, and a lot of natural gas) of 15.51 cents per kWh.
Currently I'm driving on 100% clean energy. The Generation 1 Voltec platform, from 2011 vehicles, has seen regular lifecycles in excess of 90% electrical miles and 100,000 miles, including several samples exceeding
Food is cheaper, houses are bigger, cars come packed with more tech, I have a supercomputer in my pocket, instant communications with everyone and everything are available 24/7 in my pocket, and I've got more access to medical care and entertainment--and spend more of my budget on these things.
Americans at all income levels--especially the poorer and middle-class--have easier access to basic needs and spend more of their money on entertainment and on previously-inadequately-fulfilled needs (e.g. buying more healthcare because they have the cash flow available) than they did 10, 20, and 50 years ago.
How is that "less"?
Are you running Linux Mint from 5 years ago, with Chrome from 5 years ago, without access to modern standards and software?
Do you really think they are buying all this technology for their people and not for military use? If you do, you don't know North Korea.
I'm saying a high-tech military machine cannot sustain itself on top of a low-tech, undeveloped economy..
So apparently you don't understand how cults work. Besides, you only need a few smart people in each sector to organize the other people.
You can't have a few smart people and a shitload of serfs in backwater west Africa support a high-tech, industrialized military machine. It doesn't work. You need an industrialized economy to support an industrialized government.
North Korea was actually quite modern before Kim II Sung declared war and created his cult nation.
It's de-modernized now why? Was it too hard to control the population of a developed, wealthier nation? If they have to make the people wealthier and more-independent again to produce a barely-functional industrialized military, how well is that going to work for the cult of Jong-Un?
I'm not saying ZTE didn't break the law; I'm saying ZTE's actions aren't inherently harmful and would seem to lead toward a desirable end goal for all parties aside from unstable government administrations.
Iran isn't very "developed" if CISCO routers are high tech. What are we talking about? 1940s United States?
If you work 40 hours per week to afford rice, a mud hut, and a pail to go fetch water from the river, you're poor. In the US, we work 40 hours per week and spend a tiny fraction of our income on food (12% of the median household's consumer spending) and running hot water (lol, $45/month here); and only represent about a third of our expenses with large houses with insulation, glass windows, running electricity, and heated space.
The difference is technology. When you do something in a developed country, you use machines and advanced techniques to invest very little human labor and produce enormous output. If 10 people all work together to produce 1,000 units of a thing in an hour with the median-income wage of $27/hr, that's $270 / 1,000 or $0.27 per thing--which might sound meaningful in its own right, but essentially boils down to that thing selling for a price no less than 36 seconds of the median earner's labor. If those 10 people were only able to produce 10 units of that thing with their combined labor, then it's going to cost $27 or 1 hour (3,600 seconds!) of the median earner's labor.
How stable do you think North Korea's government would be in an environment that had to support higher technology? North Korea can bring advanced weapons against us in a war if we sell them advanced weapons; it can't produce advanced weapons. To produce advanced weapons, North Korea needs technologically-advanced factories, which means they need a highly-educated population skilled in all forms of engineering, business management, logistics, and a broad array of the sciences. That's not enough: they need to be able to support the population which provides these things, meaning they need to apply technology in the private sector so as to improve access to food, running water, and so forth, reducing the amount of labor they expend on keeping their population alive and freeing that labor for their military machine.
Does that sound like the kind of blind, raving, fanatical population that would tolerate Kim Jong-Un?
By the time any of these people developed an economy which could support their war effort, they'd have an educated population used to a high standard-of-living and utterly disinterested in their political bullshit. They'd face military coups if nothing else, because their government support structure would also need sufficient education to raise their country to a state capable of supporting the kind of war we're afraid they'd bring to us--and then their intelligence community and their military power centers would quickly recognize the tactical instability brought by the existing government, and tear it down in any way expedient.
They can't become a threat to us without acquiring a steady stream of ready-to-go weapons from a highly-developed third party seeking to wage war without the political consequences of war or simply collapsing internally along the way as the political basis of a developed country fails to support mindless and self-destructive war-mongering.
Economic sanctions are an ineffective and dangerous way to handle undeveloped ratholes.
Every product in history didn't exist during the time after it was conceived and before it was delivered. The most important time to involve stakeholders is when the project is first conceived. Project initiating has exactly two components: Developing the project charter and identifying project stakeholders.
The "identifying project stakeholders" part--which is done before the project planning has even started--produces a stakeholder register which names the stakeholders; identifies their basic stake in the project; notates their currently-understood position on the project (against, neutral, supportive, leading) and the position in which we need them to occupy; and even identifies the most-effective means of communicating with those stakeholders. This is all identified at the point where your project is, essentially, "A car", "A 3D computer graphics program", or "A laptop", with no other explanation of what capabilities, costs, or other attributes describe the product you intend to deliver.
So, again: stakeholders are identified before a vision of the product and a description of its scope are even conceived. They aren't just identified before a single line of code is written, before a single component is selected, or before we decide how big the damn thing is going to be; they're identified before we can even say what it is we want to make.
Think about it. It would be ludicrous to come up with something with no use case and then say, "Well, we're going to build this, and then we're going to find somebody on whom we can force it!" Does that sound like a way to develop a product targeting the needs of your customers? Of course not! Before you can even imagine a product, you have to identify your customers--the stakeholders--and sort out what exactly they might want.