Great question. As an American, I find going to the gym/exercising alone boring.
I try to get my exercise with a group of people friends. Often this isn't possible. But I've got several activities in my life that I do with a group of people and often those people become close friends.
For example, I know many people who are close to those in their yoga group. Or beach volleyball group. I like to hike or do outdoor activities with friends. Basically anything that gets your heart rate up, with a group of people, allows you to build friendship + social connections and not be bored while exercising.
Can we only title things like this a sub-critical test
I realize the hacker news headline accurately reproduces the incredibly dangerous and clickbaity Fox news headline. But it's incredibly misleading. Even if Fox News won't do better - can we? So then the title would appear:
"US conducts [Subcritical] nuclear test in Nevada hours after Russian move to revoke test ban (foxnews.com)"
Unless someone has more details, "Subcritical" is being generous:
Wednesday's test used chemicals and radioisotopes to "validate new predictive explosion models" that can help detect atomic blasts in other countries, Bloomberg reported, citing the Department of Energy.
Conventional explosives, some radioactive tracers mixed in, and see what can be detected above ground? To improve understanding of how an actual nuclear blast elsewhere may be detected? (say, apart from seismic data or other sources). Or something like that.
In short: not a nuclear blast in any way, shape or form. Fox title is clickbait fluff.
I would not call it clickbait. "nuclear test" is a term that has a specific meaning, and it seems that most people would read the headline as meaning that the US has set off a nuclear (fission or fusion) bomb, unless I am completely reading it wrong.
I would consider the headline to be disinformation.
Your goals are easy to achieve (independent of the state of tech) - they simply require us to make it fast, easy, and legal to build housing if you want to :)
The issues is car's can't drive in the mud. When it rains, in less than 10 feet, your cars tires will be 50 submerged. So you can't even make it 100 ft, much less to the paved road to Gerlach.
The article is really confusing, in that it first says these corporates have 'agreed to this valuation' (is leaking that even legal?).
But then we learn the investment amounts, "Apple, Nvidia and the other strategic investors have agreed to invest between $25 million and $100 million each in the blockbuster IPO, the sources said." Which seems tiny for a $50-$55B deal. Each of those companies could invest billions if they wanted to...
This really reads like a set of leaks from Softbank to drum up interest in the deal. But I still fear ARM's lacking a corporate strategy (& deep cash reserves to continue to invest) post IPO. I have to imagine most of ARMs customers are spending far more on chip R&D than ARM itself.
Nvidia purchasing ARM would have provided both huge investment, and roadmap clarity - though a roadmap most synergistic to buying a ton of Nvidia products too.
Respectfully, and this is a very personal decision, I see it the opposite way that you do.
Our ability to counteract, or reverse, climate change will be directly related to the vitality and economic power of future civilization. So if you have lots of children, in a thriving society, then humanity will be more able to reverse climate change than it is today.
As data, consider that US emissions have already peaked. And "The proposed wind, solar and battery projects seeking interconnection to U.S. transmission grids today are enough to bring the country to 80 percent carbon-free electricity by 2030."[1]
Certainly we are a long, long way from making total global emissions negative. But we can give our children the tools they need to completely reverse climate change. And if there're in a healthy and thriving society they're likely to solve the problem that we have caused.
The slope of US emissions is already in the right direction - I can't wait for the total amount to go negative!
Respectfully - all of these "issues" get solved when you go from ~1%->100% market share.
100x increases in manufacturing volumes will do amazing things for final cost. Expanded market share to 100% will lead to every features imaginable being offered to the market.
Ending gas stoves, and gas distribution in general, is a huge win. Just as phasing out incandescent light bulbs was a huge win. Each "infrastructure grid" that we run to every building (Electricity, Water/Sewer, Roads, IT, natural gas) is overwhelmingly expensive to build and maintain. And if you don't maintain it - you blow up San Bruno[1]. It would be great to delete one!
Agreed. I was shocked at the cost of an induction stove top in the US when I looked recently. £350 buys you a great induction stove top in the UK (I paid less for a neff nN50 just before COVID). $1000 only just buys you an entry level one on the US.
The problem is we are not at a high market share (in the US), and it will be a while before they gain.
I hate my current stove, but no way am I paying the cost for a new one. I also have vacations and other things I want. (As a programmer my income is well above average, so I have to assume the costs are only more prohibitive for most people)
72M people in New York would be AMAZING for many reasons. Each person living there would have higher productivity than they have today. Which means they'd take home more income, and spend less on rent, (if zoning restrictions were removed) than they do today.
Cities have an incredible property in that they have "increasing returns to scale" - they make their residents more productive the larger they grow. [1] A 72M person NYC would be the most productive city in human history.
Now that may require the city government to improve the productivity of trash collection, and the subway - but those are great things to improve! And such a city may not be efficiently served by cars - so bring on the electric bikes!
Every day that a 72M person NYC does not exist, is a day that roughly 72M people are being robbed of the life they could have. Please recognize that denying the efficiencies of agglomerations has real world consequences!
Respectively, plenty of companies can build a smartphone for far, FAR less than the sale price of an iPhone. E.g. a $50-$130 Samsung Galaxy A03.
It's Apples install base, app ecosystem, and social moat (iMessage) allows continued high gross margins on their hardware and locks competition away from their profit center. The sale price has very little to do with the marginal cost of production and a ton to do with a naturally occuring software monopoly.
That Samsung uses the 12nm node, so you could say it falls somewhere between iPhone 7 (16nm) and iPhone (10nm). Those are worth about $100 used. A lot of the cost of manufacturing cost of cellphone parts comes from upfront capital expense, which is paid off by new models. This allows a strategy of selling cheaper, lower-end models using that old equipment.
Apple also pursues this strategy, but they don’t push it nearly as far as Samsung. The cheapest iPhone, the SE 3 at $430, has a 5 nm chip in it, which they only released two years ago. Apple just isn’t willing to release a parts-bin device, because they have a high quality bar. This is part of a moneymaking strategy, but my point is you can’t compare the A03 price to any current iPhone model.
Apple’s hardware margin is 35%, that is a reasonable estimate of the premium Apple is charging over a totally generic phone.
Very nicely said. They fall somewhere between MR=MC and MR=MD because of the type of product the are. I am surprised it is as low as 35%. But I will accept that. A company as big as Apple should know where its 'sweet spot' is for pricing. Too high and people walk, too low and you are leaving money on the table. It took me awhile to wrap my head around the concept. But the math does check out. Most intro econ classes teach it with 'the pizza parlor' and simple demand/supply curves. What the slope of those curves are depends on your competition and your market status (aka reputation). Apple has squarely tried to make themselves look like a premium product. All the way from its advertising to the box the thing comes in to the store you buy it in. That puts them more on the monopoly side as monopolies will do that to increase MR=MD.
The are not totally a monopoly. They may be that in some peoples influence. But mine for example my parents literally would not be able to tell the difference between a generic sub 50 dollar phone and a 1500 one. They do not use any of the extra features and it would be meaningless to them. For some people it is about the status of that logo on the back. For others it is the tech stack and integration. For others it is just something to text and phone with.
The Big Dig does pay for itself. Despite being horrendously overbudget and overdue, it still works, and it's more valuable than what was put into it. It was a poorly managed success.
I try to get my exercise with a group of people friends. Often this isn't possible. But I've got several activities in my life that I do with a group of people and often those people become close friends.
For example, I know many people who are close to those in their yoga group. Or beach volleyball group. I like to hike or do outdoor activities with friends. Basically anything that gets your heart rate up, with a group of people, allows you to build friendship + social connections and not be bored while exercising.