Starlink have put out their first product, lets see how the business model evolves. The real advantage is the constellation at low earth orbit vs geostationary satellites that serve a continent or country only. The method is more costly overall simply due to how many satellites need to be put up, but increases possible throughput as there is effectively more base stations in the sky, and low latency simply because the satellites are closer to the ground. The real trick and risky part with this business model is getting full coverage to start with and selling it all to cover ongoing costs and expansion, adding in capacity is then less expensive than other models as you can keep adding in single cheap to launch low orbit satellites to match demand, which de-risks further investment in launches and system capacity.

I suspect this is actually priced about right for middle class, digital self-employed or remote workers looking to move to more rural and remote properties. Seen an increase in demand now I suspect because of covid-19. Low latency reasonably reliable internet anywhere combined with Tesla powerwalls and solar cells, looks like Elon Musk is aiming to enable off-grid log cabin in the woods digital workers... Interesting that if this is the only viable internet available with the bandwidth and latency required, it's a captive market in a few years time once enough people have changed their lives for it.

As another example, cost of putting this on a farm as a central service for the business is easily swallowed by all the other running costs of a farm that easily dwarf this cost. Add in mining operations who can take massive amounts of data if available, and may even run a cell network at the site with the data provided, but their demands would be much higher than available from a single subscription. Wealthy yacht and RV owners will also be all over this.

Western Australia has rejected daylight savings 4 times in state referendums. But there is always pressure to accept it. Seems like the public was right all along.

The Biogen incident is a major embarrassment for Biogen, especially compared to competitors like Astrazeneca biologics division which has been forging ahead leading in Vaccine and treatment development and projecting themselves as being the saviors from Covid-19.

There were many still operating international conferences and internal meetings happening in February in Europe and the US, Biogen lucked out with a Covid-19 super spreader attending their meeting at just the wrong time. Because of the industry, there is a perception that they "should have known better", but things were moving very quickly in February and March.

There are plenty of other reasons than just genetics though.

Many non-whites in the UK are generally recent or 1 and 2 generation immigrants. They are more likely to live in larger multigeneration families, or alternatively live in small apartments in high-rise apartment building with shared access (lifts, front door etc.).
They are over-represented in jobs that put them at increased risk of exposure, like medical, care and also other face to face customer jobs (bus drivers, uber/minicabs, store clerk etc).
They are more concentrated in larger cities where the virus spread more quickly.
As a group they have more medical issues like high blood pressure, diabetes etc.

I think this makes it impossible to tell if it is genetic or not. There are to many other contributing socio-economic factors. And the idea that could shiedl black/asian healthcare stuff falls down at the point where they were pushing student nurses into service and getting retired doctors and nurses back in.

The white population that fill the less populous outer suburbs, towns and villages in detached and semi-detached houses are inherently less exposed to the virus.

Actually no way they could do any sort of trial till testing before wider spread. Step 1, confirm patient has Covid 19, record all other health comorbidities. Step 2, assign to control or test group. Step 3, record outcoms for all group Step 4: once a probable statistically large enough group has been tested to conclude something publish results. You need 1000's of patients to make this work. unfortunately we are only having those patients in the last month The idea to slow spread is good, give more time to work through the reality of various drug treatments and critical care treatments "eg there is a debate over if we are putting people on intubated ventilators too early, and just simply supplying more oxygen without intubation maybe bette(r. Slower the spread, the more opportunties to intervene in more strategic ways, and the better the final outcome.

The lock down is necessary to give time to effectively "process" the critically ill portion of covid through intensive care and ventilation and allow time for more effective treatments and treatment capacity to come on line.

The issue in Italy and initially China was the cases far exceeded the health care system capacity to put critically ill on ventilators, therefore many hard choices were made and many people had to be allowed to die. This partly explains the very high elderly representation in the death statistics in Italy especially. You can debate the ethics of a utilitarianist point of view all you want, but when the chips are down the doctors will choose a 40 year old with a young family to put on ventilation, over a 75 year old who has had several age related chronic health issues who they will leave off and allow to die.

The higher the capacity of the healthcare system to deal with the critically ill, the more covid-19 infection in the population it can tolerated and treat as effectively as it can. Also if you push things out as much as you can into the future allows some of the results of clinical trials of anti-virals and other treatments to come in potentially allowing more effective treatments to be implemented as we learn.

This is the problem in a nutshell, sales and marketing of the 737 max desperately trying to hold onto the a selling point, that it was almost equivalent to previous generation 737s so it didn't need expensive pilot training. It was key to the lockin of the 737 family boeing had in many airlines (eg southwest, ryanair, lion in this case). It is a key selling point for low-cost airlines particularly and also creates vendor lockin for boeing.

1. It was why MCAS was created, to hide some nasty differences in how the max handled under certain conditions.
2. It was why MCAS was downplayed in it's functionality to the FAA, so they wouldn't demand extensive testing.
3. Because of point 2 it was half assedly implemented.
4. It was why MCAS was NOT mentioned to the pilots or airlines.
5. And it was because of all the above points that the 2 planes that crashed started handling erratically and the pilots involved didn't have a clue what was going on or what to do so they crashed.

The truth is, Boeing could remove MCAS, and bring in an extensive training regime for the new flight characterisics of the MAX and it would be then safe to fly. But it probably would need a lot of expensive training, and quite possibly a separate type rating to previous 737s so pilots don't have to continually change flying styles as they swap between 737 generations. But that KILLS the 737 max as a swap in and out replacement for earlier 737 jets in a mixed fleet. At that point the companies running 737 may as well move over to a320's.

So boeing plows on trying to make MCAS work and get approval for it again so they can keep a consistent type rating with previous 737. All to keep the business model of some of their biggest customers viable and lock them into boeing. The amount that this will cost Boeing in the end would have paid for the development of a completely new and modern replacement for the 737 that would out perform the max and a320 neo, and set them up for the next few decades. Instead they've lost reputation, money and stuck in a development dead end for that market segment.

It's irrelevant what you think. Climate catastrophe is here, it will be relentless and get worse from this point forward unless we do something all over the world and denialism will just look more and more pathetic.

Eventually the truth catches up with us. That is where we are. You are wrong, I fear because of the likes of you, you will have to be proved utterly and fundamentally wrong. At which point it will be to late.

FFS. OK you know how much burnt land we are talking? 5.5 M hectares as of today. To keep in in your realm of southern germany, the german state of bavaria (the largest) is 7M hectares. These fires are most likely to exceed that area by the time there is predictions of rain in late January. Raking FFS.

And climate is the issue. The fuel load is controlled by controlled burns during the spying and sometimes autumn.When things are cooler. The extreme weather over the last few years have contracted the period where they can safely do that each year. The drought over 2 year has dried out even normally wet rain forests. And everything is now fuel. Australia hasn't seen anything near this.

This event is providing a very large dose of climate change fact smashing through the bogus climate denialism rampant in Australia previously. This will have massive political consequences in australian and around the world. Climate change is real.

Immediate battery backed UPS failure which dropped power immediately, with diesel backup coming on line 1minute later.

That is the crux of the issue in the US. Healthcare reform to something like a single user pays system does have multiple efficiency benefits. Take the NHS (which is underfunded at the moment, but even when well funded is very efficient at delivering it's service through a whole raft of efficiency gains.

1. There is collective bargaining on pharmaceuticals through National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, that reviews efficacy of new drugs vs current drugs. It can independently determine when they are appropriate for a treatment and should be subsided by the NHS, and are cost effective compared to other treatments. With this single evidence based UK wide approach they have a strong bargaining position.

2. Administratively hospitals in this mechanism are very efficient. You turn up and you'll be treated. The admin involved in getting reimbursement from the hospital and insurance end of things in the US is significant.

3. Much of medical insurance is for profit, so there is an additional cost there in achieving that profit.

As you've highlighted healthcare is a large part of the US economy, and Factors 1 and 3 have large lobbying groups behind them that want to retain the profits in pharmaceuticals and health insurance. Don't expect them to go down without a massive fight. It would have to be a tranistion over many years.

There are big advantages to universal healthcare. For instance it removes a significant hurdle for many people from starting their own businesses, as they get stuck in jobs because of the need for health insurance for their families. I don't think the UK media and entertainment industry would be what it is without the backing of things like the NHS to support new talent.

How many FABS are in the UK (the home of ARM)?

The convenience of Ubers system and App was the key USP originally (since copied). The app made it very easy to call a car to get you somewhere, and reduced the time it took to call an old school taxi company to then send out a car to pick you up. A clear advantage to traditional bricks and mortar taxi/car company.

But Uber is overreaching. London has had the minicab system for decades, and it is a relatively competitive landscape with a minimal yet effective regulatory framework. Instead of focusing on the USP of the app and large responsive fleet, while meeting the basic legal requirements in both licensing drivers and minimum wages, they've tried to get around the legal requirement to give them even more of a competitive advantage. In the end, what they are offering in London is a better online managed minicab experience, and they should accept that they aren't special and so have to respect the legal requirements to operate in London.

So just to be clear. This isn't about protecting Black Cabs, which are the iconic ones you all know about London. They are highly trained drivers, well-vetted drivers with extensive training and local knowledge, and are the only taxis allowed to take people hailing them on the street.

It is about making sure Uber follows the rules established for "minicabs", which in London often small companies with several registered drivers, that are able to take orders for cabs to be picked up and dropped off at defined locations all handled by a central office. Traditionally you would call a central office, give your name and asked to be picked up from somewhere and be dropped off somewhere. So you can't just flag one down, but the drivers are still vetted for criminatlity and fitness to operate a taxi by a private hire licence system, and who the drivers pick up is controlled and recorded at a central office.

Uber was operating as a massive minicab firm, with the app taking the place of the pick up and drop off phone call to the central office. Where they have been failing is in ensuring their drivers were properly vetted and have a private hire driver licence, and they haven't addressed it to TFL satisfaction. The driver being able to change their photo without Uber verifying it matched to the private hire licence is bad, and by the sounds of it Uber haven't been regularly checking the drivers are still holding valid licences or insurance.

In terms of a driver getting a licence details are available here:

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing/private-hire-driver-licence

The costs isn't outrageous, and it is primarily around ensuring the driver is not a criminal and fit and able to drive a taxi.

Yes, but there is also Indonesia that they are going through to get to Singapore, and Malaysia just north of Singapore. 300 M people primed for some rapid economic development. So a big potential market for electricity.