If my computer served my needs, why would I want a different one?
What if it doesn't meet your needs? Would you want a better one to be available?
CPUs may not be getting much faster, but they are getting more power efficient, and other components, such as the battery, SSD, RAM, and GPU have improved considerably in the last few years.
Irrelevant, since the inflation adjusted price of a new washer is actually LESS than a washer cost 20 years ago.
On Lowes.com they list a front loading washer (they kind that saves water) for $649. In 1998 dollars ($1.83 in 2018 $s) that would be $352. Could you buy a front loading washer in America for $352 in 1998? I don't think so.
If you are willing to buy a top-loader, they start at $399. That is $215 in 1998 dollars.
As a general rule, prices of services have gone up faster than inflation, while the prices of goods have gone down.
If I upgrade every 4 to 6 years instead of every 2 to 3 years, then Apple is selling half as many computers. Why would they want to do that?
A lack of hardware updates and such doesn't matter.
Except that they are a hardware company.
Their sales are still strong with little to no new investment.
Wrong. Sales of Mac hardware is stagnant. The Mac Pro line is dead, with infinitesimal sales. They make almost all their money from phones... which they upgrade regularly.
As a society, we have become obsessed with never-ending growth and progress.
That is not the issue here. Just because hardware is updated every year doesn't mean people need, or want, to upgrade that often. But when their old hardware finally needs to be replaced, they shouldn't have to buy a "new" computer based on tech from two years ago.
I really don't understand Apple's strategy. They have a huge locked-in customer base, and high profit margins. Any other hardware manufacturer would love to be in their position. They could be making a lot of money by releasing more often. Yet they don't. It doesn't make sense.
"Boring machines are way better than they were a decade ago. It is time to start using them to build stuff." Are they really? How so?
Modern TBMs have better materials for the cutting face, and automatically adjust alignment. Smaller TBMs, used by hyperloops, are much more cost effective than big TBMs used in railroad or highway tunnels.
Let's hope they pay attention to safety. One collapsed tunnel and they'll have dug a grave.
Smaller diameter tunnels are inherently safer.
Any way you look at it, this is superior to a train. Faster to build, faster to run, cheaper, safer.
The naysayers' arguments are basically: 1. This is new and different. 2. This isn't the "Chicago Way" 3. I don't like Elon Musk.
Trains are slow and expensive. The Boring company won this contract because they offer something faster and cheaper.
It is easy to be snarky, but Elon has a long history of actually doing what he said he was going to do. If we are going to fix the world's problems, then transportation needs to be transmogrified. Boring machines are way better than they were a decade ago. It is time to start using them to build stuff.
Re 'They can be legally removed from the vehicle at anytime." A car with no chip stands out in real time surrounded by other cars with a chip moving down a road...
Most people do not have EZ-Pass or FasTrak. They are opt-in, and most people don't. You only need them if you use toll roads or drive across toll bridges regularly.
I have a FastTrak card, but I removed it from my car several years ago when my commute changed. I only take it with me when I know I will crossing a bridge across the bay.
There's tons of fortunes tied up in those assets and it's not easy to divest.
Maybe they should have connected their brain cells together and started to diversify decades ago. It isn't like the steady progress of solar efficiency was kept secret.
I, for one, am feeling a distinct lack of pity for people who invested in coal mines.
... and they both have a good point. A tax on employment has got to be the dumbest tax, and falls heaviest on the lowest paying jobs.
If they really want more affordable housing, they could start by approving some building permits. It is idiotic to deny, deny, deny, and then declare a "crisis" because the lack of supply pushes up prices.
That depends on how well it is enforced. The standard way to detect abuse is to "salt" the lists with a small amount (less than 1%) fake data, using names and emails that are highly unlikely to be randomly guessed, are used for no other purpose, and are unique for each requester. If you get marketing spam on one of those address, you know exactly who broke the rules.
if you dont like a free market, move to cuba or canaDUH
The term "free market" is ambiguous. It can mean "free of regulation" or it can mean "free of barriers to competition". In practice, these two things are often opposites, especially with businesses that are natural monopolies or that have strong network effects.
Winding down the fossil fuel economy means more than just making bigger batteries.
Storage is a big part of the solution.
A gas turbine can spin when demand is high, and slow down when it is low.
Wind turbines don't work that way. They spin when the wind blows.
There are alternatives to storage: 1. Long distance HVDC transmission, to move supply to demand over a larger area. 2. Flex-pricing, to shift demand instead of shifting supply. These will help, but you still need storage.
The freedom to run what you want on your own devices
That's not really what is going on here. These are scumbag app developers offering "free" apps that run miners in the background. The user is either not informed, or informed in fine print that nobody reads. The device owners don't even know anything is going on until they notice their phone is unusually hot and the battery is dead.
These days there's little difference between Third World shitholes and Britain.
Tanzania wasn't always a SH. It has always been poor but did well on other measures of human welfare, like life expectancy, childhood mortality, and political rights (at least by African standards). But they have been backsliding into repression and dictatorship. It is a beautiful country, with warm and friendly people. It is sad to see the direction they are heading.
The tulips were zero sum. For every buyer, there was a seller. For every loser there was a winner.
Cryptocurrencies are different because much of the money is drained out of the system to pay for power. It is negative sum, with more (or bigger) losers than winners.
I was in early enough to get "bill@company.com", but as the company grew I was constantly getting misdirected email meant for other Bills. So I added my last name. I had no idea that I was giving up a major status symbol and that women would no longer have sex with me. I just assumed that it was because of my receding hairline. Now I know.
If you want to follow the money, who has more to gain: scientists looking for research money or the fossil fuel industries?
Even most FF companies accept AGW. Exxon was one of the few (along with Koch) that funded denialists, but they stopped when they were caught with their pants down: Using one set of projections to lie to the public, while using very different projections for their own internal financial forecasting.
If you retire at 65, you can expect to live another 20 years. So if you are 5 or 10 years out, you have a 25 to 30 year time horizon, which is enough to smooth out volatility. If you have significant savings, you should stay mostly in stocks.
Seems to me you ought to shift into less volatile options.
There are index funds designed to be less volatile. They track utilities and health care, which tend to have fairly steady profits even in recessions.
Mutual funds are pretty much a scam these days with so many fees,
This is nonsense. Fees are lower than ever.
Most of my retirement savings are in Vanguard index funds. No upfront or backend fees, 0.04% annual maintenance fee.
Here's some free advice: 1. Invest in index funds, and never in actively managed funds. 2. Never take financial advice from someone trying to sell you something.
Slashdot Mirror
If my computer served my needs, why would I want a different one?
What if it doesn't meet your needs? Would you want a better one to be available?
CPUs may not be getting much faster, but they are getting more power efficient, and other components, such as the battery, SSD, RAM, and GPU have improved considerably in the last few years.
How many gallons of water does $750 buy?
Irrelevant, since the inflation adjusted price of a new washer is actually LESS than a washer cost 20 years ago.
On Lowes.com they list a front loading washer (they kind that saves water) for $649. In 1998 dollars ($1.83 in 2018 $s) that would be $352. Could you buy a front loading washer in America for $352 in 1998? I don't think so.
If you are willing to buy a top-loader, they start at $399. That is $215 in 1998 dollars.
As a general rule, prices of services have gone up faster than inflation, while the prices of goods have gone down.
What else are those people going to do?
Upgrade less often.
If I upgrade every 4 to 6 years instead of every 2 to 3 years, then Apple is selling half as many computers. Why would they want to do that?
A lack of hardware updates and such doesn't matter.
Except that they are a hardware company.
Their sales are still strong with little to no new investment.
Wrong. Sales of Mac hardware is stagnant. The Mac Pro line is dead, with infinitesimal sales. They make almost all their money from phones ... which they upgrade regularly.
As a society, we have become obsessed with never-ending growth and progress.
That is not the issue here. Just because hardware is updated every year doesn't mean people need, or want, to upgrade that often. But when their old hardware finally needs to be replaced, they shouldn't have to buy a "new" computer based on tech from two years ago.
I really don't understand Apple's strategy. They have a huge locked-in customer base, and high profit margins. Any other hardware manufacturer would love to be in their position. They could be making a lot of money by releasing more often. Yet they don't. It doesn't make sense.
"Boring machines are way better than they were a decade ago. It is time to start using them to build stuff."
Are they really? How so?
Modern TBMs have better materials for the cutting face, and automatically adjust alignment. Smaller TBMs, used by hyperloops, are much more cost effective than big TBMs used in railroad or highway tunnels.
Let's hope they pay attention to safety. One collapsed tunnel and they'll have dug a grave.
Smaller diameter tunnels are inherently safer.
Any way you look at it, this is superior to a train. Faster to build, faster to run, cheaper, safer.
The naysayers' arguments are basically:
1. This is new and different.
2. This isn't the "Chicago Way"
3. I don't like Elon Musk.
Trains are slow and expensive. The Boring company won this contract because they offer something faster and cheaper.
It is easy to be snarky, but Elon has a long history of actually doing what he said he was going to do. If we are going to fix the world's problems, then transportation needs to be transmogrified. Boring machines are way better than they were a decade ago. It is time to start using them to build stuff.
Re 'They can be legally removed from the vehicle at anytime."
A car with no chip stands out in real time surrounded by other cars with a chip moving down a road...
Most people do not have EZ-Pass or FasTrak. They are opt-in, and most people don't. You only need them if you use toll roads or drive across toll bridges regularly.
I have a FastTrak card, but I removed it from my car several years ago when my commute changed. I only take it with me when I know I will crossing a bridge across the bay.
You are only looking at residential use, which is only about 34% of the total.
In 2016, America consumed 4137 TWh of energy. Divide by 330M people, and 365 days, and you get 34 kwh per person per day.
So a 20% bump, even if you include commercial vehicles going electric.
Since most of the charging will be off-peak, the grid can easily handle EVs.
US has EZ-Pass, which is a defacto tracking system, even if not originally designed as such.
EZ-Pass / FasTrak are opt-in, so not the same at all.
They can be legally removed from the vehicle at anytime.
Beggar-your-neighbor economic policies never benefit trade in the long run.
When my wife bought her Tesla, we received about $7k in subsidies.
It's likely that Tesla charging will take up some of the slack.
On average, Americans use about 30 kwh per day of electrical energy.
On average, Americans drive 20 miles per day, and an electric car uses about 0.3 kwh per mile, for about 6 kwh / day.
So a 100% switch to electric cars should increase electrical energy consumption by about 20%.
There's tons of fortunes tied up in those assets and it's not easy to divest.
Maybe they should have connected their brain cells together and started to diversify decades ago. It isn't like the steady progress of solar efficiency was kept secret.
I, for one, am feeling a distinct lack of pity for people who invested in coal mines.
... and they both have a good point. A tax on employment has got to be the dumbest tax, and falls heaviest on the lowest paying jobs.
If they really want more affordable housing, they could start by approving some building permits. It is idiotic to deny, deny, deny, and then declare a "crisis" because the lack of supply pushes up prices.
Will this really stop developers from doing that?
That depends on how well it is enforced. The standard way to detect abuse is to "salt" the lists with a small amount (less than 1%) fake data, using names and emails that are highly unlikely to be randomly guessed, are used for no other purpose, and are unique for each requester. If you get marketing spam on one of those address, you know exactly who broke the rules.
if you dont like a free market, move to cuba or canaDUH
The term "free market" is ambiguous. It can mean "free of regulation" or it can mean "free of barriers to competition". In practice, these two things are often opposites, especially with businesses that are natural monopolies or that have strong network effects.
Winding down the fossil fuel economy means more than just making bigger batteries.
Storage is a big part of the solution.
A gas turbine can spin when demand is high, and slow down when it is low.
Wind turbines don't work that way. They spin when the wind blows.
There are alternatives to storage:
1. Long distance HVDC transmission, to move supply to demand over a larger area.
2. Flex-pricing, to shift demand instead of shifting supply.
These will help, but you still need storage.
All inventions are built on the complex work of others. But you cannot preclude someone from inventing new things using your public domain technology.
Did you RTFS? He is claiming that Google's extensions are also documented prior art.
The freedom to run what you want on your own devices
That's not really what is going on here. These are scumbag app developers offering "free" apps that run miners in the background. The user is either not informed, or informed in fine print that nobody reads. The device owners don't even know anything is going on until they notice their phone is unusually hot and the battery is dead.
These days there's little difference between Third World shitholes and Britain.
Tanzania wasn't always a SH. It has always been poor but did well on other measures of human welfare, like life expectancy, childhood mortality, and political rights (at least by African standards). But they have been backsliding into repression and dictatorship. It is a beautiful country, with warm and friendly people. It is sad to see the direction they are heading.
Didn't anyone read about the tulips?
The tulips were zero sum. For every buyer, there was a seller. For every loser there was a winner.
Cryptocurrencies are different because much of the money is drained out of the system to pay for power. It is negative sum, with more (or bigger) losers than winners.
I was in early enough to get "bill@company.com", but as the company grew I was constantly getting misdirected email meant for other Bills. So I added my last name. I had no idea that I was giving up a major status symbol and that women would no longer have sex with me. I just assumed that it was because of my receding hairline. Now I know.
If you want to follow the money, who has more to gain: scientists looking for research money or the fossil fuel industries?
Even most FF companies accept AGW. Exxon was one of the few (along with Koch) that funded denialists, but they stopped when they were caught with their pants down: Using one set of projections to lie to the public, while using very different projections for their own internal financial forecasting.
Even if retirement is 5 or 10 years away?
If you retire at 65, you can expect to live another 20 years. So if you are 5 or 10 years out, you have a 25 to 30 year time horizon, which is enough to smooth out volatility. If you have significant savings, you should stay mostly in stocks.
Seems to me you ought to shift into less volatile options.
There are index funds designed to be less volatile. They track utilities and health care, which tend to have fairly steady profits even in recessions.
Mutual funds are pretty much a scam these days with so many fees,
This is nonsense. Fees are lower than ever.
Most of my retirement savings are in Vanguard index funds. No upfront or backend fees, 0.04% annual maintenance fee.
Here's some free advice:
1. Invest in index funds, and never in actively managed funds.
2. Never take financial advice from someone trying to sell you something.
Typically when people buy a single stock they choose a new company with a lot of hype.
Not true. When people have their entire retirement savings in one stock, it is usually in the company they work for, acquired through an ESOP.