And you have to realize that while the eye has better dynamic range, a black blob is still a black blob. Your brain will take at least 5-10 seconds to actually process that blob as "something to be avoided".
My best reaction time ever, from "vague shape in peripheral vision" to "hitting the brakes because of predicted movement path of what appears to be house cat", was under 120mS, including moving my foot from the accelerator to the brake. Did not hit the cat.
To be fair, I was at the time overdosed on serotonin drugs, and suffering from tachycardia, fatigue, anxiety, and ridiculously-accelerated reaction speed as side-effects. I had my psychiatrist cut the dose, and eventually lowered it further myself by taking one pill a day instead of two; I'm particularly-sensitive and he resists prescribing low doses of drugs, so I couldn't get a 10mg dose out of him and got stuck on 25mg. I switched to something else eventually and wow, that stuff was helping me sleep, but it was also making me fairly depressed and lethargic.
The proper drug to accelerate a human's thought processes like that is Modafinil. Our military uses it, and has de-authorized the use of amphetamine for its purposes. Modafinil works great on ADHD, too; and it's non-abusable, so far non-toxic (massive overdoses have produced unpleasant but non-emergency results), and non-addictive. We... still just give kids amphetamine and methylphenidate.
You should not have a reaction speed that high even on Modafinil. If you can ever react like that, something is wrong, even if your psychiatrist insists the dose is correct.
A 220V circuit is actually pretty exotic. A typical 110V circuit at 15 amps (13A draw) can supply 10.8kWh in 10.5 hours--yes, at 1.43kW, you're getting about 1kW of charge storage. Charging is only 70% efficient.
At 220V and 15A draw (3.3kW, 20A circuit) can do it in 2.5 by some magic--that's only 8.25kWh charging 10.8kWh of a 16kWh battery. Magical violations of the laws of thermodynamics aside, If you want 100 miles, you need 30kWh. To do that in 8h, you want a 40 amp circuit drawing 25 amps for your charging station. You can do it in 3 with a 50 amp 220V circuit.
You can't get 100 miles put in overnight without running some sort of special charge circuit and digging a trench for conduit, with special 8/3 UF-B wire. May as well go big, since the charger will cost you about $150 more and the circuit breaker will cost you $20 more. It's going to be an $800 investment anyway.
Not yet. ChargePoint can deliver 500kW to a single vehicle, if your vehicle can handle it. In the future, I imagine we'll have a lot of solar-over-parking-lot to directly feed these things (panels produce 600VDC, and L3 DC is 600VDC). Over 1,400 parking spaces, our local community college installed 5MW of capacity--enough to simultaneously charge about 60 cars at 80kW or 50 at 100kW. You're going to be in class for an hour.
The solar power is going to offset utility bills for your shopping mall or college campus (shopping center lots are enormous unshaded areas, by the way), so it actually costs a lot. I imagine future devices will allow you to log into an account, and therefor bill the power to your electrical account through your utility, sparing the operator the commercial electrical costs.
In a reasonable world, there'd be solar power over parking lots, with that 600VDC coming straight down (from sun or from grid) for level 3 charging at 48kW--enough to add 250 miles of range in an hour. After driving for more than three hours at 80mph, you can sit down and eat.
Level 3 charging is projected to go to 80kW and even higher easy enough (terrifying, I know), netting you 400 miles in an hour or 200 in half an hour. Most people want a reasonable half-hour charge, but most people really take about 40 minutes for a pit stop; on the other hand, the general time between meals is about 4 hours (your performance starts to drop after that: you're more likely to be fatigued if you go longer than 4 hours without eating, but not likely to be hungry after 3).
As you can see, the numbers are kind of fuzzy until we get into triple-digit kW charge rates. This won't work for long-haul trucking: the solution there is a lot more complex (doable, but complex).
Yep, and the Bolt (which outsold the Volt) is a plug-in all-electric. The number you need to cover most daily commuting is 80 miles on battery, which is why I'm fine with the 250-300 mile electric ranges but want any new subsidies or other state encouragement of PHEVs to require 80+ mile range in typical condition. Note that the 2013 Volt gets about 32 miles in the winter and 42 miles in the summer, while claiming 35 on battery: it sort of exceeds its range estimates most of the time (I've gotten nearly 50 out of it before).
The more people buy the vehicles, the more pressure there is to have facilities. Early pressure comes from attracting wealthier tenants; later pressure comes from attracting any tenants at all.
Half a million units in the 90s? Wow, must be mature tech now. Looks like Chevrolet sold 23,000 Bolts last year, 20,000 Volts, and 75,000 Chevrolet Impalas. In January, 2018, there were 82,000 electric vehicles sold worldwide, versus 41,000 in January of 2017; sales rate tends to ramp up as the year progresses, and the 2017 year-end total was 1.2 million worldwide.
So the worldwide slow-month market for EVs is about the same size as the worldwide annual sales of Impalas. Impalas and Volts are both $40,000 cars; the Model 3 is a $35,000 car with a 5-second 0-60 (Volt is about 8 seconds).
By your numbers, the Tesla Model S sales top out around the same rate as Chevrolet Impala sales.
In europe, the competition between unions, and the freedom of workers to join them or not (pay dues or not) means that unions stay truly interested in worker rights.
In the US, we have a number of such laws, called "right-to-work" laws, although the only thing required to establish a right to work is to prohibit union security contracts from denying or terminating employment if a worker is willing to join the union and pay dues.
These laws have lead to reduced payment of union dues by workers who enjoy union tenure, union collective bargaining, and union grievance processing: the worker pays nothing, yet when his manager tries to discipline him he calls the union and demands representation--for free. To cover the costs, union dues have skyrocketed, so much so that while UAW workers (who all work in union shops where everyone joins and pays at least the core dues, but not necessarily strike fund dues or political fund dues) take 1.4% of your paycheck as dues (half an hour per week), some communications workers pay more than 20% (8 full hours) of their paycheck as dues.
In effect, it's like opting out of the union.
I don't want a US mafia style union in my workplace. I'd rather just go it alone
With union tenure clauses, all covered by the union are granted tenure after (usually) 60 days, and have a right to recall and protection from lay-offs. If we stop supporting freeriders, then freeriders will be the first to lose their jobs when lay-offs come--which is actually quite frequently. That would ensure that non-union workers have trouble holding their jobs for more than a year or so, while receiving lower wages, less-robust benefits, and a complete lack of representation in grievance. Union members, on the other hand, would enjoy high wages and long tenures--as well as 401(k) vesting, since the revolving door only applies to non-union workers and those workers never make the 3 years for 401(k) vesting period (and never get off the 60-hour vacation plan, while union members get 5 weeks per year once they're around for maybe 5 years).
Do you really want to play this game? Because you'll lose.
This report sounds legit, although I'm automatically-skeptical because every article I've read by ProPublica (except the one where they mentioned my Congressional campaign in a favorable light) has been deceptive and misleading, arranging facts in such a way as to draw incorrect conclusions and create unfair attacks on organizations people trust.
With the American Red Cross, they've repeatedly published the organization's leaked Lessons Learned--memos which state where they encountered difficulties and problems, and what to do about it in the future (or what to have further discussions over)--and claimed Red Cross is hiding and ignoring serious operating problems and generally wasting money. With Amazon, they went as far as claiming Amazon's offer being the cheapest was a lie because Amazon's offer has free shipping and "let's suppose shipping costs $6--now the competitor is cheaper!" Both of these roll off into bigger discussions that get heavily face-palmy, but let's avoid that here.
Just as importantly, businesses need the gray hairs just as much as the old heads need and want the work. What businesses can't afford to do is simply rehire their experienced workers and put them back into their old jobs. Businesses have to think smarter than that. They need to leverage the experienced and practical intelligence of mature people, and get them to work with younger colleagues and reinvest their experience back into the business.
ProPublica adds:
While recognizing that older workers were important to high-tech employers such as IBM, it concluded that “successor generations are generally much more innovative and receptive to technology than baby boomers.”
These are not mutually-exclusive facts. They can both be true. That doesn't seem to get in the way of a good story:
The message was clear. To succeed at the new technologies, the company must, in the words of the presentation, “become one with the Millennial mindset.” Similar language found its way into a variety of IBM presentations in subsequent years.
I'm not saying IBM did nothing wrong--I need more facts for this--but the tone of the ProPublica article is one centered around generating a certain bias, a way of thinking about statements. "We need to appeal to a younger crowd"? "We need to bring in newer college graduates and their familiarity with new technologies"? Are these discriminatory? Well, okay, yes. So is selling youth baseball bats. Are they discriminatory in a manner of attack, or a manner of trying to extend business to meet modern trends?
I see here IBM making an up-front statement that the future is not throwing out the old and bringing in the new, but rather that the world is changing and that they must bring in the new and adapt to that change without making the mistake of discarding their experienced and important engineers. Yes, they're saying, "Hey, we specifically need to hire younger people to draw what they know and how they think into our corporate culture and organizational knowledge." That's a valid technical concern, although some old folks do behave as outliers and keep up on technology while also having that mindset common among the younger--and they should be hired if qualified.
None of that excuses abuses like this:
Paul Henry, a 61-year-old IBM sales and technical specialist who loved being on the road, had just returned to his Columbus home from a business trip in August 2016 when he learned he’d been let go. When he asked why, he said an executive told him to “keep your mouth shut and go quietly.”
That's not a proportional representative. Just over 50% of the votes go to one person who then fills multiple seats with his own people. Why, when half of the votes say D and the other half say R, should six Supreme Court judges all be selected from the pool of political philosophy representing only one set of these voters? Why should it not be half and half? If it's 2/3 and 1/3, why not 4 of one and 2 of the other?
Why don't we do away with Congress and just make the President our glorious leader dictator?
If you think that there's an economic solution to homelessness and hunger, you don't really understand the problem.
Of course it's an economic problem: nobody can profit from these people, so they leave them to rot.
A 12.5% dividend would have paid nearly $7,000 per person per year in 2016. Note that HUD puts 75% of qualified applicants on a waiting list, and they can be there for 10 or 15 years--no benefits. This bump pushes people up high enough that HUD's current budget can reach all qualified, because they're less-poor and so are qualified for less of a housing subsidy: if you get a $900 subsidy and now you're only poor enough for a $300 subsidy, then three households like yours get a subsidy instead of one.
To put this into perspective: HUD limit in Baltimore City for two adults is $27,000. The Dividend would bump a two-adult household making $23,000 up to a take-home income of $34,000. That means no subsidy, and that money is available for all those who still need it.
Further, with this additional income, the poor and middle-class are spending more. Because the impact is greatest on the lowest end, the poorest areas experience the greatest increase in consumer spending power.
Someone can get very rich by opening businesses here, but they won't keep up with demand unless they hire employees. These consumers are spending the money which becomes the revenue stream to pay those employees's wages.
With these additional wages, people become even less poor. The load on welfare goes down, the tax revenue goes up, and the landlords become very rich renting apartments to these people.
So unless you can convince everyone with the capacity to operate a rental property and a store to not become very rich, there will be housing and jobs for these people.
If you can stop all motivation of self-serving human greed in the United States, we can call the ghosts of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin to let them know communism works. Otherwise, this raging capitalist solution will totally end homelessness and hunger in the United States.
Sense of purpose and a feeling of community ( aka contentedness) are much more important to happiness in my personal observation.
I guess. I don't know, really. Never seemed that way to me. I see people who are out there without their basic needs met, without the capacity to grow in our economy, with no hope and no opportunity; I figured they need help, need to be brought up and granted economic security and independence. They can figure out their place in life themselves.
It won't until we can literally increase productive output without investing additional human labor per unit. That's not happening in any predicted future, yet people are imagining the same thing people have imagined for hundreds of years with every new piece of technology.
Also: UBI isn't socialism. It's a capitalist solution. It's also somewhat behind: I designed a Universal Dividend back in 2013, and am running for Congress to bring this to fruition. The Dividend is 12.5% in my current model, and it puts a complete and total end to homelessness and hunger--and doesn't itself raise taxes (add universal healthcare, universal education, and some other tax system adjustments and the top tax bracket goes up, but doesn't even reach 45%).
I think Andrew Yang's pitch is "I'm a lunatic and don't understand technology, economics, or history, but let's show people what a Progressive candidate would look like if you found one as damaging to our nation as Donald Trump!" We need to focus on helping those in need, on making our welfare system stronger, and on strengthening labor protections; burning down all progress and imprisoning us in the past (like Trump is trying to do) isn't the answer, and a grand battle against automation is exactly that.
Sure. Economic sanctions. That power to force good men and women at the bottom end of poverty to suffer, starve, and die, despite having done nothing, because some of the dear leaders in their country haven't danced to your tune.
Did you want terrorists? Because this is how you get terrorists.
How about this: for these appointments, we have a national vote. The big ones. The FCC, USDA, FDA, DEA, FBI, SCOTUS, the important stuff. The stuff Trump swept aside when he came in; the stuff Obama got to right away.
You have a party in Congress? You get to vote. There are a bunch of Democrats, a bunch of Republicans, a bunch of Independents, and that one Green? Hoo boy, those Independents. What would we ever do with a House Majority of Independents? Speaker of the frigging House there's no party leadership!
USDA: Democrat, Republican, Green, or long list of all the Independents. Instant Run-off Voting.
FCC Chair: Same, IRV.
FCC Board? Single Transferable Vote. Start numbering them. Caveat: We're appointing FIVE commissioners. Two parties? You still get ONE vote. I've modified the STV protocol for this: when a Party (not an individual) wins a seat, their excess votes transfer directly to an additional Party seat: if Democrats get 50% of the votes as Rank 1, then they get D1=20%, D2=20%, D3=10%. If D3 loses, those votes move to the second-vote, and so forth, as in usual STV. If your Vote is on an Independent, that individual's excess votes follow usual STV procedures.
The same with SCOTUS appointments, in batches: Party-Independent modified STV.
When all is done and said, the Democratic leadership does appointments for which they won the vote; Republican leadership does appointments for which they won the vote; and any Independents who win the vote do their own appointments. Maybe you get 3 and 2 seats, or Judges, or whatever.
The best part? We can batch up an election. You can vote separately for each appointment for which we apply this system; however, if you want, you can just write one ranking for the entire set of appointments, and apply that same ranking to any subset of those appointments--the same ballot is used as STV or IRV for each set of appointments being carried out. You don't need to fill out 8 or 10 or 12 ballots to vote on who you want making these appointments if your answers are going to be the same on all (or most) of them (if one deviates, you can alter that one ballot and use your template ballot for all others).
No, I'm not running Judges and Commissioners as candidates. I'm just trying to limit the domestic power of the President. We should not have half our representatives in one party, half in the other, and a President who lines up the courts, the labor relations board, the FCC, the USDA, and everything else with his party because he narrowly edged out 49.999% of the American People who bothered to cast a vote in a huge popularity contest.
I got a call from one of my potential general-election opponents like that, although he was nice. He rambled a lot about how the Government killed his wife and stuff about Vietnam. I think he's going to lose to William T. Newton.
Newton is insane, which is dangerous: he can actually win if not taken seriously. He came within a few hundred votes of beating long-standing Republican candidate Corrogan Vaughn in the 2016 primary. Difficulty: Newton was a write-in candidate.
My district is solidly Democratic, but that doesn't mean winning the Primary nets me this Congressional seat this year. Look at Lamb winning a R+11 district--the first in history: the strongest Republican district held by a Democrat has been R+9. I think Lamb's district might just be leaning Democratic, and we'll see it get re-indexed as the voter distribution starts to show R+6 or so.
I worry that a wildcard like Newton could actually activate the Republican voting base, and if the General candidate doesn't get out to drive the Democratic base--my opponent historically has taken it easy and is kind of in poor health this year to boot--then we won't have anyone to blame but ourselves when we lose it. I'm putting myself in the line of fire by running, but I have a job to do.
Fortunately, I seem to energize any crowd I speak to. My Web site sucks but let's be honest: putting up a nice looking Web page and relaxing in front of your computer doesn't engage your constituents.
Jobs have moved from farming to manufacturing. Then from manufacturing to services. The problem is that for now we have nothing after services.
Jobs haven't moved from sector to sector as a rule. Jobs are created by consumer purchasing power; historically, technological advances (technical progress) have reduced the amount of labor, thus the TIME x WAGE cost, to produce things. When those things are things consumers are buying, more competitors can enter the market (lower barrier to entry), and price competition drives prices toward costs. With wages remaining the same and labor time invested in a good falling, the purchasing power of a consumer increases, and thus the consumer can buy more of the same thing (keeping those same jobs by keeping the labor demand) or buy some other thing (creating other jobs to replace those lost).
Essentially, if it takes more than zero human labor to operate at a higher output than current, jobs are a net zero sum game: the machines change who has what job, but not how many jobs we can support in a settled post-transition state. We can impact the number of jobs by e.g. raising the minimum wage, lowering the number of working hours, or adjusting taxes; although it will tend to move toward the same level of job scarcity.
Think like this: we're not getting machines that can do landscaping and lawn care, kitchen remodeling, or plumbing without human operators any time soon. That's a more-complex task than automatic driving. We'll shrink the team involved in any one job and the time they spend completing their task. As all of these jobs start vanishing in e.g. trucking, we'll need more mechanics--but not one mechanic per truck. That's a lot of labor for which nobody has to pay anymore--lots of unemployed truckers. All your goods become cheaper. You can buy more goods, and you still have money left over to pay someone to mow your lawn, tend your garden, and get to all those remodeling projects you were going to DIY long ago--just like rich folks, except you're a middle-income office jockey.
The usual rebuttal to any particular job anyone can think of being a thing you can buy now that everything is cheaper is, "Yeah, but the machines will take that, too!" People tend to imagine the machines are going to do everything, without any earthly idea how. Karl Marx predicted back in the 1800s that all humans could rest and we could let machines do all our work right then and there, but rich capitalists were too addicted to control. For the past thousands of years (and especially the past century), we've been complaining rich capitalists are too addicted to laying off people as soon as a machine can do their job, or calling up a cheap off-shore worker to do it for lower pay. Turns out the world is not a sci-fi novel.
To me, the recoveries look quicker the further back one goes.
Fair enough. The rises are smaller, too; although sometimes the trough between is at a higher unemployment rate than others, and those 80s recessions came in the middle of other recessions. It's always been chaos.
Mindless grunt-work is being replaced by machines and 3rd-world foreign labor.
We're kind of doing both. Most people ignore this, creating a huge argument between the "nobody will have jobs because not everyone is smart enough to be an engineer" camp and the "we'll have jobs, but it will all be minimum-wage machine babysitting that requires an IQ of 4" camp.
Security is just one. Ego is also a very powerful motivator, especially for males. Many males will even sacrifice security to serve their ego.
Egotism is a natural result of a social species being such that rejection from the social group severely reduces your chances of survival. Egomania is essentially a neurotic behavior in which this risk of social rejection creates a great sense of insecurity. Stability is seen as everyone else constantly affirming that you're great.
Economic efficiency allows you to more-reliably provide physical and social security. Pull these out and those people get even worse.
So, the real median household buys less stuff and lives at a lower standard-of-living than everyone else, with e.g. a car bought for the same percentage of the annual income by the same income-percentile family (notably median) containing fewer features than the one sold back in the 1940s?
Internet has gotten slower since dial-up, phones are more-expensive, and cell phone service has only grown to consume a greater portion of the median wage--of course, nobody has cell phones, because they were way too expensive for the average family to begin with.
That's what it means when wages are lower: you work more hours and get less stuff, whether that be that you purchase fewer things or that the things you purchase have fewer features and otherwise lower standards. You'd spend 56% of the median income on a new car in 1995 and have anti-lock brakes, airbags, and a CD player; in 2005, you'd spend 56% of the median income and have standard brakes, no air bags, and a plain FM radio.
That can be interpreted 2 ways: more who want to work can, or that more have to work to make ends meet instead of take care of family, etc.
I keep pointing out the second because people try to frame the labor force participation rate as the real unemployment rate. In this context, however, it shows that there are jobs for humans--not just that some percentage of those looking for work are able to work. So all of this tech hasn't been making jobs simply evaporate forever.
our recessions have arguably been getting longer and deeper.
If you graph LNS14000000 back to 1948, that statement is more-questionable.
That's one approach to spreading the wealth, but another is to tax the rich and use it to expand vocational education.
Vocational training is one part of it; but first, the jobs have to be available. You don't necessarily need to tax the rich, either, although we do need a revenue source and that's the likely one for adding a new universal college initiative. For universal healthcare, it's like 1.6%; for a universal dividend, the top tax rate actually falls by 3.6%, which makes room to get universal healthcare, college, and some tax shuffling in before you start raising that top bracket (it ends up at some 43% with everything including funding Social Security retirement and disability benefits exclusively by taxing the highest bracket). The Dividend actually ends poverty.
I generally try to avoid tax increases as best I can--the Dividend is designed to move the income level at which you're paying $0 or less in taxes upwards over time, and to lower costs (and taxes in general) strikingly around that level. Efficiency and fiscal responsibility are important: how do we pay for anything like free college and healthcare when we're already taxing at 100%?
Link doesn't work for me.
Works for me in an incognito window by copying the link on slashdot and pasting it into an incognito window in chrome. This is a work-in-progress that starts outlining the same thing. It looks like it dropped the query, so maybe this one for the whitepaper?.
my point was and is that raw efficiency may be secondary to other human desires/emotions, which could be why T was elected.
It's security. Individual people--and groups of individuals--need security.
Slashdot Mirror
We will need to change the laws so pedestrians do not in fact always have the right away.
Pedestrians don't care and will cross when they damned well please regardless of the laws.
And you have to realize that while the eye has better dynamic range, a black blob is still a black blob. Your brain will take at least 5-10 seconds to actually process that blob as "something to be avoided".
My best reaction time ever, from "vague shape in peripheral vision" to "hitting the brakes because of predicted movement path of what appears to be house cat", was under 120mS, including moving my foot from the accelerator to the brake. Did not hit the cat.
To be fair, I was at the time overdosed on serotonin drugs, and suffering from tachycardia, fatigue, anxiety, and ridiculously-accelerated reaction speed as side-effects. I had my psychiatrist cut the dose, and eventually lowered it further myself by taking one pill a day instead of two; I'm particularly-sensitive and he resists prescribing low doses of drugs, so I couldn't get a 10mg dose out of him and got stuck on 25mg. I switched to something else eventually and wow, that stuff was helping me sleep, but it was also making me fairly depressed and lethargic.
The proper drug to accelerate a human's thought processes like that is Modafinil. Our military uses it, and has de-authorized the use of amphetamine for its purposes. Modafinil works great on ADHD, too; and it's non-abusable, so far non-toxic (massive overdoses have produced unpleasant but non-emergency results), and non-addictive. We ... still just give kids amphetamine and methylphenidate.
You should not have a reaction speed that high even on Modafinil. If you can ever react like that, something is wrong, even if your psychiatrist insists the dose is correct.
You can sell books to people with a certain type of schizophrenia-spectrum disorder.
A 220V circuit is actually pretty exotic. A typical 110V circuit at 15 amps (13A draw) can supply 10.8kWh in 10.5 hours--yes, at 1.43kW, you're getting about 1kW of charge storage. Charging is only 70% efficient.
At 220V and 15A draw (3.3kW, 20A circuit) can do it in 2.5 by some magic--that's only 8.25kWh charging 10.8kWh of a 16kWh battery. Magical violations of the laws of thermodynamics aside, If you want 100 miles, you need 30kWh. To do that in 8h, you want a 40 amp circuit drawing 25 amps for your charging station. You can do it in 3 with a 50 amp 220V circuit.
You can't get 100 miles put in overnight without running some sort of special charge circuit and digging a trench for conduit, with special 8/3 UF-B wire. May as well go big, since the charger will cost you about $150 more and the circuit breaker will cost you $20 more. It's going to be an $800 investment anyway.
Not yet. ChargePoint can deliver 500kW to a single vehicle, if your vehicle can handle it. In the future, I imagine we'll have a lot of solar-over-parking-lot to directly feed these things (panels produce 600VDC, and L3 DC is 600VDC). Over 1,400 parking spaces, our local community college installed 5MW of capacity--enough to simultaneously charge about 60 cars at 80kW or 50 at 100kW. You're going to be in class for an hour.
The solar power is going to offset utility bills for your shopping mall or college campus (shopping center lots are enormous unshaded areas, by the way), so it actually costs a lot. I imagine future devices will allow you to log into an account, and therefor bill the power to your electrical account through your utility, sparing the operator the commercial electrical costs.
In a reasonable world, there'd be solar power over parking lots, with that 600VDC coming straight down (from sun or from grid) for level 3 charging at 48kW--enough to add 250 miles of range in an hour. After driving for more than three hours at 80mph, you can sit down and eat.
Level 3 charging is projected to go to 80kW and even higher easy enough (terrifying, I know), netting you 400 miles in an hour or 200 in half an hour. Most people want a reasonable half-hour charge, but most people really take about 40 minutes for a pit stop; on the other hand, the general time between meals is about 4 hours (your performance starts to drop after that: you're more likely to be fatigued if you go longer than 4 hours without eating, but not likely to be hungry after 3).
As you can see, the numbers are kind of fuzzy until we get into triple-digit kW charge rates. This won't work for long-haul trucking: the solution there is a lot more complex (doable, but complex).
Yep, and the Bolt (which outsold the Volt) is a plug-in all-electric. The number you need to cover most daily commuting is 80 miles on battery, which is why I'm fine with the 250-300 mile electric ranges but want any new subsidies or other state encouragement of PHEVs to require 80+ mile range in typical condition. Note that the 2013 Volt gets about 32 miles in the winter and 42 miles in the summer, while claiming 35 on battery: it sort of exceeds its range estimates most of the time (I've gotten nearly 50 out of it before).
The more people buy the vehicles, the more pressure there is to have facilities. Early pressure comes from attracting wealthier tenants; later pressure comes from attracting any tenants at all.
Half a million units in the 90s? Wow, must be mature tech now. Looks like Chevrolet sold 23,000 Bolts last year, 20,000 Volts, and 75,000 Chevrolet Impalas. In January, 2018, there were 82,000 electric vehicles sold worldwide, versus 41,000 in January of 2017; sales rate tends to ramp up as the year progresses, and the 2017 year-end total was 1.2 million worldwide.
So the worldwide slow-month market for EVs is about the same size as the worldwide annual sales of Impalas. Impalas and Volts are both $40,000 cars; the Model 3 is a $35,000 car with a 5-second 0-60 (Volt is about 8 seconds).
By your numbers, the Tesla Model S sales top out around the same rate as Chevrolet Impala sales.
In europe, the competition between unions, and the freedom of workers to join them or not (pay dues or not) means that unions stay truly interested in worker rights.
In the US, we have a number of such laws, called "right-to-work" laws, although the only thing required to establish a right to work is to prohibit union security contracts from denying or terminating employment if a worker is willing to join the union and pay dues.
These laws have lead to reduced payment of union dues by workers who enjoy union tenure, union collective bargaining, and union grievance processing: the worker pays nothing, yet when his manager tries to discipline him he calls the union and demands representation--for free. To cover the costs, union dues have skyrocketed, so much so that while UAW workers (who all work in union shops where everyone joins and pays at least the core dues, but not necessarily strike fund dues or political fund dues) take 1.4% of your paycheck as dues (half an hour per week), some communications workers pay more than 20% (8 full hours) of their paycheck as dues.
In effect, it's like opting out of the union.
I don't want a US mafia style union in my workplace. I'd rather just go it alone
With union tenure clauses, all covered by the union are granted tenure after (usually) 60 days, and have a right to recall and protection from lay-offs. If we stop supporting freeriders, then freeriders will be the first to lose their jobs when lay-offs come--which is actually quite frequently. That would ensure that non-union workers have trouble holding their jobs for more than a year or so, while receiving lower wages, less-robust benefits, and a complete lack of representation in grievance. Union members, on the other hand, would enjoy high wages and long tenures--as well as 401(k) vesting, since the revolving door only applies to non-union workers and those workers never make the 3 years for 401(k) vesting period (and never get off the 60-hour vacation plan, while union members get 5 weeks per year once they're around for maybe 5 years).
Do you really want to play this game? Because you'll lose.
This report sounds legit, although I'm automatically-skeptical because every article I've read by ProPublica (except the one where they mentioned my Congressional campaign in a favorable light) has been deceptive and misleading, arranging facts in such a way as to draw incorrect conclusions and create unfair attacks on organizations people trust.
With the American Red Cross, they've repeatedly published the organization's leaked Lessons Learned--memos which state where they encountered difficulties and problems, and what to do about it in the future (or what to have further discussions over)--and claimed Red Cross is hiding and ignoring serious operating problems and generally wasting money. With Amazon, they went as far as claiming Amazon's offer being the cheapest was a lie because Amazon's offer has free shipping and "let's suppose shipping costs $6--now the competitor is cheaper!" Both of these roll off into bigger discussions that get heavily face-palmy, but let's avoid that here.
The first thing that sticks out here is IBM's memo, shown in part in the article:
Just as importantly, businesses need the gray hairs just as much as the old heads need and want the work. What businesses can't afford to do is simply rehire their experienced workers and put them back into their old jobs. Businesses have to think smarter than that. They need to leverage the experienced and practical intelligence of mature people, and get them to work with younger colleagues and reinvest their experience back into the business.
ProPublica adds:
While recognizing that older workers were important to high-tech employers such as IBM, it concluded that “successor generations are generally much more innovative and receptive to technology than baby boomers.”
These are not mutually-exclusive facts. They can both be true. That doesn't seem to get in the way of a good story:
The message was clear. To succeed at the new technologies, the company must, in the words of the presentation, “become one with the Millennial mindset.” Similar language found its way into a variety of IBM presentations in subsequent years.
I'm not saying IBM did nothing wrong--I need more facts for this--but the tone of the ProPublica article is one centered around generating a certain bias, a way of thinking about statements. "We need to appeal to a younger crowd"? "We need to bring in newer college graduates and their familiarity with new technologies"? Are these discriminatory? Well, okay, yes. So is selling youth baseball bats. Are they discriminatory in a manner of attack, or a manner of trying to extend business to meet modern trends?
I see here IBM making an up-front statement that the future is not throwing out the old and bringing in the new, but rather that the world is changing and that they must bring in the new and adapt to that change without making the mistake of discarding their experienced and important engineers. Yes, they're saying, "Hey, we specifically need to hire younger people to draw what they know and how they think into our corporate culture and organizational knowledge." That's a valid technical concern, although some old folks do behave as outliers and keep up on technology while also having that mindset common among the younger--and they should be hired if qualified.
None of that excuses abuses like this:
Paul Henry, a 61-year-old IBM sales and technical specialist who loved being on the road, had just returned to his Columbus home from a business trip in August 2016 when he learned he’d been let go. When he asked why, he said an executive told him to “keep your mouth shut and go quietly.”
Or especially like this:
Encouraged employees targeted for layof
That's not a proportional representative. Just over 50% of the votes go to one person who then fills multiple seats with his own people. Why, when half of the votes say D and the other half say R, should six Supreme Court judges all be selected from the pool of political philosophy representing only one set of these voters? Why should it not be half and half? If it's 2/3 and 1/3, why not 4 of one and 2 of the other?
Why don't we do away with Congress and just make the President our glorious leader dictator?
If you think that there's an economic solution to homelessness and hunger, you don't really understand the problem.
Of course it's an economic problem: nobody can profit from these people, so they leave them to rot.
A 12.5% dividend would have paid nearly $7,000 per person per year in 2016. Note that HUD puts 75% of qualified applicants on a waiting list, and they can be there for 10 or 15 years--no benefits. This bump pushes people up high enough that HUD's current budget can reach all qualified, because they're less-poor and so are qualified for less of a housing subsidy: if you get a $900 subsidy and now you're only poor enough for a $300 subsidy, then three households like yours get a subsidy instead of one.
To put this into perspective: HUD limit in Baltimore City for two adults is $27,000. The Dividend would bump a two-adult household making $23,000 up to a take-home income of $34,000. That means no subsidy, and that money is available for all those who still need it.
Further, with this additional income, the poor and middle-class are spending more. Because the impact is greatest on the lowest end, the poorest areas experience the greatest increase in consumer spending power.
Someone can get very rich by opening businesses here, but they won't keep up with demand unless they hire employees. These consumers are spending the money which becomes the revenue stream to pay those employees's wages.
With these additional wages, people become even less poor. The load on welfare goes down, the tax revenue goes up, and the landlords become very rich renting apartments to these people.
So unless you can convince everyone with the capacity to operate a rental property and a store to not become very rich, there will be housing and jobs for these people.
If you can stop all motivation of self-serving human greed in the United States, we can call the ghosts of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin to let them know communism works. Otherwise, this raging capitalist solution will totally end homelessness and hunger in the United States.
Sense of purpose and a feeling of community ( aka contentedness) are much more important to happiness in my personal observation.
I guess. I don't know, really. Never seemed that way to me. I see people who are out there without their basic needs met, without the capacity to grow in our economy, with no hope and no opportunity; I figured they need help, need to be brought up and granted economic security and independence. They can figure out their place in life themselves.
Social Democracy is not Democratic Socialism.
It won't until we can literally increase productive output without investing additional human labor per unit. That's not happening in any predicted future, yet people are imagining the same thing people have imagined for hundreds of years with every new piece of technology.
Also: UBI isn't socialism. It's a capitalist solution. It's also somewhat behind: I designed a Universal Dividend back in 2013, and am running for Congress to bring this to fruition. The Dividend is 12.5% in my current model, and it puts a complete and total end to homelessness and hunger--and doesn't itself raise taxes (add universal healthcare, universal education, and some other tax system adjustments and the top tax bracket goes up, but doesn't even reach 45%).
I think Andrew Yang's pitch is "I'm a lunatic and don't understand technology, economics, or history, but let's show people what a Progressive candidate would look like if you found one as damaging to our nation as Donald Trump!" We need to focus on helping those in need, on making our welfare system stronger, and on strengthening labor protections; burning down all progress and imprisoning us in the past (like Trump is trying to do) isn't the answer, and a grand battle against automation is exactly that.
Chavez managed to not only destroy Venezuela's economy
What are economic sanctions for?
Sure. Economic sanctions. That power to force good men and women at the bottom end of poverty to suffer, starve, and die, despite having done nothing, because some of the dear leaders in their country haven't danced to your tune.
Did you want terrorists? Because this is how you get terrorists.
We're wiping out Republicans in deep red states.
How about this: for these appointments, we have a national vote. The big ones. The FCC, USDA, FDA, DEA, FBI, SCOTUS, the important stuff. The stuff Trump swept aside when he came in; the stuff Obama got to right away.
You have a party in Congress? You get to vote. There are a bunch of Democrats, a bunch of Republicans, a bunch of Independents, and that one Green? Hoo boy, those Independents. What would we ever do with a House Majority of Independents? Speaker of the frigging House there's no party leadership!
USDA: Democrat, Republican, Green, or long list of all the Independents. Instant Run-off Voting.
FCC Chair: Same, IRV.
FCC Board? Single Transferable Vote. Start numbering them. Caveat: We're appointing FIVE commissioners. Two parties? You still get ONE vote. I've modified the STV protocol for this: when a Party (not an individual) wins a seat, their excess votes transfer directly to an additional Party seat: if Democrats get 50% of the votes as Rank 1, then they get D1=20%, D2=20%, D3=10%. If D3 loses, those votes move to the second-vote, and so forth, as in usual STV. If your Vote is on an Independent, that individual's excess votes follow usual STV procedures.
The same with SCOTUS appointments, in batches: Party-Independent modified STV.
When all is done and said, the Democratic leadership does appointments for which they won the vote; Republican leadership does appointments for which they won the vote; and any Independents who win the vote do their own appointments. Maybe you get 3 and 2 seats, or Judges, or whatever.
The best part? We can batch up an election. You can vote separately for each appointment for which we apply this system; however, if you want, you can just write one ranking for the entire set of appointments, and apply that same ranking to any subset of those appointments--the same ballot is used as STV or IRV for each set of appointments being carried out. You don't need to fill out 8 or 10 or 12 ballots to vote on who you want making these appointments if your answers are going to be the same on all (or most) of them (if one deviates, you can alter that one ballot and use your template ballot for all others).
No, I'm not running Judges and Commissioners as candidates. I'm just trying to limit the domestic power of the President. We should not have half our representatives in one party, half in the other, and a President who lines up the courts, the labor relations board, the FCC, the USDA, and everything else with his party because he narrowly edged out 49.999% of the American People who bothered to cast a vote in a huge popularity contest.
I got a call from one of my potential general-election opponents like that, although he was nice. He rambled a lot about how the Government killed his wife and stuff about Vietnam. I think he's going to lose to William T. Newton.
Newton is insane, which is dangerous: he can actually win if not taken seriously. He came within a few hundred votes of beating long-standing Republican candidate Corrogan Vaughn in the 2016 primary. Difficulty: Newton was a write-in candidate.
My district is solidly Democratic, but that doesn't mean winning the Primary nets me this Congressional seat this year. Look at Lamb winning a R+11 district--the first in history: the strongest Republican district held by a Democrat has been R+9. I think Lamb's district might just be leaning Democratic, and we'll see it get re-indexed as the voter distribution starts to show R+6 or so.
I worry that a wildcard like Newton could actually activate the Republican voting base, and if the General candidate doesn't get out to drive the Democratic base--my opponent historically has taken it easy and is kind of in poor health this year to boot--then we won't have anyone to blame but ourselves when we lose it. I'm putting myself in the line of fire by running, but I have a job to do.
Fortunately, I seem to energize any crowd I speak to. My Web site sucks but let's be honest: putting up a nice looking Web page and relaxing in front of your computer doesn't engage your constituents.
Jobs have moved from farming to manufacturing. Then from manufacturing to services. The problem is that for now we have nothing after services.
Jobs haven't moved from sector to sector as a rule. Jobs are created by consumer purchasing power; historically, technological advances (technical progress) have reduced the amount of labor, thus the TIME x WAGE cost, to produce things. When those things are things consumers are buying, more competitors can enter the market (lower barrier to entry), and price competition drives prices toward costs. With wages remaining the same and labor time invested in a good falling, the purchasing power of a consumer increases, and thus the consumer can buy more of the same thing (keeping those same jobs by keeping the labor demand) or buy some other thing (creating other jobs to replace those lost).
Essentially, if it takes more than zero human labor to operate at a higher output than current, jobs are a net zero sum game: the machines change who has what job, but not how many jobs we can support in a settled post-transition state. We can impact the number of jobs by e.g. raising the minimum wage, lowering the number of working hours, or adjusting taxes; although it will tend to move toward the same level of job scarcity.
Think like this: we're not getting machines that can do landscaping and lawn care, kitchen remodeling, or plumbing without human operators any time soon. That's a more-complex task than automatic driving. We'll shrink the team involved in any one job and the time they spend completing their task. As all of these jobs start vanishing in e.g. trucking, we'll need more mechanics--but not one mechanic per truck. That's a lot of labor for which nobody has to pay anymore--lots of unemployed truckers. All your goods become cheaper. You can buy more goods, and you still have money left over to pay someone to mow your lawn, tend your garden, and get to all those remodeling projects you were going to DIY long ago--just like rich folks, except you're a middle-income office jockey.
The usual rebuttal to any particular job anyone can think of being a thing you can buy now that everything is cheaper is, "Yeah, but the machines will take that, too!" People tend to imagine the machines are going to do everything, without any earthly idea how. Karl Marx predicted back in the 1800s that all humans could rest and we could let machines do all our work right then and there, but rich capitalists were too addicted to control. For the past thousands of years (and especially the past century), we've been complaining rich capitalists are too addicted to laying off people as soon as a machine can do their job, or calling up a cheap off-shore worker to do it for lower pay. Turns out the world is not a sci-fi novel.
To me, the recoveries look quicker the further back one goes.
Fair enough. The rises are smaller, too; although sometimes the trough between is at a higher unemployment rate than others, and those 80s recessions came in the middle of other recessions. It's always been chaos.
Mindless grunt-work is being replaced by machines and 3rd-world foreign labor.
We're kind of doing both. Most people ignore this, creating a huge argument between the "nobody will have jobs because not everyone is smart enough to be an engineer" camp and the "we'll have jobs, but it will all be minimum-wage machine babysitting that requires an IQ of 4" camp.
Security is just one. Ego is also a very powerful motivator, especially for males. Many males will even sacrifice security to serve their ego.
Egotism is a natural result of a social species being such that rejection from the social group severely reduces your chances of survival. Egomania is essentially a neurotic behavior in which this risk of social rejection creates a great sense of insecurity. Stability is seen as everyone else constantly affirming that you're great.
Economic efficiency allows you to more-reliably provide physical and social security. Pull these out and those people get even worse.
yet real wages are considerably lower
So, the real median household buys less stuff and lives at a lower standard-of-living than everyone else, with e.g. a car bought for the same percentage of the annual income by the same income-percentile family (notably median) containing fewer features than the one sold back in the 1940s?
Internet has gotten slower since dial-up, phones are more-expensive, and cell phone service has only grown to consume a greater portion of the median wage--of course, nobody has cell phones, because they were way too expensive for the average family to begin with.
That's what it means when wages are lower: you work more hours and get less stuff, whether that be that you purchase fewer things or that the things you purchase have fewer features and otherwise lower standards. You'd spend 56% of the median income on a new car in 1995 and have anti-lock brakes, airbags, and a CD player; in 2005, you'd spend 56% of the median income and have standard brakes, no air bags, and a plain FM radio.
That can be interpreted 2 ways: more who want to work can, or that more have to work to make ends meet instead of take care of family, etc.
I keep pointing out the second because people try to frame the labor force participation rate as the real unemployment rate. In this context, however, it shows that there are jobs for humans--not just that some percentage of those looking for work are able to work. So all of this tech hasn't been making jobs simply evaporate forever.
our recessions have arguably been getting longer and deeper.
If you graph LNS14000000 back to 1948, that statement is more-questionable.
That's one approach to spreading the wealth, but another is to tax the rich and use it to expand vocational education.
Vocational training is one part of it; but first, the jobs have to be available. You don't necessarily need to tax the rich, either, although we do need a revenue source and that's the likely one for adding a new universal college initiative. For universal healthcare, it's like 1.6%; for a universal dividend, the top tax rate actually falls by 3.6%, which makes room to get universal healthcare, college, and some tax shuffling in before you start raising that top bracket (it ends up at some 43% with everything including funding Social Security retirement and disability benefits exclusively by taxing the highest bracket). The Dividend actually ends poverty.
I generally try to avoid tax increases as best I can--the Dividend is designed to move the income level at which you're paying $0 or less in taxes upwards over time, and to lower costs (and taxes in general) strikingly around that level. Efficiency and fiscal responsibility are important: how do we pay for anything like free college and healthcare when we're already taxing at 100%?
Link doesn't work for me.
Works for me in an incognito window by copying the link on slashdot and pasting it into an incognito window in chrome. This is a work-in-progress that starts outlining the same thing. It looks like it dropped the query, so maybe this one for the whitepaper?.
my point was and is that raw efficiency may be secondary to other human desires/emotions, which could be why T was elected.
It's security. Individual people--and groups of individuals--need security.