My TED Talk would be about literally how easy it would be for the US and Canada to meet and exceed the Paris Accords, achieving 100 percent Renewable Power for electricity by 2025, removing all fossil fuel infrastructure depreciation, deductions, and exclusions, and literally MAKE MONEY and save US and Canadian taxpayers money by doing it.
Step by step.
I'd like to thank Capilano University and the University of Washington for the scientific, business, and economic education that made that possible, of course. And another alumnus for getting me started on this path when she made me realize why paper recycling programs weren't doing well - by bringing it back to supply and demand, and allowing me to see a lot of what drives this is literally capital formation and assumptions of risk by the public for actions that cause damage to us.
technically, Colorado has higher mountains than BC does, even if they're part of the same mountain chain, so it's all the extra emissions from Colorado flowing downhill to Canada, eh?
Everyone at the top level always makes exceptions for themselves, which open vulnerabilities that can easily be leveraged, and they're also the most vulnerable to social engineering attacks.
You're assuming all market players have perfect information at all times and value time and money in equivalent ways. Economic studies show this not to be the case.
Corralory: if an average item in Whole Foods has a markup of 400 percent, an item which only has a markup of 10 percent could be viewed as a loss leader, if the consumer is basically too lazy to go to other stores in locations not deemed esthetically and ecologically pleasing. The perception of bargain is site and time dependent. Consumers are not free agents at all, but can be easily manipulated via their own perceptions of valuation.
Am I saving anything by buying bubble tea for $5 at the local ShareTea on NE 45th, when I could easily purchase the ingredients and make my own in the office or at home, for about 1/10th the total cost? But if I value the esthetic of walking to the location, buying an individualized drink each time, socializing with my highly educated and thereby desireable peers, and consuming the status symbol drink in public, while displaying my overpriced Apple iPhone, signaling to potential rivals and mates that I am a high status individual, it might be worth $5 to me.
Each shopper is attracted to a chain by a complex mix of valuations. To you it makes no sense to spend $200 on buying groceries, whereas I may realize spending $200 saves me time and effort and is only 2 hours work to pay for, plus it stokes my social and economic value signals. Plus you probably waste that much on high priced vodka, when I realize all vodka is pretty much the same, and thus I end up with spending less and getting more value.
They're loss leaders in that chain, not as an objective whole. I can literally go to six stores in Seattle that sell produce far cheaper, and yes, they do tend to be Asian stores. Examples are at NE 65th and University Way, NW 65th and 15th, one near the VA hospital, two in the international district.
The question is, are they loss leaders in the sub area (e.g. stores near the Whole Foods, which are in Magnolia (wealthy neighborhood), South Lake Union (wealthy neighborhood). If they are, they may attract people nearby who then won't bother driving to Southcenter to get cheaper goods, or go to Costco.
I frequently find even QFC (which tends to be more upmarket) to have specials on meats that are lower than even Safeway.
Slashdot Mirror
Every time I buy an iPhone, they migrate all the data for you from your old phone.
So doing it for the Mac computers isn't really that much of a deal.
If China bans bitcoin mining, how will they then prop up North Korea?
They don't comply with GPDR.
At all.
How To Serve Man
(a recipe epub)
It's 2019, not 1979. Renewables are much cheaper than fossil fuels.
My TED Talk would be about literally how easy it would be for the US and Canada to meet and exceed the Paris Accords, achieving 100 percent Renewable Power for electricity by 2025, removing all fossil fuel infrastructure depreciation, deductions, and exclusions, and literally MAKE MONEY and save US and Canadian taxpayers money by doing it.
Step by step.
I'd like to thank Capilano University and the University of Washington for the scientific, business, and economic education that made that possible, of course. And another alumnus for getting me started on this path when she made me realize why paper recycling programs weren't doing well - by bringing it back to supply and demand, and allowing me to see a lot of what drives this is literally capital formation and assumptions of risk by the public for actions that cause damage to us.
They even let corporations redline rentals and other things that are expressly illegal in various states.
Breaking up is something that just needs to happen.
Or we could go Australia and jail their senior execs for a few years.
News flash: China hacks Amazon air squadrons in unprovoked attack on major American cities, millions killed.
Just break them up and stop letting them promote Nazis on their sites.
Open the pipeline bay doors, HAL!
P.S.: WA,OR,CA already have Net Neutrality by law, this is just if we want to talk to the rest of you.
Everything is awesome if you act predictably and never make waves.
In other words, don't be an American.
I call it a hate group.
Apples and oranges.
This is why Alaska was so warm this winter. And a lot of the Arctic ocean was not covered in ice.
technically, Colorado has higher mountains than BC does, even if they're part of the same mountain chain, so it's all the extra emissions from Colorado flowing downhill to Canada, eh?
Canada has to do it twice: once in English with extra u's and once in French with extra accents.
You realize when they move home they'll be old and claim CPP and OAS and will be a drain on the economy, eh?
(caveat: me too)
That's like a summer day. I love how trolls forget that Canada has been metric for longer than they've been alive.
It's not like Canada's vast arboreal forests will burn, it's frozen methane locked soils will release massive GHG emissions, and ...
oh
wait
You're saying they have 85 percent of the world's fresh water supplies?
Ooops.
Everyone at the top level always makes exceptions for themselves, which open vulnerabilities that can easily be leveraged, and they're also the most vulnerable to social engineering attacks.
It's time to admit that not having charters for corporations is a bad thing.
So you treat going to the grocery store as an exercise in semantics?
And not as an exercise in relative economics?
Hmm, no wonder Whole Foods is taking everyone's paychecks ...
You're assuming all market players have perfect information at all times and value time and money in equivalent ways. Economic studies show this not to be the case.
The routing choices all work out about the same, actually.
Corralory: if an average item in Whole Foods has a markup of 400 percent, an item which only has a markup of 10 percent could be viewed as a loss leader, if the consumer is basically too lazy to go to other stores in locations not deemed esthetically and ecologically pleasing. The perception of bargain is site and time dependent. Consumers are not free agents at all, but can be easily manipulated via their own perceptions of valuation.
Am I saving anything by buying bubble tea for $5 at the local ShareTea on NE 45th, when I could easily purchase the ingredients and make my own in the office or at home, for about 1/10th the total cost? But if I value the esthetic of walking to the location, buying an individualized drink each time, socializing with my highly educated and thereby desireable peers, and consuming the status symbol drink in public, while displaying my overpriced Apple iPhone, signaling to potential rivals and mates that I am a high status individual, it might be worth $5 to me.
Each shopper is attracted to a chain by a complex mix of valuations. To you it makes no sense to spend $200 on buying groceries, whereas I may realize spending $200 saves me time and effort and is only 2 hours work to pay for, plus it stokes my social and economic value signals. Plus you probably waste that much on high priced vodka, when I realize all vodka is pretty much the same, and thus I end up with spending less and getting more value.
They're loss leaders in that chain, not as an objective whole. I can literally go to six stores in Seattle that sell produce far cheaper, and yes, they do tend to be Asian stores. Examples are at NE 65th and University Way, NW 65th and 15th, one near the VA hospital, two in the international district.
The question is, are they loss leaders in the sub area (e.g. stores near the Whole Foods, which are in Magnolia (wealthy neighborhood), South Lake Union (wealthy neighborhood). If they are, they may attract people nearby who then won't bother driving to Southcenter to get cheaper goods, or go to Costco.
I frequently find even QFC (which tends to be more upmarket) to have specials on meats that are lower than even Safeway.