This needs to be done at the national level or you get a patchwork of states on or off DST.
We already have a patchwork. Arizona, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico do not have DST. Some Indian reservations have different practices from the states they are in.
DST makes little sense for southern states, where the difference in daylight doesn't change much with the seasons. DST also makes little sense in Alaska, where daylight changes so much that just a single hour makes little difference and changing the clocks is just a pointless annoyance.
He is wrong about this. Steel tariffs in retaliation for China's car tariffs make no sense. Less than 3% of steel imported into America comes from China. So 97% of the "punishment" is collateral damage against our neighbors and allies. The biggest exporter of steel to America is Canada, followed by Brazil and South Korea. China is #10.
The point of something like this is that if you need to heat your house anyways then the electricity is basically free
This is only true if you use electricity for heating, which is generally a dumb thing to do.
If fuel is available, it is better to use it directly to generate heat, rather than using it to generate electricity, and then using the electricity for heat. Or even better, to co-generate both heat and electricity.
If fuel is not available, and you really have to use electricity for heat, it is most likely going to be better to run a heat pump rather than a GPU.
But this seems to be targeted toward dumb people anyway. Who else is going to pay $3600 for two $500 GPUs?
Have you ever talked to any homeless people? Have you ever spent time working with the homeless, and helping them deal with their situations? If you do, you will soon understand that most homelessness is about mental health problems, not economics.
Right now, you can look at Canada (agriculture) and China (manufactured goods) as growth-with-trade-barrier successes.
Neither of these is an example of a country that: 1. Had few trade barriers. 2. Increased trade barriers. 3. Saw growth increase.
Canada has barriers to trade in agriculture. But those barriers are not new, and are actually lower than they were in the past. They are pretty much universally recognized as stupid and counterproductive. Canadian farmers grow grain, instead of focusing on something better suited to their cooler climate such as canola, while America grows canola when it should be growing more grain. The barriers to trade keep farmers in each country from optimizing their crops, and trading for what they are not so good at growing. The Canadian tariffs are only there to buy votes, not because they make economic sense.
While China has plenty of barriers, the situation was far worse in the past. China is actually an example of prosperity surging as trade barriers fell. It is possible that their prosperity would have risen even faster with fewer barriers.
Protectionism has been used by left and right. It's certainly not liberal, though.
"Liberal" means different things to different people. In Europe, it has the original meaning of what Americans call libertarian (free trade, free enterprise, social tolerance). In America, a "liberal" is a progressive, or what Europeans call "social democrats". In Australia, a "liberal" is a right wing conservative.
The countries with the lowest trade barriers are Singapore, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand. These are all countries with strong and growing economies. There are many examples of countries, such as Chile, South Korea, and Taiwan, that had closed economies, that then opened themselves to trade and prospered.
Can you name even a single counterexample of a country that put up trade barriers, and saw their rate of growth increase?
Think about those programmers who used to program with punch cards and programmers nowadays, for example.
I am not sure what your point is. I am old enough to remember programming on punch cards. If you actually believe that programmers back then were better or more productive, then you are delusional.
Sure, we were "more careful", in the sense that we spent hours scrutinizing code for syntax errors that a modern compiler could find in a millisecond. But it would be a pointless waste of time to do that today.
I see no reason that providing SDC rides will be obscenely profitable. There are few barriers to entry, so in theory competition will drive the price down to the cost (fuel, depreciation, and insurance) plus cost of capital (prime is 4.5%). Why would Uber be able to do that any more profitably than anyone else?
Can they make a profit with SDCs? Sure. Can they make obscene profits? I don't see how, and without that, their current valuation is not justified.
If Uber were a public company, I would short them.
I don't get it either. There is no customer loyalty or lock-in and no network-effect. Many riders use both Uber and Lyft, and readily switch from one to the other based on price and availability. Likewise, many drivers have both apps, and take the first fare from either. When Uber and Lyft pulled out of Austin, alternative ride-share companies popup up immediately. The same will happen if Uber tries to raise prices enough to be profitable. The barrier to entry is very low.
Can Uber become a profitable company? Sure. Can they become obscenely profitable enough to justify their astronomically high valuation? I don't see how that is possible.
DoD does some evil things, plenty of stupid stuff, and good things as well. I served in the military, worked for a defense contractor for several years, and would have no moral problem working on this project. Many other people feel differently. Google knows that, so they tried to keep this project secret. It leaked out, and now they are scrambling to come up with a retroactive justification for the secrecy. As Mark Twain once said: "When in doubt, tell the truth."
What about nuclear bombs, ICBMs, fuel-air bombs, stealth bombers etc?
I would have no problem with my neighbor owning a stealth bomber. Private aircraft are already legal, so one that can avoid radar would not be a big step.
Is it even legal to mine your own land in the US?
Deadfalls and other booby traps are generally illegal in America. So using a landmine would almost certainly be illegal.
I seem to recall the US didn't sign up to limits on the use of landmines but I don't know about personal use.
The US uses landmines in the Korean DMZ and at Guantanamo. They are not used elsewhere. The US used no landmines in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Slashdot Mirror
This needs to be done at the national level or you get a patchwork of states on or off DST .
We already have a patchwork. Arizona, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico do not have DST. Some Indian reservations have different practices from the states they are in.
DST makes little sense for southern states, where the difference in daylight doesn't change much with the seasons. DST also makes little sense in Alaska, where daylight changes so much that just a single hour makes little difference and changing the clocks is just a pointless annoyance.
Elon can do no wrong.
He is wrong about this. Steel tariffs in retaliation for China's car tariffs make no sense. Less than 3% of steel imported into America comes from China. So 97% of the "punishment" is collateral damage against our neighbors and allies. The biggest exporter of steel to America is Canada, followed by Brazil and South Korea. China is #10.
Top steel exporters to the US
The point of something like this is that if you need to heat your house anyways then the electricity is basically free
This is only true if you use electricity for heating, which is generally a dumb thing to do.
If fuel is available, it is better to use it directly to generate heat, rather than using it to generate electricity, and then using the electricity for heat. Or even better, to co-generate both heat and electricity.
If fuel is not available, and you really have to use electricity for heat, it is most likely going to be better to run a heat pump rather than a GPU.
But this seems to be targeted toward dumb people anyway. Who else is going to pay $3600 for two $500 GPUs?
They already know noone is buying into the 3D and curved screen marketing
Not no one. My wife bought a curved TV. She also bought an iPhone X.
Our economy depends on people like her.
If I had $20k to burn on a TV, I'd buy a used one on Craigslist for $500 ...
Have you checked TV prices lately? For $500 you can get a pretty darn good brand new TV. Costco has a 55" inch 4K UHD TV for $420.
Why do we have so many homeless people?
Have you ever talked to any homeless people? Have you ever spent time working with the homeless, and helping them deal with their situations? If you do, you will soon understand that most homelessness is about mental health problems, not economics.
Where is there a place for them in the new economy?
Obviously not in SF. Not everyone can afford to live in SF, just like not everyone can afford to drive a Tesla.
They're just angry. Usually because they lack good economic prospects.
People that live in SF are not lacking in good economic prospects.
How the fuck did they ever have 100 engineers in the first place?
According to TFS, that was only 10%, so they had a thousand engineers.
How complicated can it be?
Indeed. I am always amazed when I learn the headcount of these businesses built around an app that looks like it was slapped together in a few hours.
Maybe that bloated headcount has something to do with their financial troubles.
Right now, you can look at Canada (agriculture) and China (manufactured goods) as growth-with-trade-barrier successes.
Neither of these is an example of a country that:
1. Had few trade barriers.
2. Increased trade barriers.
3. Saw growth increase.
Canada has barriers to trade in agriculture. But those barriers are not new, and are actually lower than they were in the past. They are pretty much universally recognized as stupid and counterproductive. Canadian farmers grow grain, instead of focusing on something better suited to their cooler climate such as canola, while America grows canola when it should be growing more grain. The barriers to trade keep farmers in each country from optimizing their crops, and trading for what they are not so good at growing. The Canadian tariffs are only there to buy votes, not because they make economic sense.
While China has plenty of barriers, the situation was far worse in the past. China is actually an example of prosperity surging as trade barriers fell. It is possible that their prosperity would have risen even faster with fewer barriers.
If she was 50 in 1985, as stated in TFS, then she is not an 81 year old artist.
Protectionism has been used by left and right. It's certainly not liberal, though.
"Liberal" means different things to different people.
In Europe, it has the original meaning of what Americans call libertarian (free trade, free enterprise, social tolerance).
In America, a "liberal" is a progressive, or what Europeans call "social democrats".
In Australia, a "liberal" is a right wing conservative.
The countries with the lowest trade barriers are Singapore, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand. These are all countries with strong and growing economies. There are many examples of countries, such as Chile, South Korea, and Taiwan, that had closed economies, that then opened themselves to trade and prospered.
Can you name even a single counterexample of a country that put up trade barriers, and saw their rate of growth increase?
it's still true that rich nations ought not throw up trade barriers against other similarly rich nations.
The biggest exporter of both steel and aluminum to America is Canada.
Protectionism is actually left-wing stupidity. Most of the opposition to Trump's metal tariffs is coming from Republicans.
The hypocritical part is expecting the rest of the world not to retaliate in kind.
Trump is expecting retaliation. His claim is that American can "win" a trade war.
He is sort of right, in the sense that big economies lose less than small economies in a trade war. But still, everyone loses.
The last really big trade war was in the 1930s. It didn't end well.
I have to point the hypocrisy of the US.
What hypocrisy? Under Trump, the US is openly protectionist in both actions and advocacy. That is stupid, but it is not hypocritical.
when an autonomous truck hits/kills someone (even if it's their fault), all parties involved will be sued into oblivion.
Tesla Autopilot has already killed several people. No one was sued into oblivion. How is this different?
If anything, this reduces legal costs over human driving, since there are detailed recordings of exactly what happened.
Think about those programmers who used to program with punch cards and programmers nowadays, for example.
I am not sure what your point is. I am old enough to remember programming on punch cards. If you actually believe that programmers back then were better or more productive, then you are delusional.
Sure, we were "more careful", in the sense that we spent hours scrutinizing code for syntax errors that a modern compiler could find in a millisecond. But it would be a pointless waste of time to do that today.
I see no reason that providing SDC rides will be obscenely profitable. There are few barriers to entry, so in theory competition will drive the price down to the cost (fuel, depreciation, and insurance) plus cost of capital (prime is 4.5%). Why would Uber be able to do that any more profitably than anyone else?
Can they make a profit with SDCs? Sure. Can they make obscene profits? I don't see how, and without that, their current valuation is not justified.
If Uber were a public company, I would short them.
I don't get it either. There is no customer loyalty or lock-in and no network-effect. Many riders use both Uber and Lyft, and readily switch from one to the other based on price and availability. Likewise, many drivers have both apps, and take the first fare from either. When Uber and Lyft pulled out of Austin, alternative ride-share companies popup up immediately. The same will happen if Uber tries to raise prices enough to be profitable. The barrier to entry is very low.
Can Uber become a profitable company? Sure. Can they become obscenely profitable enough to justify their astronomically high valuation? I don't see how that is possible.
DoD does some evil things, plenty of stupid stuff, and good things as well. I served in the military, worked for a defense contractor for several years, and would have no moral problem working on this project. Many other people feel differently. Google knows that, so they tried to keep this project secret. It leaked out, and now they are scrambling to come up with a retroactive justification for the secrecy. As Mark Twain once said: "When in doubt, tell the truth."
What about nuclear bombs, ICBMs, fuel-air bombs, stealth bombers etc?
I would have no problem with my neighbor owning a stealth bomber. Private aircraft are already legal, so one that can avoid radar would not be a big step.
Is it even legal to mine your own land in the US?
Deadfalls and other booby traps are generally illegal in America. So using a landmine would almost certainly be illegal.
I seem to recall the US didn't sign up to limits on the use of landmines but I don't know about personal use.
The US uses landmines in the Korean DMZ and at Guantanamo. They are not used elsewhere. The US used no landmines in Iraq or Afghanistan.
People rely on technology (for convenience) more and more which in turn make people dumber and dumber...
Socrates believed that learning to read and write makes people dumber because they no longer need to remember things.
Are illiterate people smarter?
Are programmers that turn off compiler warnings smarter?
I mean, maybe just fire Josh?
Staffing decisions are outside the scope of the tool's remit.