Like nearly all "what is wrong with education" articles, TFA is nothing but faddism and conjecture. It presents no actual evidence that more play time (or less) is good or bad for kids. Even worse, it fails to even consider that educational practices should be based on empirical evidence.
Because fertility rates are far higher in Africa, and that is the only place where families often have more children than they want because contraceptives are unavailable or unaffordable. Africa also has the lowest literacy rates, the lowest vaccination rates, and the worst public sanitation.
In Norway, 25% of all new cars sold are electric. Imagine how many people will buy them once they actually make sense. By current trends, that is only 5 to 10 years out.
You appeal from the courts to the court of public opinion.
Yes because everyone has the resources or wherewithal to make that happen.
Anyone can write a blog or post a Youtube video, and then send the link to some friends. After that, if the meme fails to spread, then you likely didn't explain your point very well, or you didn't have much of a point to make.
AGW is not some immediate problem that needs to be solved tomorrow. It will unfold over decades, and the solution will also take decades. Here is what we need to do:
1. Slow population growth, especially in Africa. Make sure everyone that wants contraception has it. Promote female literacy (literate women have fewer and healthier babies than illiterate women). Promote clean water, vaccines and peacekeeping. Families have fewer children when they are more confident they will survive. 2. Invest in alternative energy technology. 3. Invest in energy storage technology. 4. Stop building new coal power plants. 5. Stop shutting down working nuclear plants. It may or may not be economical to build new news, but to shut down working plants is absolutely idiotic. Fortunately, only Germans are dumb enough to do this. 6. Continue to research possible global engineering solutions, like oceanic iron fertilization, sulfate aerosols, etc. It would be foolish to deploy these now, but we need to better understand the consequences so we can make informed decisions in the future. 7. Use market pricing and "smart meters" to shift demand to fit intermittent supplies of alternative energy. 8. Invest in fusion research, and thorium reactors. 9. Figure out how to do carbon sequestration economically. 10. Shift to a transportation infrastructure that is not based on oil. 11. Conservation: LED bulbs, variable speed DC motors, solid state magnetic cooling for refrigerators and ACs. 12. Stop doing stupid crap that wastes resources for mainly political reasons: Ethanol subsidies in America, wood pellet subsidies in Britain, etc.
We are already making significant progress on most of these. None of them require us to live like the Amish.
This was the second lowest sea ice extent. So basically, what this mean is that the worst is past, and things are improving. Global warming could have been a major problem, so it is good to see that we dodged that bullet, the crisis is over, and we don't need to worry about it anymore.
It can't happen. 1. it's not handicap compatible nor does it offer wheelchair assistance that a driver would.
The ADA requires "reasonable" accommodation for disability. It doesn't say you have to shutdown your business if you can't do it. I rent out a spare bedroom on Airbnb, despite the only access being up a flight of stairs.
3. Rider safety is decreased on the van level as you can't protect passengers from each other.
Is that why we only let one person at a time into elevators?
They will not lower prices, despite reduced costs, because Joe Public is conditioned to the prices as they are at present.
Horse pucky. They are offering a commodity service, with no "lock-in" for either drivers or riders, and people will switch instantly if they can get a better deal. I have used both Uber and Lyft, and they are basically indistinguishable. Most Lyft drivers are also Uber drivers, so it is even the same car and the same driver. The only thing different is the icon.
Lots of things have become automated without the price being reduced.
That is only true if they have either a monopoly, or a strong brand that is identified with a big difference in quality. Apple can get away with charging more than Android, because their customers do not perceive them as being interchangeable. There is no "brand premium" in ride sharing.
I've seen reliable numbers that the TCO for a vehicle is around $0.50/mile.
That is for a normal person, not for someone driving for a living. Most of that cost is the depreciation of the vehicle. If you are commuting 20 minutes each way, that depreciation is spread over far fewer miles than if you are driving 4 hours per day.
Governments should favor local companies to protect their economy.
This is called "protectionism". Governments have been doing it for centuries, with generally poor outcomes. Hundreds of books have been written about why it is a bad idea, so there is no need to repeat all the reasons here.
No, the price won't fall dramatically, indeed it will like increase so as to expand the revenue stream for Lyft/Uber/XYZ.
Nonsense. Companies can't just arbitrarily set prices. If they could make more money with higher prices THEY WOULD ALREADY BE DOING IT. If Uber and Lyft raise prices (or fail to lower them as their costs fall) then other companies will jump into the market. This is exactly what happened when they pulled out of Austin: Other ride sharing apps were up and running in a few weeks.
Also, think of all those drivers who will now be out of work
They could be paid to throw rocks at windows to create jobs for glaziers.
Look, pointless make-work activities are not "good for the economy". As people spend less money on rides, they will have more money to spend on other things, meaning that people will have an improved standard of living, and new jobs will be created to provide those new goods and services. Increased productivity is the reason, and the ONLY reason that you don't live in a shack with a dirt floor like your ancestors.
all of this points to a better public transport system even if it is automated cars.
If Uber/Lyft/etc can provide self-driving cars and vans that are faster, more convenient, and cost competitive with existing public buses, then maybe it is time to get the "public" out of transportation. At least in America, the government has done a horrible job of running public transit. Maybe the government should focus on other priorities, and leave transit to private companies that have an incentive to do a better job.
You realize that the biggest cost is the driver because the driver is paying for the car right?
No. Do the math. A typical Uber driver grosses about $18/hour. If he buys a $30k car, keeps it for 10 years, and drives 4 hours per day, 5 days a week, then that is about $3 / hour. Much more is paying for the driver than the cost of the car.
For an SDC that drives 20 hr/day, 365 days per year, the cost per hour is about 50 cents.
Eliminating the driver also eliminates the person most likely to complain loudly about life-threatening deferred maintenance.
Almost all traffic accidents are because of human error or inattention. The second biggest reason is road conditions. Poor maintenance and mechanical failure account for about 3% of all accidents, but less than 1% of fatal or injury causing accidents.
An accident, or even a mechanical breakdown on the road, is much more expensive than routine maintenance. So a profit-maximizing company would ensure that routine maintenance is done. This is no different than rental car companies today.
And can you imagine haling a 'cab' for every stop in your running around at around $10 a pop?
What you are missing is that it won't be $10 a pop. Today, the biggest expense is the driver. Once the driver is gone, the price will fall dramatically. Also, a typical Uber/Lyft driver today drives for about 4 hours a day. A self-driving-car can operate 24/7. So the increased supply will drive down the price, while the lower amortization cost per ride will drive down the cost even more.
Uber and Lyft will also face pricing pressure from improvements in mass transit. Even for a bus, the biggest cost is the driver. As big human-driven buses driving fixed routes, are replaced with small self-driving vans driving flex-routes, prices will go down and ridership will go up.
That is, Uber can jack up the prices basically at any point and use 'increased demand' as a blank slate excuse for it
Nonsense. Companies do not need an "excuse" to raise prices. They are expected to set prices to maximize their profits.
Uber can basically dictate the price
Baloney. Only monopolies can dictate prices, and Uber is far from a monopoly. If they arbitrarily raise prices, their customers will switch to Lyft, or go back to Taxis, or take the bus, or buy a bicycle. If raising prices would increase their profits, they would have already done it.
the attempt to reduce software development/software engineering to a blue collar function.
What's wrong with that? A blue collar machinist who can write g-code for a CNC lathe, is going to earn a lot more, and be more productive, than another machinist that can only operate it manually. Plenty of blue collar workers could benefit from knowing how to code.
Sure. When there is a shortage, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO LOSE. That is what "shortage" means. So let's consider two scenarios.
Scenario one (presumably your solution): The government imposes price controls. Some random people get the rides, mainly those willing to queue the longest. Other random people walk home in the rain, or take the bus or train. The drivers get screwed out of higher pay. No additional drivers are incentivized to get in their cars and offer rides.
Scenario two (my solution): The markets sets the price. Rich people and desperate people get the rides. Poor people walk home in the rain, or take the bus or train. The drivers (who tend to not be wealthy) get higher pay. Additional drivers turn off their TV, hop in their cars, and cash in on the bonanza. It now turns out, that with the additional drivers, the prices don't go up all that much, and most people get rides after all.
Both scenarios have losers, but the market scenario has fewer. Poor people lose in both (by either earning less, or paying more), but they do better with market pricing.
Markets aren't perfect. They are just better than the alternatives.
You have no idea what market failure or profiteering look like, do you?
This is not a "market failure". When supply is constricted, prices should go up so the rides go to those who need them most. There are two choices: higher prices, or some sort of rationing. The higher prices are always better for sellers, and usually better for buyers as well.
Then they have much better publicly funded transportation than we do here.
Yes, they do. The American model of two SUVs in every garage, a Big Gulp on every desk, and massive amounts of corn-subsidy-driven obesity is not inevitable and many other prosperous countries are already going down a different path. Rising prosperity does not automatically mean a bigger environmental footprint.
Compared to WWI and WWII there have been hardly any major wars in history.
The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) killed a greater fraction of Europe's population than WW1. The Mongol expansion in the thirteenth century, especially their conquest of China, also killed more.
But will they all be able to have two cars in their driveway?
That is a North American thing. Prosperous countries don't all fall into the habit of wasteful over-consumption. Singapore has a per capita GDP higher than America, yet most families there don't even own one car, much less two.
techies have supplied us with smarter weapons and drones so we can kill lots more people
Precision weapons don't kill "lots more people", they kill a lot fewer. They have also led to fewer and smaller nukes. If you can put a SLCM through a particular window of the Kremlin, you don't need big city-destroying bombs.
Slashdot Mirror
Like nearly all "what is wrong with education" articles, TFA is nothing but faddism and conjecture. It presents no actual evidence that more play time (or less) is good or bad for kids. Even worse, it fails to even consider that educational practices should be based on empirical evidence.
Why "especially in Africa"? Please explain.
Because fertility rates are far higher in Africa, and that is the only place where families often have more children than they want because contraceptives are unavailable or unaffordable. Africa also has the lowest literacy rates, the lowest vaccination rates, and the worst public sanitation.
We can't do 10. We don't know how.
In Norway, 25% of all new cars sold are electric. Imagine how many people will buy them once they actually make sense. By current trends, that is only 5 to 10 years out.
That was specifically banned though. They weren't allowed to speak about it.
Then how did Martin learn about it?
You appeal from the courts to the court of public opinion.
Yes because everyone has the resources or wherewithal to make that happen.
Anyone can write a blog or post a Youtube video, and then send the link to some friends. After that, if the meme fails to spread, then you likely didn't explain your point very well, or you didn't have much of a point to make.
Hey, fuck ass. PROPOSE YOUR SOLUTION.
AGW is not some immediate problem that needs to be solved tomorrow. It will unfold over decades, and the solution will also take decades. Here is what we need to do:
1. Slow population growth, especially in Africa. Make sure everyone that wants contraception has it. Promote female literacy (literate women have fewer and healthier babies than illiterate women). Promote clean water, vaccines and peacekeeping. Families have fewer children when they are more confident they will survive.
2. Invest in alternative energy technology.
3. Invest in energy storage technology.
4. Stop building new coal power plants.
5. Stop shutting down working nuclear plants. It may or may not be economical to build new news, but to shut down working plants is absolutely idiotic. Fortunately, only Germans are dumb enough to do this.
6. Continue to research possible global engineering solutions, like oceanic iron fertilization, sulfate aerosols, etc. It would be foolish to deploy these now, but we need to better understand the consequences so we can make informed decisions in the future.
7. Use market pricing and "smart meters" to shift demand to fit intermittent supplies of alternative energy.
8. Invest in fusion research, and thorium reactors.
9. Figure out how to do carbon sequestration economically.
10. Shift to a transportation infrastructure that is not based on oil.
11. Conservation: LED bulbs, variable speed DC motors, solid state magnetic cooling for refrigerators and ACs.
12. Stop doing stupid crap that wastes resources for mainly political reasons: Ethanol subsidies in America, wood pellet subsidies in Britain, etc.
We are already making significant progress on most of these. None of them require us to live like the Amish.
This was the second lowest sea ice extent. So basically, what this mean is that the worst is past, and things are improving. Global warming could have been a major problem, so it is good to see that we dodged that bullet, the crisis is over, and we don't need to worry about it anymore.
It can't happen. 1. it's not handicap compatible nor does it offer wheelchair assistance that a driver would.
The ADA requires "reasonable" accommodation for disability. It doesn't say you have to shutdown your business if you can't do it. I rent out a spare bedroom on Airbnb, despite the only access being up a flight of stairs.
3. Rider safety is decreased on the van level as you can't protect passengers from each other.
Is that why we only let one person at a time into elevators?
They will not lower prices, despite reduced costs, because Joe Public is conditioned to the prices as they are at present.
Horse pucky. They are offering a commodity service, with no "lock-in" for either drivers or riders, and people will switch instantly if they can get a better deal. I have used both Uber and Lyft, and they are basically indistinguishable. Most Lyft drivers are also Uber drivers, so it is even the same car and the same driver. The only thing different is the icon.
Lots of things have become automated without the price being reduced.
That is only true if they have either a monopoly, or a strong brand that is identified with a big difference in quality. Apple can get away with charging more than Android, because their customers do not perceive them as being interchangeable. There is no "brand premium" in ride sharing.
I've seen reliable numbers that the TCO for a vehicle is around $0.50/mile.
That is for a normal person, not for someone driving for a living. Most of that cost is the depreciation of the vehicle. If you are commuting 20 minutes each way, that depreciation is spread over far fewer miles than if you are driving 4 hours per day.
Governments should favor local companies to protect their economy.
This is called "protectionism". Governments have been doing it for centuries, with generally poor outcomes. Hundreds of books have been written about why it is a bad idea, so there is no need to repeat all the reasons here.
No, the price won't fall dramatically, indeed it will like increase so as to expand the revenue stream for Lyft/Uber/XYZ.
Nonsense. Companies can't just arbitrarily set prices. If they could make more money with higher prices THEY WOULD ALREADY BE DOING IT. If Uber and Lyft raise prices (or fail to lower them as their costs fall) then other companies will jump into the market. This is exactly what happened when they pulled out of Austin: Other ride sharing apps were up and running in a few weeks.
Also, think of all those drivers who will now be out of work
They could be paid to throw rocks at windows to create jobs for glaziers.
Look, pointless make-work activities are not "good for the economy". As people spend less money on rides, they will have more money to spend on other things, meaning that people will have an improved standard of living, and new jobs will be created to provide those new goods and services. Increased productivity is the reason, and the ONLY reason that you don't live in a shack with a dirt floor like your ancestors.
Cheap taxis are dirty.
Uber and Lyft rides are cheaper than taxis, and every time I have used either the cars have been very clean.
The taxis are dirty because the owners aren't concerned about bad reviews. The Uber/Lyft drivers are.
all of this points to a better public transport system even if it is automated cars.
If Uber/Lyft/etc can provide self-driving cars and vans that are faster, more convenient, and cost competitive with existing public buses, then maybe it is time to get the "public" out of transportation. At least in America, the government has done a horrible job of running public transit. Maybe the government should focus on other priorities, and leave transit to private companies that have an incentive to do a better job.
You realize that the biggest cost is the driver because the driver is paying for the car right?
No. Do the math. A typical Uber driver grosses about $18/hour. If he buys a $30k car, keeps it for 10 years, and drives 4 hours per day, 5 days a week, then that is about $3 / hour. Much more is paying for the driver than the cost of the car.
For an SDC that drives 20 hr/day, 365 days per year, the cost per hour is about 50 cents.
Eliminating the driver also eliminates the person most likely to complain loudly about life-threatening deferred maintenance.
Almost all traffic accidents are because of human error or inattention. The second biggest reason is road conditions. Poor maintenance and mechanical failure account for about 3% of all accidents, but less than 1% of fatal or injury causing accidents.
An accident, or even a mechanical breakdown on the road, is much more expensive than routine maintenance. So a profit-maximizing company would ensure that routine maintenance is done. This is no different than rental car companies today.
And can you imagine haling a 'cab' for every stop in your running around at around $10 a pop?
What you are missing is that it won't be $10 a pop. Today, the biggest expense is the driver. Once the driver is gone, the price will fall dramatically. Also, a typical Uber/Lyft driver today drives for about 4 hours a day. A self-driving-car can operate 24/7. So the increased supply will drive down the price, while the lower amortization cost per ride will drive down the cost even more.
Uber and Lyft will also face pricing pressure from improvements in mass transit. Even for a bus, the biggest cost is the driver. As big human-driven buses driving fixed routes, are replaced with small self-driving vans driving flex-routes, prices will go down and ridership will go up.
That is, Uber can jack up the prices basically at any point and use 'increased demand' as a blank slate excuse for it
Nonsense. Companies do not need an "excuse" to raise prices. They are expected to set prices to maximize their profits.
Uber can basically dictate the price
Baloney. Only monopolies can dictate prices, and Uber is far from a monopoly. If they arbitrarily raise prices, their customers will switch to Lyft, or go back to Taxis, or take the bus, or buy a bicycle. If raising prices would increase their profits, they would have already done it.
the attempt to reduce software development/software engineering to a blue collar function.
What's wrong with that? A blue collar machinist who can write g-code for a CNC lathe, is going to earn a lot more, and be more productive, than another machinist that can only operate it manually. Plenty of blue collar workers could benefit from knowing how to code.
I'll let you explain how that's supposed to work.
Sure. When there is a shortage, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO LOSE. That is what "shortage" means. So let's consider two scenarios.
Scenario one (presumably your solution):
The government imposes price controls.
Some random people get the rides, mainly those willing to queue the longest.
Other random people walk home in the rain, or take the bus or train.
The drivers get screwed out of higher pay.
No additional drivers are incentivized to get in their cars and offer rides.
Scenario two (my solution):
The markets sets the price.
Rich people and desperate people get the rides.
Poor people walk home in the rain, or take the bus or train.
The drivers (who tend to not be wealthy) get higher pay.
Additional drivers turn off their TV, hop in their cars, and cash in on the bonanza.
It now turns out, that with the additional drivers, the prices don't go up all that much, and most people get rides after all.
Both scenarios have losers, but the market scenario has fewer. Poor people lose in both (by either earning less, or paying more), but they do better with market pricing.
Markets aren't perfect. They are just better than the alternatives.
You have no idea what market failure or profiteering look like, do you?
This is not a "market failure". When supply is constricted, prices should go up so the rides go to those who need them most. There are two choices: higher prices, or some sort of rationing. The higher prices are always better for sellers, and usually better for buyers as well.
Then they have much better publicly funded transportation than we do here.
Yes, they do. The American model of two SUVs in every garage, a Big Gulp on every desk, and massive amounts of corn-subsidy-driven obesity is not inevitable and many other prosperous countries are already going down a different path. Rising prosperity does not automatically mean a bigger environmental footprint.
Compared to WWI and WWII there have been hardly any major wars in history.
The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) killed a greater fraction of Europe's population than WW1. The Mongol expansion in the thirteenth century, especially their conquest of China, also killed more.
But will they all be able to have two cars in their driveway?
That is a North American thing. Prosperous countries don't all fall into the habit of wasteful over-consumption. Singapore has a per capita GDP higher than America, yet most families there don't even own one car, much less two.
techies have supplied us with smarter weapons and drones so we can kill lots more people
Precision weapons don't kill "lots more people", they kill a lot fewer. They have also led to fewer and smaller nukes. If you can put a SLCM through a particular window of the Kremlin, you don't need big city-destroying bombs.