I just installed Windows Pro on a new machine the other day with a key given to me by a friend. During the install process it asks if you want to use a personal account or domain account to log in. My guess would be you’d have to pick the domain account for the machine to be remotely administered. I’d be surprised if an existing windows install could be taken over merely by putting in an upgrade key.
The common knowledge is that Microsoft doesn’t need to be worried about antitrust action because they don’t have a monopoly on the OS anymore. But on the other hand, a lot of people are talking about antitrust against the other tech giants that also don’t have monopolies, because they have so much power within their share of the market. Interesting that Microsoft apparently isn’t afraid of that.
This isn't a black or white thing. It's a spectrum. On one end you have pure play tech like Stripe or Facebook (100% zero marginal cost). On the other end you have industrial firms who produce mostly undifferentiated commodities with thin margins like tires (super high marginal cost).
Apple is clearly a tech company since they conduct tons of activities that are zero marginal cost (iOS, MacOS, App Stores, AppleTV, Apple Music, Apple News, Logic Pro, iCloud storage, etc. etc.)
However if you remove the software part of their business, then they'd be a commodity phone company, and valued by Wall Street in the same way TV manufacturers are (ie. like Samsung, with a PE ratio roughly half that of Apple).
The higher value and differentiation is mostly derived from the software (an OLED screen with a processor attached isn't high margin otherwise--see Samsung's margins). Hence why "software is eating the world."
This is how negotiations work everywhere for any kind of deal. Think of some successful past legislation you support - I guarantee that it was negotiated behind closed doors.
Negotiation requires fluidly proposing alternatives in a give-and-take that ultimately leads to an agreement. When the items being given or taken are policies supported or opposed by members of the public, it would be self-sabotage for one half of the negotiation to expose its deliberations to public debate.
Imagine you’re a couple making an offer to buy a house. Do you think it would be smart to expose all your internal discussions about the purchase to the seller along with the offer? Do you think you’d ever succeed at buying a home at a good price if you always made such a disclosure?
I think this argument that a treaty was secretly negotiated is better understood as a general-purpose process argument that can be applied against any treaty or law, not as a meaningful criticism of any in particular. It’s just how the sausage is made.
wtf are you talking about? most laws are proposed, debated in public with riders attached, provisions added/removed, etc. in public.
If FTAs were too and if citizens groups were to have a say we'd be putting provisions for putting tariffs on if environmental and worker provisions are not respected rather than a semi private court process where corporations can sue governments for lost profits.
There’s a public process when provisions are added to the laws, but the discussions where each side figures out whether their proposal is going to pass happens in private before the actual votes.
You do have a say, after the negotiations are complete. If you don't like it, call your representatives, vote, etc. If they have to go back and renegotiate, then that is what it is.
At the grocery store I can bolt at a moment’s notice if I see anything sketchy happening. No can do on an airplane. There could be a guy sitting next to me and coughing all over me for hours.
I read that there is 15 UI of vitamin D in a steak. You need 25 or 100 times that per day. It’s more likely that humans evolved to get their vitamin D from sunlight (although we also know that introduces cancer risk) than eating a whole cow every day. It seems like you’re trying to make the facts fit your preferred narrative re. meat consumption.
>I read that there is 15 UI of vitamin D in a steak. You need 25 or 100 times that per day.
And how do you that for a fact? It's nutrition science. It's not reliable. These numbers of how much we need has been changing for as long as I can remember.
>It seems much more likely that humans evolved to get their vitamin D from sunlight
Humans have lived in Northen Europe for at least 10,000 years. They didn't take any supplements and there no evidence that shows any vitamin D deficiency in those populations.
Humans in Northern Europe have adapted to those conditions with very light skin that maximizes sunlight exposure.
> And how do you that for a fact? It's nutrition science. It's not reliable. These numbers of how much we need has been changing for as long as I can remember.
The changing numbers are why I gave such a wide range. Regardless of who you believe, it’s completely impractical to get the vitamin D you need from meat. It’s not even in the right order of magnitude. What is your proposed required daily value of vitamin D? If you’re going to go around claiming it’s possible to get your needed vitamin D from foods, you ought to have done some math to back up this claim.
The only relevant math I need is that humans have done fine with animal fats for thousands of years. The value I need is what I can get naturally.
And BTW, I have dark skin, I live in one of the Northest parts of the world humans live, haven't taken vitamin D supplements in years and my vitamin D levels have been great (upper middle of whatever acceptable range they use) when I got tested several times over the past years. I don't even care anymore. I will continue to eat what humans are supposed to eat and I'll be fine.
Even if your numbers are not good, you should not be eating these chemicals in isolation. We don't need nutrients, we need food.
Nutrient-nutrient interaction is very difficult to study, but it has been found to be crucial every time they've managed to do it.
> The only relevant math I need is that humans have done fine with animal fats for thousands of years.
That's true, however, humans have been spending days mostly inside, both living and working, for much, much less time than that, which dramatically affects how much natural D they are getting from the sun.
I'd love to see some research on the overall exposure to sunlight, on average, a person has received over the last century. My guess is that in very recent decades, especially the last couple, as working remotely and not needing to leave the house even to commute, sunlight exposure has plummeted.
Also, the risks of sun exposure have been widely reported over recent decades and advances in powerful sunblock have made even those who do spend time outdoors less likely to absorb the sun's rays.
So to place it in the context of how humans have lived for thousands of years ignores the realities of modern times.
Sunlight doesn't have vitamins. What supposedly happens is that when you get exposed to sunlight, some of the cholesterol in your blood gets converted to Vitamin D. What part of sunlight, you might wonder. Is it the visible spectrum? No, it's infrared, you know the thing that you get from your radiator.
So, two factors determine how much vitamin D you're going to get:
- cholesterol levels in your blood
- how much heat you're exposed to (i.e. how warm your room is)
I'm sure we need sunlight for other things... like our sleep cycles or whatever... but we definitely don't need it for vitamin D.
Another commenter pointed out the factual error about vitamin D coming from IR vs. UV, but there’s another misconception in this post.
The amount of IR you get exposed to is not the same thing as how warm your room is. If you touch a hot pan, or get hot because you’re hanging out where the air temperature is high, that heat isn’t being transferred to you by IR. It’s being transferred by thermal conduction: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction
So even if vitamin D was created by IR, you wouldn’t get any from sitting in a hot room.
Perhaps you’re eating some food that has been supplemented with vitamin D. For example, one cup of milk fortified with vitamin D might have 100 UI (as much as six steaks).
Yes, the original leaf has 110hp, does 0-60 in 9.9 and tops out at 93mph. It is similar in performance to other entry-level cars in the US, like a Yaris, Fit, etc.
They are cheap because they are similar in performance to other entry level economy cars, and the warranty for the battery is up. If the battery fails you’re in the ballpark of 6 or 7 thousand dollar repair.
Dunno about the Leaf but at least with the Prius the battery is composed of individual cells that fit on a rail, so a lot of failures can be corrected by testing cell voltages and figuring out which one has failed and only replacing that one single one, which is usually substantially cheaper than a full rebuild.
From what I've read, it's harder to fix the Li-ion packs, and in an electric car that relies entirely on the pack, degradation affects the driving experience more than a hybrid where you'd see it manifest itself as an MPG decrease.
The combination of information and parts available to fix Toyota NiMH packs is a big factor in why I own a vehicle with one :)
Not really: most people will not be charging on the streets, they will charge at home. Unless you street charger is the same price as charging at home, but then it is free parking.
Note that electric is often cheaper at night. Most free parking spots are empty at night: the cars are at home. Thus same price charging on the street as at home should be looked at as subsidized parking!
Don't get me wrong, it makes sense to have some on-street charging. However people won't normally use it. Most will charge at home for the cheaper rates. What is left is those who can't make it home on the current charge. This is a small minority of all who park even in an all electric car world.
This way of thinking doesn’t quite make sense to me. Since those companies are huge, they could within them contain an organization that has more resources than Dropbox dedicated to storage. This organization will be completely focused on that goal. What if some company buys Dropbox?
