I have to pay to store my manually-driven car 90% of the day, because there's nothing else it could be doing while it waits for me.
A driverless car can very easily do things and make money while I'm waiting for it.
In some scenarios, people rent out their owned cars during the day to avoid this massive opportunity cost, but I doubt that will be the most efficient model.
In what other asset class ever has it made sense for the capital owners to be an extremely long tail of people, rather than a large corporate owner? Especially something as high velocity and fungible as cars.
What’s crazy to me about all of this is that the College Board will happily sell you the contact info for the 2mn students who take the SAT each year.
We’d probably not know about this if Javice just spent 10 minutes thinking, created a small scholarship, bought student contact info to “market” the scholarship, and then used that real data to commit fraud.
Maybe some recipients notice and report something to JPMorgan, but how many 18 year olds are actively reporting spam?
Let’s just ignore the controversial things like cholesterol.
Your knees are significantly more likely to work well into old age if you’re active, but not constantly supporting excess weight. Talk to any orthopedic doctor and they will tell you weight loss makes your lower body joints much healthier in old age. Not to mention the natural increase in activity people experience when they are lighter and walking is less of a chore.
Having healthy lower body joints makes you much less of a fall risk.
Being less of a fall risk extends your lifespan quite a bit once you’re around 60-70.
Being overweight is one of the most objectively bad for you things out there, but it’s a shame we all share (75% of Americans are overweight and way even higher you look at people old enough to be doctors).
The entire point of this article is now that it is something treatable through medical science, people who understand the major health downsides of being overweight are treating themselves.
> The entire point of this article is now that it is something treatable through medical science,
Yeah I don't buy it. The dude in the pic went from slightly chubby to thin as fuck, nothing prevented him from updating his diet, especially as a doctor
Of course the result overall is better, all I'm saying is that it's far from a magic pill if you keep everything else the same
On a green arrow turn, drivers are looking to where they are going. Legally crossing pedestrians are in that cross walk where the driver is looking.
With right on red, the driver is also looking to where they are going, but legally crossing pedestrians are not there, they are directly in front of the car.
The riskiest thing for a pedestrian is approaching a right on red car from the left, because the driver is simply not looking at you.
This seems to not actually be the case in my experience, because right-turn drivers love to look to the left while turning right, because they are afraid of a fast-moving car appearing from the left, but they think they already verified that no slow-moving peds are crossing on the right.
The big problem with right on red is that it perfectly synchronizes them to hit each other.
Say a driver and pedestrian are at the same corner facing the same way and the pedestrian wants to cross into the area the driver wants to turn. The street is busy so the driver can't turn right on the red and the pedestrian isn't gonna just walk against the signal into the traffic. Cross traffic lets up, either because of a big gap or because the light has cycled to red for the cross traffic. The conditions that both parties require before making their move have just been satisfied at the same time. The pedestrian walks and the driver turns, leading to inevitable conflict. If both the driver and the pedestrian are in a hurry and trying to shoot a gap in traffic and go quickly there can be no time for either party to avoid the accident.
Edit: The above example is crosswalks only, no dedicated pedestrian signals.
> Say a driver and pedestrian are at the same corner facing the same way and the pedestrian wants to cross into the area the driver wants to turn.
That's not a thing that normally happens though. In a regular four-way intersection, if a driver is at a red light, the pedestrians that are allowed to cross are the ones that are crossing the street the car is on. If the car wants to turn right on red, then the pedestrians it has a risk of hitting don't care about the traffic that the car needs to wait for.
Notably, the 32 panels Carter installed were thermal water heating panels.
This means that there was no innovative technology in them, and they represent a technology path that is significantly less space efficient and less useful vs PVs.
It is also worth noting (especially on a platform that believes in American excellence as much as HN does) that modern PVs really trace their history back to Martin Green, who did most of his work with Australian Japanese and Chinese researchers (since he was in Australia), so funding the projects of American scientists might have not yielded the best results anyway.
So in many ways, you could argue that Carter’s solar focus was symbolically great, but stronger US subsidies would just make the US look like Germany - expensive and inefficient PVs that are increasingly becoming a liability (though bless them and their utility customers for powering through and continuing to install new, more efficient equipment).
> [...] US look like Germany - expensive and inefficient PVs that are increasingly becoming a liability (though bless them and their utility customers for powering through and continuing to install new, more efficient equipment).
Well tried but factually wrong.
Thermal solar is a battle-proofed low-tech for water heating (or even residential heating) that does not require any expensive Gov subsidies or public money to be deployed at large scale.
It is currently common to find such panels in developing countries as a cheap way of providing hot showers to people without power grids. In countries where the notion of gov subsidies often does not even exist.
That has very little in common with the giant public money sink shitshow that is the German energiewende.
I'm sympathetic to this point of view, but then we have to be consistent with it.
No TSA. No license plate scanners. No fare gates for trains. No locks on doors. No anti-shoplifting tags.
EDIT: Is there some Emerson convention in town? You can look at my comments for some of his other quotes (It's actually not very surprising to me that an Anglo abolitionist who also believed that Anglos were the 'best' race wasn't a big fan of consistency!)
The difference is that you own your car, but not those other things. Things you own should always do what you want, not try to enforce laws against you.
Well it wouldn't preclude your use of the car (you can still enter it and turn it on), you just can't drive it on public roads (Essentially the entire use-case of moving a vehicle).
TSA is at the airport lobby and technically only precludes me from entering the airside of an airport, but its purpose is to prevent me from getting on a plane with a gun.
I don't think point of implementation is a strong argument here.
Wouldn’t an closer equivalent be DUI checkpoints staffed by government-accountable law enforcement officers at the entrance to the road? Not an automaker forced to privately police you in your own vehicle
Right! Right! Also, we can't require railings on stairs or prohibit electrical wiring from being attached to doorknobs as a trick, or stop people from driving on sidewalks.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds and this commenter exhibits the smallest of them all.
Please don't do this here. You can make anyone look terrible by cherry-picking something garish, but it is not the curious conversation we want on HN. Moreover it gets trivially easier the further back in time you go.
First of all, that quote was pulled to insult me - it's specifically a quote about individuals' minds, not ideas. That is in fact the one of the strongest criticisms of Emerson - he grounded idea-based discourse in commentary on the people who hold those ideas. I'd even go so far as to say 'English Traits' is the perfect example of that failure.
Secondly, When a premise is supported only by a quote from an individual, it is completely acceptable to post a separate quote from that individual in response.
Why should I believe Emerson about consistency when (hopefully) all of us here disagree with him about Norsemen?
Maybe it would be flamebait if that was part of an argument, but his entire argument was "Emerson said this thing so it's true" and my argument was "Emerson also said this patently false thing."
I know it feels bad to look at the whole gorey corpus of otherwise really cool historical figures, but encouraging people to believe anything they say without critical analysis is the true anti-curiosity stance.
Thirdly, I agree it's easier to make people from the past look morally bad morally and that is precisely why we should not base our worldview on their quotes alone.
I think you took it too personally if you felt like it was specifically insulting you though. People regurgitate these things out of their own mental associations. It's not personal.
Yeah this is an anonymous forum (which inherently requires a false persona) so it literally can’t be personal.
BUT my point is that a common trope here is laundering bad behavior through quotes and revered historical figures - it’s something people often pick up when doing forensics in their youth.
I’m fine being told I’m small minded (we all are, significantly more than we’d like to believe), but it feels weird to have it happen on here without people supporting the argument. For example, “How far do you extend the demand for consistency RC_ITR - should we allow the government to install cameras on public land facing our homes? in that case they’re simply capturing photons that exist in public areas.”
That at least would have made me look foolish in a way that requires critical thinking.
> equal to the sum of personal saving, undistributed corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments, and net government saving. [0]
Undistributed corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments is a measure of how much profit companies made, but did not return to shareholders (with an adjustment to remove the effect of inflation). That looks like this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B057RC1Q027SBEA
GNI is sort of like GDP, but slightly different (treat it like the same for nearly all intents and purposes).
What this chart is basically showing, is that Federal deficits are up, but it's not translating to a higher household savings rate (As was the case during the stimulus period) OR higher retained corporate earnings.
I'd argue that the actual number is an intellectual exercise (i.e. it's relatively meaningless that it is now negative), but it is worth investigating why the Government is running such a large deficit in a hot economy that is not leading to better quality of life (Personal savings is a rough proxy for that).
A driverless car can very easily do things and make money while I'm waiting for it.
In some scenarios, people rent out their owned cars during the day to avoid this massive opportunity cost, but I doubt that will be the most efficient model.
In what other asset class ever has it made sense for the capital owners to be an extremely long tail of people, rather than a large corporate owner? Especially something as high velocity and fungible as cars.
reply