first major assumption is that a family pays $500/month to lease
This concept you will find across the entire housing and automobile industry. I find it absolutely idiotic that the industry thinks this way and people kind of fall for it. No one cares about the TCO. So many times I been given and seen the "Its just $25 more per month. That's well within your affordability." And if the rate is too high, "A lease will be really good in bringing that monthly payment down.".
NO one likes to talk about the total cost and the actual "monthly affordability" seems too complex for people (failings of basic education). Monthly affordability should take into consideration things like "retirement funding", "living expenses", "annual vacation", "taxes", etc.
The last dealership guy couldn't understand why I was haggling about $10 per month. Because the total cost was $500 above what we discussed on the phone! If its so little, why isn't he just dropping it?
Yup. I don't expect to have true autonomous vehicles till 2025. And I suspect only for highly repeated, well known/mapped, and simple routes. I don't think we will see autonomous vehicles being as common as backup cameras till 2035. Heck half of 2017's sedan's and SUVs across the vendors didn't have good UIs nor integrated their touch screens properly. They were all designed old school with physical buttons for everything as if the customer may opt out of the screen.
Also to add, self driving cars will not be that much more expensive. The hardware isn't that complicated and most of it is in software. Software is a write once and use many times type of thing. Unlike hardware parts, you don't need to do expensive QA on each and every instance of an installation. Even if software development is 3x hardware development, there is negligible manufacturing, deployment, & installation costs.
The feature will cost what the market is willing to pay. To amortize the development & investment costs, it needs to have mass deployment. Thus, in less than 5 years, the price will be affordable by the general market, probably a 10-20% of the vehicle's MSRP ($3k-$10k). Worst case, another year on a 5 year car load.
Having done tax defense (a little bit like legal), programming, and financial work; sorry you are way off. Finance was the hardest one to do. Far too much stress with way too many highs and drops. Burn out happens very fast some days. Legal gets really hard to keep an idea straight figuring out what precedent is in scope.
As for "creativity" in programming. There isn't much. Most problems have already been solved and that is the bulk of the work. Yes there is still creativity that sets this solution apart from the others. But I see more creativity in essays, and poems.
I am sure there is a lot of details missing in the article and more so in the post and the conclusion is probably exaggerated from what the scientists concluded (Seems interesting to do further testing.).
The test was far too simple and sample far too small; almost useless in application to any general population group. The factors surrounding crime isn't this simple. The brain isn't this simple. Psychologically testing, addressing the root cause, and rehabilitation should be the direction we should choose. Pills, shock collars, and big brother aren't solutions.... they are just ineffective & simple placebos that cause more harm than good.
BTW, the answer to this question is and pretty much always has been "NO".
Tesla isn't at that maturity point yet. It's still a new business getting to full steam compared to traditional car makers. Even if many drop out of the preorder, there is still a pretty good demand gap that the primary concern is not being able to fulfill orders will result in lack of working capital. Secondary concern is that delayed deliveries will result in cancelled orders; no cash flow, no working capital.
I have seen it on both sides. It's not "foreigners". It's the type of person who has come over. Most of those are well educated or at least well bought up on honor and service (contrary to what many think).
But go oversees and see how foreman basically have to hire every morning for that days construction assignment. They don't expect the same person to come back more than a few days straight. They are so used to it that they are happy just getting the head count for the job.
Similar in call centers/factory workers. People don't "resign", they just go work for the company up or down stairs. This is after they received training and signed/contracted to stay a year or two at the current employer. Because of the training, the other companies are willing to pay more.
Move up to IT off shore teams. I have seen teams do all kinds of damage control for missing members. They will login as the employee, do bare minimum work to meet requirements (push it to testing and rework), spread the work to an on bench person whom you didn't onboard, etc. Eventually after they replaced the position, 2-3 months later they will tell you he left and request onboarding the replacement. Through back channels you find out he just stopped coming and went to a company across the street. Better pay or boss.
This is primarily because those companies treat their employees worse. But overall, domestically US employees are much better than domestic employees in many other countries.
But the old adage is true: Treat others like you want to be treated.
This fee is to recoup their internal costs of complying with regulations. It isn't a direct cost from regulations. As long as you accept that it's the governments fault, they have no reason to improve their cost structure.
Why should we as a consumer whose price reflects our demand & product supply; not the business's internal costs care about customs costs, transportation costs, retail shelf rental cost, website maintenance cost, etc? This is no different.
This sector like many others (ie: restaurant) has certain regulations. That's the cost of doing business. They should not get to pull it out as "not us; we are just middlemen" on anything that isn't a direct tax or fee from the government or charity or whatever; payments that do not go to the vendor.
Noooo. It was a guy! What would a woman who cooked and gathered berries have need for a wheel? It was the MEN that labored all day, rain or shine, cold or hot, to the tops of hills to roll stones down. The stone that rolled furthest was the king of the hill for that day and an aspiration to the youth.
There is nothing that prevents our armed forces from buying USA steel only. Even if it means they pay extra. Even if it means they need to float the industry.
Oh wait, that's pretty much what they do today; before the tariffs. Pretty much every federally funded agency has directives to buy Made in USA. Even if it costs more. Heck the IT consulting firms aren't even allowed to have off shore teams working on certain projects at some agencies!
Even the states do this all the time. They only buy locally and set up the bidding requirements as such.
Also, the US domestically produced more steel and aluminum than the armed forces can ever buy. For that market there is actually over production.
If anything the tariffs hurt downstream US businesses and makes it more expensive for the tax payers when those same armed forces buy spoons, knives, belts, etc. Now they are using more money to prop up more businesses than before.
You know that each of the real estate agents make 2x that on a $400k home sale? That's on top of the other "transaction charges" in buying a home and getting financed.
$5k works out to less than a $1 a day including the interest on a 15 year loan.
What century were you born? The only thing we have that is more energy efficient than a battery is a capacitor. Batteries are in the 90+% range. Efficiency isn't the complaint about batteries. It's the weight and that's mostly it. Even the general grid is more inefficient.
A battery that can smooth out the energy demand of the grid over a week would be far more efficient than turning off and on on-demand inefficient plants. Of course at this time, on a macro level, a massive battery is a very very expensive investment. And that is the problem with batteries.
But the nice thing about batteries is that they can be scaled down while maintaining most of their efficiency. You can build a distributed network of batteries that are co-connected with the variances in demand; shielding the general grid from some of that variance. That way the general grid can run more efficiently.
About a year ago, I got a car with a fob. I actually like it better than a key.
It won't let me lock the car from the door handle button if the fob is inside. It will allow me to lock the car with it still running but beeps a warning. It won't start without the fob in the front seats.
The single door handle & step lights go on if I get close while it is parked. The door unlocks with the handle button. All doors unlock and step lights turn on for all if double pushed. The hatch opens if the fob is behind it but not too close.
There is a key if battery goes out. The car still starts because of the chip. The only thing I miss is turning the engine off but keep acc on to power somethings. For that it's an off followed by 2 Start button pushes. Nice additional feature would be to turn the engine off remotely if parked or set to. Get the kids out and then turn off the car. Rather than off and have all slowly pile out as it warms up.
No, it isn't. In the garbage case, the government can search your garbage without a warranty. However, they can't do it every single day for a year and aggregate data upon just you to use in a case. That would still require a warrant (Gorsuch actually uses garbage as an example that legally is vague but realistically isn't. An owner would interject if you were to go through his garbage... thus some sort of privacy is expected).
The current case is resting on two foundation cases. Very oversimplifying, but one says a general expectation of privacy means a warrant and the other says if you hand it over to a 3rd party, no warrant necessary. The majority basically said that "expectation of privacy goes up the longer you are tracked" and thus get a warrant.
Gorsuch didn't like that these cases were the foundations and that the guidance to the future was left vague such that different judges could come to different conclusions. He felt there were better foundations to base this on. But that the courts are not responsible for these types of "guessing" and it should be done by Congress. He feels that Congress should enact laws that draw clear lines and where none exist, the courts should not be drawing them because each judge could draw differently. He felt that the court should have set precedent to rely on more foundation aspects of privacy & ownership that the founders relied upon to determine that a warrant would be needed here.
But I think Congress can never keep up with the changing world. And until Congress catches up or corrects a ruling, the Courts are all we have to limit the damage to innocent people. The courts should "decide" to lean conservatively toward the defendant's best interest rather than the government's or plaintiff's. They should require a warrant if it will used to judge someone guilty; unless clearly stated in law that it isn't required. And if it is very vague, then an appeal for final decision at the SC is what is needed. TILL Congress gets their act together on the topic.
It's unsurprising that they used the word "security" in their product just like everyone else with an open AWS machine.
Whether it is secure or not is yet to be seen. At least you can't remotely drive the cars. Else someone will design a game where you drive a car onto a boat. And we get a few million cars stolen one night.
Honestly, more companies SHOULD operate similar to this.
Once you "fire" someone or their contract ends they should be removed from all systems as soon as possible. And managers/IT/HR shouldn't just be able to turn the access they need back on. There are a lot of backend things like payroll, insurance, regulations, org structure, etc that also need to be resynced and some of it is expensive.
The only real problems I saw with the story was that HR didn't accompany security and held an exit interview with the person. The individual wasn't notified in writing or in person just while losing access. It took the new manager that long to find out what happened.
Mostly it shows that the human components were not well trained in the automated processes.
Many economists consider Medicare for all to be sound economics. It is a broad debate with very few people on the "Everyone gets everything" and "Everyone on their own" wings. Few consider the current system of corporations based risk pools to be a good balance. Most settle on some sort of safety net. The debate is around where that net starts.
It is extremely beneficial for individuals to not worry about the financial burden of health issues (especially in the overpriced US). It frees up massive amounts of financial and labor capital that can be invested in various parts of the economy. It also brings up the most vulnerable and poorest members of society to a more equal footing and thus allows greater contribution from them.
The costs are negligible when you consider the spends on our global police force or ongoing domestic & foreign wars or various industrial subsidies or even food donations we give globally.
Won't repeat what Maury said but add. People also forget that solar fits very well into our current logistics and supply chain systems. Which is a HUGE resource and cost savings.
You can centrally make panel parts and easily ship them anywhere. They can be assembled on site and incrementally built up. The system scales quickly and linearly from almost nothing to giga level with basically similar logistics & suppliers.
A new factory making panel parts adds to the already producing factories. This gives you flexibility to source from various vendors.
Compare this to wind that need local or onsite precision assembly. With complex logistics planning. With few large factories pumping out gigasized parts. And you need to plan and forecast the energy supply and demand for a range of years given a suitable site.
Solar just beats the others because of its ability to scale and quickly get economies of such at almost every single stage of its process. Oil does this kind of too, but the system was designed for it. Not the other way around.
One, electricity is just one aspect of the barrel of oil sector. There are many other economic uses of oil. The gradual down trend of oil demand will give plenty of time to divest to their replacements. Assuming the other uses don't pick up the slack due to price depression (historically this is what happened).
Two, public's retirement funds are very regulated, at least in the US. They are only to be used in specific risk categories. No firm wants to risk an Enron level fiasco with retirement like accounts. Most are well insured and hedged against major losses. As the risk of oil securities rises (we aren't nearly anywhere close to this; maybe another 10 years), slowly these types of funds move out to safer pastures.
Three, in large movements, as a general economy, there is no such thing as "wiping out x dollars". There are winners and losers with a small transaction loss. The drop in value of the specific sector primarily frees up capital to be used elsewhere.
What you are talking about already exists in various sectors in a much more progressed state. Example: very large ships. There are so many large ships running around right now, another downturn in the global economy will kill many off. Capacity is so high and prices so low that they need the global economy to grow much bigger than it is now.
Oil maybe the blood of the economy, but these are the arteries. Yet you and I see no doom and gloom in our horizon with them teetering on the edge of oblivion.
I didn't mean it in a 3D context. I purely meant it in a 2D greater than and less than context. You still need two colors to create this relationship of greater (background) and less (foreground). No one looks at a solid painted wall and say the background is "white". Until you start adding a pattern on it. Inverse the pattern and people will think the background is the pattern.
But bees have better visual processing than humans. They do have depth perception, see a broader spread of the spectrum, and have a much higher refresh rate (one of the highest in the world; a little after flies). For them a field of flowers in the wind isn't a moving ocean of yellow. It's individual flowers slowly swaying with their own individual frequencies.
That would still count as zero recognition. If it's going after more of the background. Background is a concept in itself. It needs something in the foreground to define it. Else the bees would hover toward any similar color at various distances in the general environment.
But zero means no foreground color. Nothing to define the background. So normally the bee should be confused or gravitate toward the single "option". If they trained the bee with zero, then that's leaves it kind of open. But they didn't. They trained it with two colors where one had less. There was always two options with both colors. Then the bee recognized zero which it was never trained for... thus it was already knowledge it had.
But that would be worse for the planet. There are many scenarios where the resources expended to "fix" something has a higher environmental cost than to just dispose of it. Heck the QA needed to determine when this is so adds to that environmental cost.
If you had a steady stream of the same defective phone; like at the factory, sure it makes sense to review and fix them (more like fix the manufacturing process). But in this situation, the defect line is giving you a flat screen, followed by furniture, cellphone, shirt, etc. There is no environmentally friendly way to sort, rate, and breakdown or resell these things. You don't have the volume to come up with an efficient process.
When people say "Its NOT about the money", it usually implies "not about making more money". That's fine. But in another way, Money is the best metric we have to measure cost. Its not ideal, but its better than anything else we have. A toothbrush costing $1 encompasses the sum total of all human labor involved in producing that toothbrush and getting it to you. To add labor on top of that; someone needs to support it by paying that price and society won't.
Now, I am not say Amazon nor regulations shouldn't do anything. Some products are just bad for the environment and shouldn't be made. Take one time use plastic straws. Throwing them away is a negative environmental value, and recycling them is a bigger negative value. In which case... just don't make them; ban them.
Slashdot Mirror
first major assumption is that a family pays $500/month to lease
This concept you will find across the entire housing and automobile industry. I find it absolutely idiotic that the industry thinks this way and people kind of fall for it. No one cares about the TCO. So many times I been given and seen the "Its just $25 more per month. That's well within your affordability." And if the rate is too high, "A lease will be really good in bringing that monthly payment down.".
NO one likes to talk about the total cost and the actual "monthly affordability" seems too complex for people (failings of basic education). Monthly affordability should take into consideration things like "retirement funding", "living expenses", "annual vacation", "taxes", etc.
The last dealership guy couldn't understand why I was haggling about $10 per month. Because the total cost was $500 above what we discussed on the phone! If its so little, why isn't he just dropping it?
Yup. I don't expect to have true autonomous vehicles till 2025. And I suspect only for highly repeated, well known/mapped, and simple routes. I don't think we will see autonomous vehicles being as common as backup cameras till 2035. Heck half of 2017's sedan's and SUVs across the vendors didn't have good UIs nor integrated their touch screens properly. They were all designed old school with physical buttons for everything as if the customer may opt out of the screen.
Also to add, self driving cars will not be that much more expensive. The hardware isn't that complicated and most of it is in software. Software is a write once and use many times type of thing. Unlike hardware parts, you don't need to do expensive QA on each and every instance of an installation. Even if software development is 3x hardware development, there is negligible manufacturing, deployment, & installation costs.
The feature will cost what the market is willing to pay. To amortize the development & investment costs, it needs to have mass deployment. Thus, in less than 5 years, the price will be affordable by the general market, probably a 10-20% of the vehicle's MSRP ($3k-$10k). Worst case, another year on a 5 year car load.
Having done tax defense (a little bit like legal), programming, and financial work; sorry you are way off. Finance was the hardest one to do. Far too much stress with way too many highs and drops. Burn out happens very fast some days. Legal gets really hard to keep an idea straight figuring out what precedent is in scope.
As for "creativity" in programming. There isn't much. Most problems have already been solved and that is the bulk of the work. Yes there is still creativity that sets this solution apart from the others. But I see more creativity in essays, and poems.
I am sure there is a lot of details missing in the article and more so in the post and the conclusion is probably exaggerated from what the scientists concluded (Seems interesting to do further testing.).
The test was far too simple and sample far too small; almost useless in application to any general population group. The factors surrounding crime isn't this simple. The brain isn't this simple. Psychologically testing, addressing the root cause, and rehabilitation should be the direction we should choose. Pills, shock collars, and big brother aren't solutions.... they are just ineffective & simple placebos that cause more harm than good.
BTW, the answer to this question is and pretty much always has been "NO".
Tesla isn't at that maturity point yet. It's still a new business getting to full steam compared to traditional car makers. Even if many drop out of the preorder, there is still a pretty good demand gap that the primary concern is not being able to fulfill orders will result in lack of working capital. Secondary concern is that delayed deliveries will result in cancelled orders; no cash flow, no working capital.
I have seen it on both sides. It's not "foreigners". It's the type of person who has come over. Most of those are well educated or at least well bought up on honor and service (contrary to what many think).
But go oversees and see how foreman basically have to hire every morning for that days construction assignment. They don't expect the same person to come back more than a few days straight. They are so used to it that they are happy just getting the head count for the job.
Similar in call centers/factory workers. People don't "resign", they just go work for the company up or down stairs. This is after they received training and signed/contracted to stay a year or two at the current employer. Because of the training, the other companies are willing to pay more.
Move up to IT off shore teams. I have seen teams do all kinds of damage control for missing members. They will login as the employee, do bare minimum work to meet requirements (push it to testing and rework), spread the work to an on bench person whom you didn't onboard, etc. Eventually after they replaced the position, 2-3 months later they will tell you he left and request onboarding the replacement. Through back channels you find out he just stopped coming and went to a company across the street. Better pay or boss.
This is primarily because those companies treat their employees worse. But overall, domestically US employees are much better than domestic employees in many other countries.
But the old adage is true: Treat others like you want to be treated.
This fee is to recoup their internal costs of complying with regulations. It isn't a direct cost from regulations. As long as you accept that it's the governments fault, they have no reason to improve their cost structure.
Why should we as a consumer whose price reflects our demand & product supply; not the business's internal costs care about customs costs, transportation costs, retail shelf rental cost, website maintenance cost, etc? This is no different.
This sector like many others (ie: restaurant) has certain regulations. That's the cost of doing business. They should not get to pull it out as "not us; we are just middlemen" on anything that isn't a direct tax or fee from the government or charity or whatever; payments that do not go to the vendor.
Noooo. It was a guy! What would a woman who cooked and gathered berries have need for a wheel? It was the MEN that labored all day, rain or shine, cold or hot, to the tops of hills to roll stones down. The stone that rolled furthest was the king of the hill for that day and an aspiration to the youth.
There is probably more computing power going through Minix code.
Do we even know the name of the guy who invented the wheel?
There is nothing that prevents our armed forces from buying USA steel only. Even if it means they pay extra. Even if it means they need to float the industry.
Oh wait, that's pretty much what they do today; before the tariffs. Pretty much every federally funded agency has directives to buy Made in USA. Even if it costs more. Heck the IT consulting firms aren't even allowed to have off shore teams working on certain projects at some agencies!
Even the states do this all the time. They only buy locally and set up the bidding requirements as such.
Also, the US domestically produced more steel and aluminum than the armed forces can ever buy. For that market there is actually over production.
If anything the tariffs hurt downstream US businesses and makes it more expensive for the tax payers when those same armed forces buy spoons, knives, belts, etc. Now they are using more money to prop up more businesses than before.
You know that each of the real estate agents make 2x that on a $400k home sale? That's on top of the other "transaction charges" in buying a home and getting financed.
$5k works out to less than a $1 a day including the interest on a 15 year loan.
What century were you born? The only thing we have that is more energy efficient than a battery is a capacitor. Batteries are in the 90+% range. Efficiency isn't the complaint about batteries. It's the weight and that's mostly it. Even the general grid is more inefficient.
A battery that can smooth out the energy demand of the grid over a week would be far more efficient than turning off and on on-demand inefficient plants. Of course at this time, on a macro level, a massive battery is a very very expensive investment. And that is the problem with batteries.
But the nice thing about batteries is that they can be scaled down while maintaining most of their efficiency. You can build a distributed network of batteries that are co-connected with the variances in demand; shielding the general grid from some of that variance. That way the general grid can run more efficiently.
HA loved that response. Made my day!
About a year ago, I got a car with a fob. I actually like it better than a key.
It won't let me lock the car from the door handle button if the fob is inside. It will allow me to lock the car with it still running but beeps a warning. It won't start without the fob in the front seats.
The single door handle & step lights go on if I get close while it is parked. The door unlocks with the handle button. All doors unlock and step lights turn on for all if double pushed. The hatch opens if the fob is behind it but not too close.
There is a key if battery goes out. The car still starts because of the chip. The only thing I miss is turning the engine off but keep acc on to power somethings. For that it's an off followed by 2 Start button pushes. Nice additional feature would be to turn the engine off remotely if parked or set to. Get the kids out and then turn off the car. Rather than off and have all slowly pile out as it warms up.
No, it isn't. In the garbage case, the government can search your garbage without a warranty. However, they can't do it every single day for a year and aggregate data upon just you to use in a case. That would still require a warrant (Gorsuch actually uses garbage as an example that legally is vague but realistically isn't. An owner would interject if you were to go through his garbage... thus some sort of privacy is expected).
The current case is resting on two foundation cases. Very oversimplifying, but one says a general expectation of privacy means a warrant and the other says if you hand it over to a 3rd party, no warrant necessary. The majority basically said that "expectation of privacy goes up the longer you are tracked" and thus get a warrant.
Gorsuch didn't like that these cases were the foundations and that the guidance to the future was left vague such that different judges could come to different conclusions. He felt there were better foundations to base this on. But that the courts are not responsible for these types of "guessing" and it should be done by Congress. He feels that Congress should enact laws that draw clear lines and where none exist, the courts should not be drawing them because each judge could draw differently. He felt that the court should have set precedent to rely on more foundation aspects of privacy & ownership that the founders relied upon to determine that a warrant would be needed here.
But I think Congress can never keep up with the changing world. And until Congress catches up or corrects a ruling, the Courts are all we have to limit the damage to innocent people. The courts should "decide" to lean conservatively toward the defendant's best interest rather than the government's or plaintiff's. They should require a warrant if it will used to judge someone guilty; unless clearly stated in law that it isn't required. And if it is very vague, then an appeal for final decision at the SC is what is needed. TILL Congress gets their act together on the topic.
It's unsurprising that they used the word "security" in their product just like everyone else with an open AWS machine.
Whether it is secure or not is yet to be seen. At least you can't remotely drive the cars. Else someone will design a game where you drive a car onto a boat. And we get a few million cars stolen one night.
Honestly, more companies SHOULD operate similar to this.
Once you "fire" someone or their contract ends they should be removed from all systems as soon as possible. And managers/IT/HR shouldn't just be able to turn the access they need back on. There are a lot of backend things like payroll, insurance, regulations, org structure, etc that also need to be resynced and some of it is expensive.
The only real problems I saw with the story was that HR didn't accompany security and held an exit interview with the person. The individual wasn't notified in writing or in person just while losing access. It took the new manager that long to find out what happened.
Mostly it shows that the human components were not well trained in the automated processes.
Many economists consider Medicare for all to be sound economics. It is a broad debate with very few people on the "Everyone gets everything" and "Everyone on their own" wings. Few consider the current system of corporations based risk pools to be a good balance. Most settle on some sort of safety net. The debate is around where that net starts.
It is extremely beneficial for individuals to not worry about the financial burden of health issues (especially in the overpriced US). It frees up massive amounts of financial and labor capital that can be invested in various parts of the economy. It also brings up the most vulnerable and poorest members of society to a more equal footing and thus allows greater contribution from them.
The costs are negligible when you consider the spends on our global police force or ongoing domestic & foreign wars or various industrial subsidies or even food donations we give globally.
Won't repeat what Maury said but add. People also forget that solar fits very well into our current logistics and supply chain systems. Which is a HUGE resource and cost savings.
You can centrally make panel parts and easily ship them anywhere. They can be assembled on site and incrementally built up. The system scales quickly and linearly from almost nothing to giga level with basically similar logistics & suppliers.
A new factory making panel parts adds to the already producing factories. This gives you flexibility to source from various vendors.
Compare this to wind that need local or onsite precision assembly. With complex logistics planning. With few large factories pumping out gigasized parts. And you need to plan and forecast the energy supply and demand for a range of years given a suitable site.
Solar just beats the others because of its ability to scale and quickly get economies of such at almost every single stage of its process. Oil does this kind of too, but the system was designed for it. Not the other way around.
Not as big of a concern as people think.
One, electricity is just one aspect of the barrel of oil sector. There are many other economic uses of oil. The gradual down trend of oil demand will give plenty of time to divest to their replacements. Assuming the other uses don't pick up the slack due to price depression (historically this is what happened).
Two, public's retirement funds are very regulated, at least in the US. They are only to be used in specific risk categories. No firm wants to risk an Enron level fiasco with retirement like accounts. Most are well insured and hedged against major losses. As the risk of oil securities rises (we aren't nearly anywhere close to this; maybe another 10 years), slowly these types of funds move out to safer pastures.
Three, in large movements, as a general economy, there is no such thing as "wiping out x dollars". There are winners and losers with a small transaction loss. The drop in value of the specific sector primarily frees up capital to be used elsewhere.
What you are talking about already exists in various sectors in a much more progressed state. Example: very large ships. There are so many large ships running around right now, another downturn in the global economy will kill many off. Capacity is so high and prices so low that they need the global economy to grow much bigger than it is now.
Oil maybe the blood of the economy, but these are the arteries. Yet you and I see no doom and gloom in our horizon with them teetering on the edge of oblivion.
I didn't mean it in a 3D context. I purely meant it in a 2D greater than and less than context. You still need two colors to create this relationship of greater (background) and less (foreground). No one looks at a solid painted wall and say the background is "white". Until you start adding a pattern on it. Inverse the pattern and people will think the background is the pattern.
But bees have better visual processing than humans. They do have depth perception, see a broader spread of the spectrum, and have a much higher refresh rate (one of the highest in the world; a little after flies). For them a field of flowers in the wind isn't a moving ocean of yellow. It's individual flowers slowly swaying with their own individual frequencies.
That would still count as zero recognition. If it's going after more of the background. Background is a concept in itself. It needs something in the foreground to define it. Else the bees would hover toward any similar color at various distances in the general environment.
But zero means no foreground color. Nothing to define the background. So normally the bee should be confused or gravitate toward the single "option". If they trained the bee with zero, then that's leaves it kind of open. But they didn't. They trained it with two colors where one had less. There was always two options with both colors. Then the bee recognized zero which it was never trained for... thus it was already knowledge it had.
But that would be worse for the planet. There are many scenarios where the resources expended to "fix" something has a higher environmental cost than to just dispose of it. Heck the QA needed to determine when this is so adds to that environmental cost.
If you had a steady stream of the same defective phone; like at the factory, sure it makes sense to review and fix them (more like fix the manufacturing process). But in this situation, the defect line is giving you a flat screen, followed by furniture, cellphone, shirt, etc. There is no environmentally friendly way to sort, rate, and breakdown or resell these things. You don't have the volume to come up with an efficient process.
When people say "Its NOT about the money", it usually implies "not about making more money". That's fine. But in another way, Money is the best metric we have to measure cost. Its not ideal, but its better than anything else we have. A toothbrush costing $1 encompasses the sum total of all human labor involved in producing that toothbrush and getting it to you. To add labor on top of that; someone needs to support it by paying that price and society won't.
Now, I am not say Amazon nor regulations shouldn't do anything. Some products are just bad for the environment and shouldn't be made. Take one time use plastic straws. Throwing them away is a negative environmental value, and recycling them is a bigger negative value. In which case... just don't make them; ban them.