This is/. and communism talk like that is not tolerated.
It's actually a capitalist policy. People keep asking how the state can solve homelessness and end hunger. The answer? Make people less-poor.
1/8 of the income is essentially redistributed flat, which allows the welfare system to function properly and ensure that people aren't homeless or hungry. The impact on taxes is actually about nothing--pre-TCJA, you're looking at corporate profit tax rate falling from 35% to 33.5%, and the top tax bracket falling 3.6%. Leaves enough room to get universal healthcare without an overall tax increase.
This increases consumer spending power, resulting in the creation of jobs--especially around the poorest areas. Homeless people are suddenly supportable, which means landlords and developers can profit by ensuring housing is available (that's the only way).
In Baltimore, I see a lot of houses which have been abandoned a long time; I bought one for $50,000, after a developer spent $34,000 to rehab it, including rebuilding floor joists and wall studding (nearly replaced the entire structure except the outer sheathing and firewall). 15 year mortgage? $421/month, no more than a $1,500 down payment.
This is a baseline of economic equity. People don't end up in the streets and unable to get jobs; rather, they are in a position from which they can work hard and advance. Jobs become available, and the proportion of their non-working income represented by qualified welfare--stuff they lose when they get a job--shrinks. As they get jobs and work, they become wealthier and less-qualified for welfare, so the amount of state intervention and control over their lives shrinks.
On the other hand, with this strong economy, we can take bigger risks and advance faster. The Dividend prevents recessions and keeps employment high--it buffers our economy.
Technical progress allows us to make more stuff with fewer labor-hours. That's how you get wealthier: you work 10 hours and produce 12 hours's worth of stuff--that stuff costs less because we pay 10 hours of wages instead of 12, but up to 1/8 of the workers may lose their jobs. Price competition can drive prices down further, and this typically happens. With many goods, we increase the quantity: broadband gets faster, computers get more storage, and car manufacturers roll luxury features into base-level vehicles, thus avoiding job loss.
For those who are in the path of progress, we get richer and they get unemployment. The Dividend and welfare essentially represent an attempt to hold people in an economically-stable position: you're not going to get your full, continuing paycheck, but we'll slow the bleeding and stimulate the economy to get you back into employment before your life collapses around you. The free market will have to create the job for you (I'm not a fan of Federal job guarantees, where we make up something for you to do; Federal jobs exist to fill a Federal need, not to provide welfare while we pretend it's not welfare).
All of this means our economy can run forward faster, advance technology more-rapidly, and still minimize the harm done to individuals in the path of progress. We generate more wealth per working-hour, and forward part of that into shorter working hours (which reduces the number of jobs and the GDP and GNI). The other part becomes a greater GDP and GNI, which of course means the Dividend increases in proportion.
That's a minimal-intervention, self-stabilizing system.
Best bet is probably getting appointed to be United States Secretary of Health and Human Services
I'm running for Congress. My best bet is to get it into a budget bill.
In the 8pm-10pm window, even when sleep-deprived for a year (1 hour per night average total sleep), I become awake and alert. I'm using melatonin (at 8pm!) and cognitive behavioral therapy, along with stimulants during the day. It's taken nearly a year, but I finally sleep pretty well; I still sometimes can't get more than 5 hours, and can almost never hit 7.5. If I can maintain 7.5 for 2-3 days, I start to notice symptoms of mania--one of which is that you simply can't sleep anymore. As with depression, I don't really know what to do with a manic episode, and so just complain that it's uncomfortable (yes, something in there is broken).
When I was working 3pm-11pm, I would stay up until 3am and sleep until 11am. I felt fantastic. I taught myself stuff. Life was great. I wasn't on drugs. I didn't have bona fide insomnia and would sleep solid.
Studies on chronotypy have definitively identified that it is a real thing and is genetic.
I could increase the dose--I've taken pretty huge amounts of methylphenidate before--but my psychiatrist likes to raise the dose of drugs and refuse to lower them. My doctor is in charge of this prescription, and refuses to increase the dose without instruction from my psychiatrist; he's completely amenable with lowering the dose if I disagree. I worry that more MPH will cause me to be awake 24/7, although it could cause me to sleep better. I hyper-respond to amphetamine and a 15mg dose will keep me awake for 26 hours, while a 20mg dose will literally kill me after a few days.
Do you know what would be awesome? Being well-rested enough that maybe--maybe--the lowest dose would be useful, or maybe I could just chuck it all in the bin and enjoy feeling healthy without loading myself up with stims.
Everyone around me is chugging 14 cups of coffee a day.
Where do you apply for grants for such discoveries, I have plenty more that I'd really love to present. Next week: Water is wet and it's cold up North.
Seriously considering funding CDC research into sleep deprivation in our society, working hours, and job scheduling. Have to get elected first. Election is at the end of June; a few of us are starting fundraising in April. My opponent is not well-liked (it's Elijah Cummings), so this is pretty much all funding and I don't have to outspend him at all.
Would forcing people into a schedule that doesn't fit their adult biological rhythms, thereby causing chronic sleep deprivation (sleep deprivation is a form of torture), be something similar in nature to gay conversion therapy?
Having a hormonal abnormalities is no excuse if you still jam copious amounts of chips and cupcakes down your gullet and pretend that a salad with croutons, cheese and 500 kcal worth of dressing is "healthy".
Because it's easy for people like me to fight with insurance companies who don't want to give me stims because I'm over 18, thus my capacity to outperform the shit out of everyone around me by being on enormous loads of Methylphenidate all through grade school can continue into college.
What? I'm a frigging powerhouse at 1 in the morning. If I stop working to control my insomnia, I end up sleeping until 11am and become sharply awake and mentally fit after around 9pm regardless of the level of sleep deprivation. They put me on drugs to force my brain to do that at 8am.
I want to achieve a number of things. One of them is a universal dividend to end poverty and drive our economy forward; and another is to use that economic power to shorten working hours. Maybe 4 day work weeks, maybe 6-hour work days. 6 hour work days do amazing things for people's health.
I've toyed with the idea of a 24-hour society, one where some people are night people. I've considered those people who work best after noon and at 2am, and how to integrate a society where we acknowledge both sets and move working hours to match.
I'm seriously trying to figure out how to get the CDC studying the economic and health effects of everything related to sleep, and give us recommendations. It's not a main topic for me; but if there's one primary issue where my Congressional career would collide sharply with my own personal interests, it's sleep.
No, if you're understeering, the solution is to let off the gas and slow down.
Don't forget you're steering, so you're probably not going to have a good time going in a straight line or wherever your car is now going. You may have entered that curve only to find you were going too fast, despite letting off the gas. You now have to hope you can brake, or get back under control; sometimes, the answer is to turn more and give it more acceleration, although that could just make it worse.
In any case, with a Model S the weight is almost evenly distributed (48% front, 52% rear)
Nice thing about electric cars: they usually have the batteries spanning across the center of mass, because they have a LOT of batteries. Fuel tanks are usually a little off-center (typically toward the rear). That makes the mass fluctuation as you run down the car have less of an impact on mass distribution.
The other thing that minimizes the impact of that mass fluctuation is that fuel is heavy and burned away, while batteries only lose the mass of radiated electrical energy--which doesn't actually include the electrons themselves, and so is not practically measurable. For example: an 85kWh stored charge weighs about 3.4 micrograms--enough fentanyl to incapacitate a small rodent.
The span of what you can do with personal data--even just what you can find around the 'net--is terrifying to contemplate. Now and then, when I spot somebody from whom I want to garner political support, I spend about 3 minutes hopping around Google and build a profile. Sometimes I get not much; other times I know everything about you, up to and including unearthing personal cell phone numbers for politicians and other high-profile folks.
Data privacy laws. We need them. I'll work out how to construct them eventually (I have to win an election first).
I made it up a hill in a 1991 Nissan hardbody light pickup with nothing in the back. Generally, loss of traction means slow going; and errant steering is oversteer, easily fixed with countersteering.
Front wheel drive just gets stuck. When you accelerate, all the load goes onto the back wheels: the weight is no longer on the front wheels. Think about how many rear-wheel cars you've seen accelerate with the front pitching up; now think about what happens when you accelerate hard in a front-wheel drive car: the wheels hop a lot. That's because the car starts to go, and the load shifts off the front wheels and onto the rear wheels. They pitch up just like with a RWD car, but that doesn't work very well for obvious reasons.
If you do get moving, the car torque-steers, veering off into one direction or the other (depends on which drive shaft is shorter). If your car does something weird, it's hard to get it back under control. The normal weirdness is understeer, and the response is to turn harder and hope it works; it might not work.
Speaking of turning, you can turn from a stop in RWD. As you pointed out: in FWD, you're more-likely to lose traction, and so you turn more-slowly, so entering traffic can be perilous. This is worse when the ground is wet or (oddly enough) snowy.
So between the big, heavy engine moving onto the back wheels as soon as you start moving and the front wheels trying to be both power and steering, you have a disaster of vehicle dynamics leading to cars stuck in the snow.
I don't mind prioritization, so long as we don't have paid prioritization at any end, and don't allow the prioritization to impact base level service for any other user or service.
I can get bolts made out of soft steel, hard steel, zinc-plated galvanized steel, 440, high-chromium stainless steel, molybdenum-vanadium high-chromium stainless, and so forth.
Different steels will flex more without deforming, or will hold more-rigid under strain. A flexible steel in a roll bar or even a frame will improve vehicle handling, whereas a high-grade hard steel might actually sheer under stress (outright break) instead of flexing like a spring. Molybdenum lowers the energy state in the lattice, so it's more-difficult to substitute oxides--even resisting electrolyte pressure which could cause normal high-chromium stainless to just rust.
Your car has dozens of types of steel in it. If you have a high-end combustion engine, you probably even have one of the many grades of inconel--an extremely hard steel that keeps its anti-corrosion and work-hardening characteristics even up around 1850 degrees. If you put regular steels in the turbocharger turbine, they practically melt (Inconel sheds heat like crazy, too, so any blast of hot-then-cooler spots in the exhaust will keep it cooler instead of heating it up toward peak temperatures).
A lot of good grades of steel will rust out if you park them within half a mile of the ocean.
We made steering wheels smaller and reduced mechanical leverage to make the car smaller. A power source compensates for the increased force required. Failed power steering adds resistance, making the car even harder to steer.
From what I've heard, a pure manual steering car designed around a plain rack and pinion setup gives a lot more tactile feedback and is more-pleasant to drive.
The problem is a lack of data privacy laws that allows Facebook to be what it is--at least, the parts that we don't like about Facebook. Facebook knows everything about you and your connections even if you don't have a Facebook account, and it leaks that information.
Right now, nothing Facebook has done seems technically-illegal, and Congress is trying to find some way to bring a hammer down on them. We knew Facebook apps could access all of your data--it gives you a fricking warning when you try to add an app to your account, even to "Sign In with Facebook", that says these people are going to know a ton of shit about you. Some company abused tons of Facebook data. We can talk about special partnerships, mishandling, or whatever we want; but for the past decades, every single one of us has known damned well that anyone with a popular Facebook app (ZYNGA) had enormous amounts of data on tons of Facebook users and we said nothing.
We're squirming around trying to blame Facebook--which isn't too difficult, considering it's full of grey if not bad actors--for decades of lax data privacy laws. If we look hard enough, we'll find something illegal to pin on them, and congratulate ourselves in front of the nation.
Wait until someone asks if it's okay for you to consent to an Android app accessing your call history, text messages, and contact list. Think about TrueCaller. Now think about Facebook. Yep. How the hell do we even legislate around this?
It's doable. It just takes more thought than "wow that should be illegal."
Doesn't really change the point. The mean is probably higher in service-oriented businesses (many low-paid workers) and lower in skilled-worker-oriented businesses (many highly-paid workers) in comparison to the median, although only negligibly. In the Home Depot example, the $20k employees are probably the median: they're your floor personnel.
Median is a type of average; the last one is mode.
The whole point is that merging 400 businesses into one giant conglomerate (Proctor and Gamble, Kraft, etc.) gets you executives with more employees under them. If they take the same per-employee compensation, they get ridiculously-rich, yet they don't take any more from their employees than those executives of smaller corporations with lesser salaries. You end up with this widening income gap.
If you want real income inequality measures, track the proportional difference between your median worker and your top 1% and.1%; and track each quintile (and the median worker, top earners, etc.) against the GNI.
The tax brackets are adjusted under Chained CPI in the TCJA, which means they get lower in comparison with inflation. You stay middle-class but we slowly start to tax you like you're rich.
Monopoly power? Where do you people imagine Amazon has a monopoly?
Trump doesn't like Amazon because Bezos owns the Washington Post. He has no clue what he's talking about.
That's not to say Amazon isn't abusing the marketplace. Amazon's cloud service segment draws in over 100% of their profits: every division in the company loses money, and AWS brings in the loss plus all of Amazon's profits.
Essentially, a retailer pays $30 for a thing and sells it for $50--$30 cost, $16 of proportional operating overhead, and $4 of profit. Amazon sells it for $40--$30 cost, $16 of proportional operating overhead, and a $6 LOSS. Amazon operates in a different market making a $10 profit, and so takes a total $4 profit.
The retailer, thus, can't sell at Amazon's price or else it goes out of business. Amazon can't sell at Amazon's price, but essentially owns another, highly-profitable business (division) that's pouring venture capital into their failed retail corporation.
Under US anti-trust laws, this is considered predatory pricing and illegal whether or not you have a particular share of a market. Moreover, using dominance in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another market is also illegal.
"Less destructive rains" like that destructive flooding of the Nile that Mubarak's dam stopped?
You know, the flooding that was driving organic salts and detreitus miles inland, making the west bank fertile and allowing farmers to produce high yields.
Stopping the destructive flooding of the Nile also devastated Egypt's capacity to produce food. It was an enormous, expensive project that destroyed their economy and created famine.
This seems to be in the center of a continent, and affecting water-laden air moving northward. It looks like there's 850-1,850 miles of land before this air would reach Taiwan and the East Chinese Sea. The US is 3,000 miles across.
It looks like they could impact Gansu or Mongolia.
This won't increase total precipitation. Either the moisture is moving and raining somewhere which doesn't run to the water table attached to the reservoir, or all of this water is already coming down as rain. Are they stealing rain from another province over?
Can I write a data retention law requiring the deletion of all privately-held tracking data after two years without causing an enormous economic disaster? Medical providers should keep medical records (that includes insurers); but your tracking and behavior data has to go.
The thing is we need to let companies keep stuff you put there--Facebook needs to keep your Facebook posts and photos and whatnot forever if you want them to be there when you scroll back 10 years; Google needs to keep stuff in your Gmail; etc.--but I don't want them to hold data you've deleted, or hold data they gathered by tracking cookies. What about consumer habit data gathered by explicit interaction, e.g. your purchasing history from them? What about charities, PACs, and political campaigns holding onto data about their donors and supporters as gathered from interactions?
At the very least, all of this "maybe they should be able to keep that" data needs to become "they definitely can't share that" data, perhaps with the exception of long-term aggregate statistics (not sanitized, individual data, but "40% of consumers aged 18-25..." data). Maybe we'll let aggregation houses apply for a license to accept sanitized data for aggregation and make them the only ones who can sell aggregated data: minimize the number of transfer points. We'll also have to make it illegal for the Government to receive that sanitized (or un-sanitized) data, because I don't want to create a state arm of sucking up personal data that we can probably de-anonymize with state data.
We have to start hammering this stuff out and making arguments for why certain things should remain so we can throw everything else out. The weakest policy would be sanitize and centralize: instead of every firm trading data with every other firm, they're all required to delete that data after two years, and may only share sanitized data with licensed aggregation firms. It no longer becomes a matter of scraping or hacking any of thousands of firms, but rather any of a small handful. I'm not sure that's sufficient, because deanonymizing data is a real thing; but it's a start.
Oddly enough, basically everyone can be retrained to be an engineer. It just takes motivation. Not everyone is interested in doing so, and there's nothing you can really do about that besides put them on Modafinil so their attention system is under their absolute control (it doesn't make them smarter; it just lets them override some basic impulses).
Slashdot Mirror
This is /. and communism talk like that is not tolerated.
It's actually a capitalist policy. People keep asking how the state can solve homelessness and end hunger. The answer? Make people less-poor.
1/8 of the income is essentially redistributed flat, which allows the welfare system to function properly and ensure that people aren't homeless or hungry. The impact on taxes is actually about nothing--pre-TCJA, you're looking at corporate profit tax rate falling from 35% to 33.5%, and the top tax bracket falling 3.6%. Leaves enough room to get universal healthcare without an overall tax increase.
This increases consumer spending power, resulting in the creation of jobs--especially around the poorest areas. Homeless people are suddenly supportable, which means landlords and developers can profit by ensuring housing is available (that's the only way).
In Baltimore, I see a lot of houses which have been abandoned a long time; I bought one for $50,000, after a developer spent $34,000 to rehab it, including rebuilding floor joists and wall studding (nearly replaced the entire structure except the outer sheathing and firewall). 15 year mortgage? $421/month, no more than a $1,500 down payment.
This is a baseline of economic equity. People don't end up in the streets and unable to get jobs; rather, they are in a position from which they can work hard and advance. Jobs become available, and the proportion of their non-working income represented by qualified welfare--stuff they lose when they get a job--shrinks. As they get jobs and work, they become wealthier and less-qualified for welfare, so the amount of state intervention and control over their lives shrinks.
On the other hand, with this strong economy, we can take bigger risks and advance faster. The Dividend prevents recessions and keeps employment high--it buffers our economy.
Technical progress allows us to make more stuff with fewer labor-hours. That's how you get wealthier: you work 10 hours and produce 12 hours's worth of stuff--that stuff costs less because we pay 10 hours of wages instead of 12, but up to 1/8 of the workers may lose their jobs. Price competition can drive prices down further, and this typically happens. With many goods, we increase the quantity: broadband gets faster, computers get more storage, and car manufacturers roll luxury features into base-level vehicles, thus avoiding job loss.
For those who are in the path of progress, we get richer and they get unemployment. The Dividend and welfare essentially represent an attempt to hold people in an economically-stable position: you're not going to get your full, continuing paycheck, but we'll slow the bleeding and stimulate the economy to get you back into employment before your life collapses around you. The free market will have to create the job for you (I'm not a fan of Federal job guarantees, where we make up something for you to do; Federal jobs exist to fill a Federal need, not to provide welfare while we pretend it's not welfare).
All of this means our economy can run forward faster, advance technology more-rapidly, and still minimize the harm done to individuals in the path of progress. We generate more wealth per working-hour, and forward part of that into shorter working hours (which reduces the number of jobs and the GDP and GNI). The other part becomes a greater GDP and GNI, which of course means the Dividend increases in proportion.
That's a minimal-intervention, self-stabilizing system.
Best bet is probably getting appointed to be United States Secretary of Health and Human Services
I'm running for Congress. My best bet is to get it into a budget bill.
In the 8pm-10pm window, even when sleep-deprived for a year (1 hour per night average total sleep), I become awake and alert. I'm using melatonin (at 8pm!) and cognitive behavioral therapy, along with stimulants during the day. It's taken nearly a year, but I finally sleep pretty well; I still sometimes can't get more than 5 hours, and can almost never hit 7.5. If I can maintain 7.5 for 2-3 days, I start to notice symptoms of mania--one of which is that you simply can't sleep anymore. As with depression, I don't really know what to do with a manic episode, and so just complain that it's uncomfortable (yes, something in there is broken).
When I was working 3pm-11pm, I would stay up until 3am and sleep until 11am. I felt fantastic. I taught myself stuff. Life was great. I wasn't on drugs. I didn't have bona fide insomnia and would sleep solid.
Studies on chronotypy have definitively identified that it is a real thing and is genetic.
I could increase the dose--I've taken pretty huge amounts of methylphenidate before--but my psychiatrist likes to raise the dose of drugs and refuse to lower them. My doctor is in charge of this prescription, and refuses to increase the dose without instruction from my psychiatrist; he's completely amenable with lowering the dose if I disagree. I worry that more MPH will cause me to be awake 24/7, although it could cause me to sleep better. I hyper-respond to amphetamine and a 15mg dose will keep me awake for 26 hours, while a 20mg dose will literally kill me after a few days.
Do you know what would be awesome? Being well-rested enough that maybe--maybe--the lowest dose would be useful, or maybe I could just chuck it all in the bin and enjoy feeling healthy without loading myself up with stims.
Everyone around me is chugging 14 cups of coffee a day.
Where do you apply for grants for such discoveries, I have plenty more that I'd really love to present. Next week: Water is wet and it's cold up North.
Seriously considering funding CDC research into sleep deprivation in our society, working hours, and job scheduling. Have to get elected first. Election is at the end of June; a few of us are starting fundraising in April. My opponent is not well-liked (it's Elijah Cummings), so this is pretty much all funding and I don't have to outspend him at all.
Would forcing people into a schedule that doesn't fit their adult biological rhythms, thereby causing chronic sleep deprivation (sleep deprivation is a form of torture), be something similar in nature to gay conversion therapy?
Having a hormonal abnormalities is no excuse if you still jam copious amounts of chips and cupcakes down your gullet and pretend that a salad with croutons, cheese and 500 kcal worth of dressing is "healthy".
Is that a bona-fide strawman?
And why would that be?
Because it's easy for people like me to fight with insurance companies who don't want to give me stims because I'm over 18, thus my capacity to outperform the shit out of everyone around me by being on enormous loads of Methylphenidate all through grade school can continue into college.
What? I'm a frigging powerhouse at 1 in the morning. If I stop working to control my insomnia, I end up sleeping until 11am and become sharply awake and mentally fit after around 9pm regardless of the level of sleep deprivation. They put me on drugs to force my brain to do that at 8am.
I want to achieve a number of things. One of them is a universal dividend to end poverty and drive our economy forward; and another is to use that economic power to shorten working hours. Maybe 4 day work weeks, maybe 6-hour work days. 6 hour work days do amazing things for people's health.
I've toyed with the idea of a 24-hour society, one where some people are night people. I've considered those people who work best after noon and at 2am, and how to integrate a society where we acknowledge both sets and move working hours to match.
I'm seriously trying to figure out how to get the CDC studying the economic and health effects of everything related to sleep, and give us recommendations. It's not a main topic for me; but if there's one primary issue where my Congressional career would collide sharply with my own personal interests, it's sleep.
No, if you're understeering, the solution is to let off the gas and slow down.
Don't forget you're steering, so you're probably not going to have a good time going in a straight line or wherever your car is now going. You may have entered that curve only to find you were going too fast, despite letting off the gas. You now have to hope you can brake, or get back under control; sometimes, the answer is to turn more and give it more acceleration, although that could just make it worse.
In any case, with a Model S the weight is almost evenly distributed (48% front, 52% rear)
Nice thing about electric cars: they usually have the batteries spanning across the center of mass, because they have a LOT of batteries. Fuel tanks are usually a little off-center (typically toward the rear). That makes the mass fluctuation as you run down the car have less of an impact on mass distribution.
The other thing that minimizes the impact of that mass fluctuation is that fuel is heavy and burned away, while batteries only lose the mass of radiated electrical energy--which doesn't actually include the electrons themselves, and so is not practically measurable. For example: an 85kWh stored charge weighs about 3.4 micrograms--enough fentanyl to incapacitate a small rodent.
The span of what you can do with personal data--even just what you can find around the 'net--is terrifying to contemplate. Now and then, when I spot somebody from whom I want to garner political support, I spend about 3 minutes hopping around Google and build a profile. Sometimes I get not much; other times I know everything about you, up to and including unearthing personal cell phone numbers for politicians and other high-profile folks.
Data privacy laws. We need them. I'll work out how to construct them eventually (I have to win an election first).
I made it up a hill in a 1991 Nissan hardbody light pickup with nothing in the back. Generally, loss of traction means slow going; and errant steering is oversteer, easily fixed with countersteering.
Front wheel drive just gets stuck. When you accelerate, all the load goes onto the back wheels: the weight is no longer on the front wheels. Think about how many rear-wheel cars you've seen accelerate with the front pitching up; now think about what happens when you accelerate hard in a front-wheel drive car: the wheels hop a lot. That's because the car starts to go, and the load shifts off the front wheels and onto the rear wheels. They pitch up just like with a RWD car, but that doesn't work very well for obvious reasons.
If you do get moving, the car torque-steers, veering off into one direction or the other (depends on which drive shaft is shorter). If your car does something weird, it's hard to get it back under control. The normal weirdness is understeer, and the response is to turn harder and hope it works; it might not work.
Speaking of turning, you can turn from a stop in RWD. As you pointed out: in FWD, you're more-likely to lose traction, and so you turn more-slowly, so entering traffic can be perilous. This is worse when the ground is wet or (oddly enough) snowy.
So between the big, heavy engine moving onto the back wheels as soon as you start moving and the front wheels trying to be both power and steering, you have a disaster of vehicle dynamics leading to cars stuck in the snow.
AWD solves all of this anyway.
I don't mind prioritization, so long as we don't have paid prioritization at any end, and don't allow the prioritization to impact base level service for any other user or service.
That sounds like every car manufacturer, except most have turned a profit. They all have persistent quality issues.
I used to drive a RWD pickup truck. When I got FWD, I hated it in the snow. I still hate FWD. :|
I can get bolts made out of soft steel, hard steel, zinc-plated galvanized steel, 440, high-chromium stainless steel, molybdenum-vanadium high-chromium stainless, and so forth.
Different steels will flex more without deforming, or will hold more-rigid under strain. A flexible steel in a roll bar or even a frame will improve vehicle handling, whereas a high-grade hard steel might actually sheer under stress (outright break) instead of flexing like a spring. Molybdenum lowers the energy state in the lattice, so it's more-difficult to substitute oxides--even resisting electrolyte pressure which could cause normal high-chromium stainless to just rust.
Your car has dozens of types of steel in it. If you have a high-end combustion engine, you probably even have one of the many grades of inconel--an extremely hard steel that keeps its anti-corrosion and work-hardening characteristics even up around 1850 degrees. If you put regular steels in the turbocharger turbine, they practically melt (Inconel sheds heat like crazy, too, so any blast of hot-then-cooler spots in the exhaust will keep it cooler instead of heating it up toward peak temperatures).
A lot of good grades of steel will rust out if you park them within half a mile of the ocean.
We made steering wheels smaller and reduced mechanical leverage to make the car smaller. A power source compensates for the increased force required. Failed power steering adds resistance, making the car even harder to steer.
From what I've heard, a pure manual steering car designed around a plain rack and pinion setup gives a lot more tactile feedback and is more-pleasant to drive.
There's no problem with Facebook.
The problem is a lack of data privacy laws that allows Facebook to be what it is--at least, the parts that we don't like about Facebook. Facebook knows everything about you and your connections even if you don't have a Facebook account, and it leaks that information.
Right now, nothing Facebook has done seems technically-illegal, and Congress is trying to find some way to bring a hammer down on them. We knew Facebook apps could access all of your data--it gives you a fricking warning when you try to add an app to your account, even to "Sign In with Facebook", that says these people are going to know a ton of shit about you. Some company abused tons of Facebook data. We can talk about special partnerships, mishandling, or whatever we want; but for the past decades, every single one of us has known damned well that anyone with a popular Facebook app (ZYNGA) had enormous amounts of data on tons of Facebook users and we said nothing.
We're squirming around trying to blame Facebook--which isn't too difficult, considering it's full of grey if not bad actors--for decades of lax data privacy laws. If we look hard enough, we'll find something illegal to pin on them, and congratulate ourselves in front of the nation.
Wait until someone asks if it's okay for you to consent to an Android app accessing your call history, text messages, and contact list. Think about TrueCaller. Now think about Facebook. Yep. How the hell do we even legislate around this?
It's doable. It just takes more thought than "wow that should be illegal."
Doesn't really change the point. The mean is probably higher in service-oriented businesses (many low-paid workers) and lower in skilled-worker-oriented businesses (many highly-paid workers) in comparison to the median, although only negligibly. In the Home Depot example, the $20k employees are probably the median: they're your floor personnel.
Median is a type of average; the last one is mode.
The whole point is that merging 400 businesses into one giant conglomerate (Proctor and Gamble, Kraft, etc.) gets you executives with more employees under them. If they take the same per-employee compensation, they get ridiculously-rich, yet they don't take any more from their employees than those executives of smaller corporations with lesser salaries. You end up with this widening income gap.
If you want real income inequality measures, track the proportional difference between your median worker and your top 1% and .1%; and track each quintile (and the median worker, top earners, etc.) against the GNI.
That's because the accelerating pace of bankruptcies looks bad for Trump's economy.
The tax brackets are adjusted under Chained CPI in the TCJA, which means they get lower in comparison with inflation. You stay middle-class but we slowly start to tax you like you're rich.
Monopoly power? Where do you people imagine Amazon has a monopoly?
Trump doesn't like Amazon because Bezos owns the Washington Post. He has no clue what he's talking about.
That's not to say Amazon isn't abusing the marketplace. Amazon's cloud service segment draws in over 100% of their profits: every division in the company loses money, and AWS brings in the loss plus all of Amazon's profits.
Essentially, a retailer pays $30 for a thing and sells it for $50--$30 cost, $16 of proportional operating overhead, and $4 of profit. Amazon sells it for $40--$30 cost, $16 of proportional operating overhead, and a $6 LOSS. Amazon operates in a different market making a $10 profit, and so takes a total $4 profit.
The retailer, thus, can't sell at Amazon's price or else it goes out of business. Amazon can't sell at Amazon's price, but essentially owns another, highly-profitable business (division) that's pouring venture capital into their failed retail corporation.
Under US anti-trust laws, this is considered predatory pricing and illegal whether or not you have a particular share of a market. Moreover, using dominance in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another market is also illegal.
"Less destructive rains" like that destructive flooding of the Nile that Mubarak's dam stopped?
You know, the flooding that was driving organic salts and detreitus miles inland, making the west bank fertile and allowing farmers to produce high yields.
Stopping the destructive flooding of the Nile also devastated Egypt's capacity to produce food. It was an enormous, expensive project that destroyed their economy and created famine.
How destructive are these monsoons?
This seems to be in the center of a continent, and affecting water-laden air moving northward. It looks like there's 850-1,850 miles of land before this air would reach Taiwan and the East Chinese Sea. The US is 3,000 miles across.
It looks like they could impact Gansu or Mongolia.
This won't increase total precipitation. Either the moisture is moving and raining somewhere which doesn't run to the water table attached to the reservoir, or all of this water is already coming down as rain. Are they stealing rain from another province over?
Can I write a data retention law requiring the deletion of all privately-held tracking data after two years without causing an enormous economic disaster? Medical providers should keep medical records (that includes insurers); but your tracking and behavior data has to go.
The thing is we need to let companies keep stuff you put there--Facebook needs to keep your Facebook posts and photos and whatnot forever if you want them to be there when you scroll back 10 years; Google needs to keep stuff in your Gmail; etc.--but I don't want them to hold data you've deleted, or hold data they gathered by tracking cookies. What about consumer habit data gathered by explicit interaction, e.g. your purchasing history from them? What about charities, PACs, and political campaigns holding onto data about their donors and supporters as gathered from interactions?
At the very least, all of this "maybe they should be able to keep that" data needs to become "they definitely can't share that" data, perhaps with the exception of long-term aggregate statistics (not sanitized, individual data, but "40% of consumers aged 18-25..." data). Maybe we'll let aggregation houses apply for a license to accept sanitized data for aggregation and make them the only ones who can sell aggregated data: minimize the number of transfer points. We'll also have to make it illegal for the Government to receive that sanitized (or un-sanitized) data, because I don't want to create a state arm of sucking up personal data that we can probably de-anonymize with state data.
We have to start hammering this stuff out and making arguments for why certain things should remain so we can throw everything else out. The weakest policy would be sanitize and centralize: instead of every firm trading data with every other firm, they're all required to delete that data after two years, and may only share sanitized data with licensed aggregation firms. It no longer becomes a matter of scraping or hacking any of thousands of firms, but rather any of a small handful. I'm not sure that's sufficient, because deanonymizing data is a real thing; but it's a start.
Oddly enough, basically everyone can be retrained to be an engineer. It just takes motivation. Not everyone is interested in doing so, and there's nothing you can really do about that besides put them on Modafinil so their attention system is under their absolute control (it doesn't make them smarter; it just lets them override some basic impulses).
Requiring fewer human labor hours for the same result is the definition of increased productivity.