It matches supply with demand. If rents are too high the root problem is there isn't enough housing being built. All of this yelling about "greed" and "rent control" and even worse -- high minimum wage -- are just bandaids that won't solve the root of the problem.
So politicians get to "champion the little guy" with ineffective measures while enjoying their large lots for their own housing and collecting expensive property taxes. But woe be you if you're a developer seeking to build more housing units. Fees and permits alone will scare away all but the most determined (and profit seeking).
But how much time do you save nowadays though. 20 years ago when the Concord ran, you got to the airport 45 min ahead of time with plenty of time to spare.
Today, international travel takes about 3 hours at the airport alone. Let alone the flight. So if we're taking 9 vs 6 hours spent, is it really that big of a difference?
Also, the economics of flying means that fuel efficiency is the primary factor in profitability. So if this thing eats up twice of 3x the fuel as a 787 but earns twice as much per flight, airlines won't be running it.
What would it matter? His business model involves:
1. Revenue 2. Cost
Cost is the development. If he didn't have access to $5 simple CAD design and only had access to CAD contractors who were overqualified but charged $5k, his ROI would not be worth it. He's only making tiny, cheap, simple things to sell to people here.
Just having access to capital through a loan doesn't change the fact that his business revenue doesn't bring in enough $ to justify spending that much on R&D. Lower the cost of R&D and you have a lot more business models who can all of a sudden work now.
Scenario A: OP can't start his business because he can't hire cheap foreign labor. Foreign students don't get income. OP doesn't have a product and OP doesn't have a company. OP also doesn't spend money because OP has 0 income to spend at said neighborhood restaurant, leaving them with 1 (at least) less client.
Scenario B: OP makes a product people buy. Foreign students get income. OP gets income. People get something that didn't exist before that (at least to them) improves their lives. OP (and possibly any employees he/she hires locally for more complex work) then has money to spend at neighborhood restaurant.
In every single way scenario B is better. It's also the reason economists tell you that economics is not a zero-sum game. And it's what the "but the furrennrrr" wharbble people don't get.
At least 2/3 of the components in RPi's come from Shenzhen. Not to mention almost all of the R&D work happened because companies could manufacture computers in low-wage conditions and sell-them to make a profit. RPi can't exist in a vacuum. It leverages all of the work the big boys did over the past 3 decades to be so cheap and so affordable.
Uber bleeds money every year. To the tune of a billion. You honestly think that if it were legislated to require all drivers to be full time that it'll just magically be able to?
The alternative isn't every Uber driver being full-time. The alternative is 75% of Uber drivers having 0 income. While the other 25% become what used to be called "cab drivers".
As great as all of these concepts are. Reality is a spectrum. Without any government intervention, you can rest assured the negotiating power will consolidate into a bunch of conglomerates and as much "freedom" as you have will wither away as economic mobility opportunities decrease and labor competition increases.
On the flip side, just trying to legislate good jobs for everyone regardless of talent and/or economic conditions is obviously ridiculous.
Perhaps there's some right amount of government intervention. One that regulates the market so that there's plenty of competition and no conglomeration of powers that can abuse their monopolistic position. One that also provides some sort of basic safety net so that no citizen has to go into desperation-mode. And one that provides ample opportunities for self-improvement to all citizens.
Set those bounds to the free market and then let it do its thing.
Will it pass though? We didn't exactly elect a free-trade, free-market dude. In many ways he's more populist and heavy-handed-Fed-intervention than Obama ever was.
Actually, most of these gig companies aren't profitable. Even their CEO's are "rich" only in that they have a percentage of the theoretical value of their company.
This is the natural state of things. The alternative isn't Uber pays all its drivers full-time minimum wage with benefits or pays them part-time. The alternative is Uber doesn't exist and those people have 0 income.
I don't like the working conditions of the "gig economy". And I'm more than horrified at the glorification of it. Much like fast food work, it should be something to strive out of, not be in.
Speed of electrons or even light isn't the problem. It's the capacitance. The destination transistor feels the voltage change at the speed of light, but it doesn't change its own stored charge fast enough to register a "0" or "1". This has much more to do with intrinsic resistance of the material locally than how far the signal has to travel.
The problem is that a material that's a semiconductor will typically straddle some range between conductance and resistance (by definition). So conductance is hard to increase without impacting the resistive "mode" it needs to be set in. This is the problem with graphene and carbon nanotubes. They're really conductive, but not terribly resistive when we want them to be in the "off" mode.
CPU architect here. I'll try to provide some insight.
Performance for CPU/GPU or any computational tool isn't exactly just a number you hit. It's not like bandwidth for storage or communications nor is it like a battery's capacity.
A CPU and to a lesser extent a GPU is able to perform all sorts (all logical) computational functions. Each of these involves different usage patterns of the different computational paths inside a piece of silicon. And thus, speeding up each of these usage patterns requires different structures.
A single piece of code running something complex like launching an app or opening a webpage will generate hundreds of millions of instructions with lots of different patterns. Think about all those API's you call. How much code do you think is similar between them?
And thus the problem of improving "performance". The goalpost is a shifty one. Speed up one code pattern, and you risk your changes hurting another. Or you can spend extra transistors making a specialized accelerator for that code pattern. But then...it'll be idle 95% of the time.
And if you speed up a particular function by 1000x (it's happened), your average speed increase for a typical benchmark or API call will still be 0-1%. Because that function is only a small piece of the larger codebase.
Think about how many non-similar libraries and functions there are in typical software, and think about how there's any way to speed them *all* up. You can make memcpy or memset (malloc uses these) faster by 5x and that'll speed up javascript processing by....0.01% or so.
The reason "performance" doesn't increase as drastically in the computer world is because computing "performance" is very very multifaceted. Much like how "intelligence" can't just be increased by 5x -- someone can get 5x better at specific tasks, like memorizing or image recognition, but that doesn't make them 5x more "intelligent".
Compare this with a simple metric like 0-60 acceleration or network bandwidth.
While what you're saying is true. There is an actual issue with the current form of H1-B reform. That is to say *all* job positions regardless of talent level must consider "Americans first" in a vague way. That ambiguity is what's troubling and what leads to a lot of potential problems as it's left to the executive branch to enforce and interpret.
Let's say you have a dire need for data scientists and good ones. POTUS can now have his agencies force you to hire less talented people instead of those more talented from abroad, or ones who are here in the US as students who are seeking jobs.
So while we do need to address the issue of H1-B farms, the current proposed solution is kludgy, ill-defined, knee-jerk and probably won't have the desired effect...which is kinda inline with all things Trump.
Because many recognize that just one number like "50k jobs" isn't the only number that matters. How much is the State giving away in freebies of taxpayer money to subsidize these jobs? How permanent are these jobs? If it's a large subsidy for temporary (like construction) jobs which will dry up long before the return-on-investment has been reached, the State would be better off just hiring these workers themselves to do something more long-lasting instead of having Foxconn skim off the top, make a killing in profit with very little cost, only to layoff these workers in a few years.
The problem with Trump and most of his campaign is that he's promising a quick, easy solution to a difficult problem: how do American workers stay competitive in a stage of increasingly easier global shipments? This is yet another example of something that feels good in the short term but can be a terrible deal in the long term.
Not students. People who graduated from a US University. For instance someone who came to grad school (or undergrad) and just graduated and is looking for a job.
From the article, it doesn't sound like the fix was to turn on page caching. There was some bug caused by turning off caching that was fixed. What that is....idk. I can only imagine some guy coded a spinloop wrong.
So Cook gets ~37X what a seasoned engineer gets. That's relatively low compared to most large companies. In fact, ~9M/year is damn low. Marissa did little for Yahoo other than spend other people's money to buy failed ideas and she still got roughly 20M/year.
Renewables aren't quite (but will very soon be) more profitable than coal/oil in terms of cost/MW. China has been dumping money into solar/wind/nuclear for almost a decade now, long before it was even remotely economical. They play the long game because their population is tired of being able to only see 2 feet in front of them and their leadership knows climate change has human causes and severe negative consequences.
Renewables just happens to be reaching economically advantageous levels nowadays thanks, in large part, to their efforts at expanding the economy-of-scale over the last decade.
I've studied the TPP. That anyone who is in favor of American exceptionalism would be against it is mind-blowing. The U.S. and Japan basically bullied a bunch of smaller but up-and-coming countries to play by Westernized rules with a lot of exceptions that American and Japanese industries don't have to follow those same rules as swiftly (think agriculture, which is exempt from a lot of the TPP tariff reductions).
It basically extends U.S. corporate hegemony to China's doorstep. And before you go all "but but corporations are greedy!" you want American corporations to do well more than you want a Chinese state-sponsored company to do well.
Slashdot Mirror
You're equating combating chain-mail spam with trying to unearth anonymous accounts by private citizens. Seems like a false equivalence to me.
It matches supply with demand. If rents are too high the root problem is there isn't enough housing being built. All of this yelling about "greed" and "rent control" and even worse -- high minimum wage -- are just bandaids that won't solve the root of the problem.
So politicians get to "champion the little guy" with ineffective measures while enjoying their large lots for their own housing and collecting expensive property taxes. But woe be you if you're a developer seeking to build more housing units. Fees and permits alone will scare away all but the most determined (and profit seeking).
But how much time do you save nowadays though. 20 years ago when the Concord ran, you got to the airport 45 min ahead of time with plenty of time to spare.
Today, international travel takes about 3 hours at the airport alone. Let alone the flight. So if we're taking 9 vs 6 hours spent, is it really that big of a difference?
Also, the economics of flying means that fuel efficiency is the primary factor in profitability. So if this thing eats up twice of 3x the fuel as a 787 but earns twice as much per flight, airlines won't be running it.
What would it matter? His business model involves:
1. Revenue
2. Cost
Cost is the development. If he didn't have access to $5 simple CAD design and only had access to CAD contractors who were overqualified but charged $5k, his ROI would not be worth it. He's only making tiny, cheap, simple things to sell to people here.
Just having access to capital through a loan doesn't change the fact that his business revenue doesn't bring in enough $ to justify spending that much on R&D. Lower the cost of R&D and you have a lot more business models who can all of a sudden work now.
That's a load of bull.
Scenario A:
OP can't start his business because he can't hire cheap foreign labor. Foreign students don't get income. OP doesn't have a product and OP doesn't have a company. OP also doesn't spend money because OP has 0 income to spend at said neighborhood restaurant, leaving them with 1 (at least) less client.
Scenario B:
OP makes a product people buy. Foreign students get income. OP gets income. People get something that didn't exist before that (at least to them) improves their lives. OP (and possibly any employees he/she hires locally for more complex work) then has money to spend at neighborhood restaurant.
In every single way scenario B is better. It's also the reason economists tell you that economics is not a zero-sum game. And it's what the "but the furrennrrr" wharbble people don't get.
At least 2/3 of the components in RPi's come from Shenzhen. Not to mention almost all of the R&D work happened because companies could manufacture computers in low-wage conditions and sell-them to make a profit. RPi can't exist in a vacuum. It leverages all of the work the big boys did over the past 3 decades to be so cheap and so affordable.
Uber bleeds money every year. To the tune of a billion. You honestly think that if it were legislated to require all drivers to be full time that it'll just magically be able to?
The alternative isn't every Uber driver being full-time. The alternative is 75% of Uber drivers having 0 income. While the other 25% become what used to be called "cab drivers".
As great as all of these concepts are. Reality is a spectrum. Without any government intervention, you can rest assured the negotiating power will consolidate into a bunch of conglomerates and as much "freedom" as you have will wither away as economic mobility opportunities decrease and labor competition increases.
On the flip side, just trying to legislate good jobs for everyone regardless of talent and/or economic conditions is obviously ridiculous.
Perhaps there's some right amount of government intervention. One that regulates the market so that there's plenty of competition and no conglomeration of powers that can abuse their monopolistic position. One that also provides some sort of basic safety net so that no citizen has to go into desperation-mode. And one that provides ample opportunities for self-improvement to all citizens.
Set those bounds to the free market and then let it do its thing.
Will it pass though? We didn't exactly elect a free-trade, free-market dude. In many ways he's more populist and heavy-handed-Fed-intervention than Obama ever was.
Actually, most of these gig companies aren't profitable. Even their CEO's are "rich" only in that they have a percentage of the theoretical value of their company.
This is the natural state of things. The alternative isn't Uber pays all its drivers full-time minimum wage with benefits or pays them part-time. The alternative is Uber doesn't exist and those people have 0 income.
I don't like the working conditions of the "gig economy". And I'm more than horrified at the glorification of it. Much like fast food work, it should be something to strive out of, not be in.
Speed of electrons or even light isn't the problem. It's the capacitance. The destination transistor feels the voltage change at the speed of light, but it doesn't change its own stored charge fast enough to register a "0" or "1". This has much more to do with intrinsic resistance of the material locally than how far the signal has to travel.
The problem is that a material that's a semiconductor will typically straddle some range between conductance and resistance (by definition). So conductance is hard to increase without impacting the resistive "mode" it needs to be set in. This is the problem with graphene and carbon nanotubes. They're really conductive, but not terribly resistive when we want them to be in the "off" mode.
CPU architect here. I'll try to provide some insight.
Performance for CPU/GPU or any computational tool isn't exactly just a number you hit. It's not like bandwidth for storage or communications nor is it like a battery's capacity.
A CPU and to a lesser extent a GPU is able to perform all sorts (all logical) computational functions. Each of these involves different usage patterns of the different computational paths inside a piece of silicon. And thus, speeding up each of these usage patterns requires different structures.
A single piece of code running something complex like launching an app or opening a webpage will generate hundreds of millions of instructions with lots of different patterns. Think about all those API's you call. How much code do you think is similar between them?
And thus the problem of improving "performance". The goalpost is a shifty one. Speed up one code pattern, and you risk your changes hurting another. Or you can spend extra transistors making a specialized accelerator for that code pattern. But then...it'll be idle 95% of the time.
And if you speed up a particular function by 1000x (it's happened), your average speed increase for a typical benchmark or API call will still be 0-1%. Because that function is only a small piece of the larger codebase.
Think about how many non-similar libraries and functions there are in typical software, and think about how there's any way to speed them *all* up. You can make memcpy or memset (malloc uses these) faster by 5x and that'll speed up javascript processing by....0.01% or so.
The reason "performance" doesn't increase as drastically in the computer world is because computing "performance" is very very multifaceted. Much like how "intelligence" can't just be increased by 5x -- someone can get 5x better at specific tasks, like memorizing or image recognition, but that doesn't make them 5x more "intelligent".
Compare this with a simple metric like 0-60 acceleration or network bandwidth.
Walmart does give a lot of bonuses to employees at around the same level of skill as a typical Yahoo employee...
And comparatively speaking, Walmart is doing great business wise so it's not like the CEO deserves a pay cut for some massive fuck up.
While what you're saying is true. There is an actual issue with the current form of H1-B reform. That is to say *all* job positions regardless of talent level must consider "Americans first" in a vague way. That ambiguity is what's troubling and what leads to a lot of potential problems as it's left to the executive branch to enforce and interpret.
Let's say you have a dire need for data scientists and good ones. POTUS can now have his agencies force you to hire less talented people instead of those more talented from abroad, or ones who are here in the US as students who are seeking jobs.
So while we do need to address the issue of H1-B farms, the current proposed solution is kludgy, ill-defined, knee-jerk and probably won't have the desired effect...which is kinda inline with all things Trump.
Because many recognize that just one number like "50k jobs" isn't the only number that matters. How much is the State giving away in freebies of taxpayer money to subsidize these jobs? How permanent are these jobs? If it's a large subsidy for temporary (like construction) jobs which will dry up long before the return-on-investment has been reached, the State would be better off just hiring these workers themselves to do something more long-lasting instead of having Foxconn skim off the top, make a killing in profit with very little cost, only to layoff these workers in a few years.
The problem with Trump and most of his campaign is that he's promising a quick, easy solution to a difficult problem: how do American workers stay competitive in a stage of increasingly easier global shipments? This is yet another example of something that feels good in the short term but can be a terrible deal in the long term.
Not students. People who graduated from a US University. For instance someone who came to grad school (or undergrad) and just graduated and is looking for a job.
From the article, it doesn't sound like the fix was to turn on page caching. There was some bug caused by turning off caching that was fixed. What that is....idk. I can only imagine some guy coded a spinloop wrong.
They've added approximately 150k jobs over the past 4 years. So this is quite an acceleration.
According to Glassdoor:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Sala...
~240k
So Cook gets ~37X what a seasoned engineer gets. That's relatively low compared to most large companies. In fact, ~9M/year is damn low. Marissa did little for Yahoo other than spend other people's money to buy failed ideas and she still got roughly 20M/year.
Apple didn't exactly make 0 money that year. They made less than expected, his total comp got reduced (by about ~1M, or 10%).
If their revenues dropped by 10%, he'd probably be out on his ass.
Renewables aren't quite (but will very soon be) more profitable than coal/oil in terms of cost/MW. China has been dumping money into solar/wind/nuclear for almost a decade now, long before it was even remotely economical. They play the long game because their population is tired of being able to only see 2 feet in front of them and their leadership knows climate change has human causes and severe negative consequences.
Renewables just happens to be reaching economically advantageous levels nowadays thanks, in large part, to their efforts at expanding the economy-of-scale over the last decade.
Hell must've frozen over. Next thing you'll tell me a reality TV star became President....
Alternatively, American car companies would no longer be complacent and actually innovate to produce competitive cars.
I thought the Republicans were supposed to represent free markets. Yet because the TPP got proposed under Obama they're foaming at the teeth about it.
I don't see anyone complaining about the more moderate positions. I see people shadenfreuding over people who voted Trump.
He's turning out to be a decent Democratic President.
I've studied the TPP. That anyone who is in favor of American exceptionalism would be against it is mind-blowing. The U.S. and Japan basically bullied a bunch of smaller but up-and-coming countries to play by Westernized rules with a lot of exceptions that American and Japanese industries don't have to follow those same rules as swiftly (think agriculture, which is exempt from a lot of the TPP tariff reductions).
It basically extends U.S. corporate hegemony to China's doorstep. And before you go all "but but corporations are greedy!" you want American corporations to do well more than you want a Chinese state-sponsored company to do well.