Comment Re: Free market at work (Score 1) 74
what percent of people make diy pc out of all desktop, laptop, corporate pc? not a "freedom" if useless to almost all humans. A luxury
what percent of people make diy pc out of all desktop, laptop, corporate pc? not a "freedom" if useless to almost all humans. A luxury
The direct fuel injection does seem to cause more trouble than it's worth.
Low tension rings cause more trouble than their worth Low viscosity oil causes more trouble than it's worth Stop-start causes more trouble than it's worth Variable displacement causes more trouble than it's worth Integral dual volute turbocharging causes more trouble than it's worth And yes, direct injection causes more trouble than it's worth.
The extreme CAFE mileage requirements have driven manufacturers to make a large number of terrible engineering choices in ICE drive trains. Extreme CAFE mileage requirements have greatly contributed to the excessive cost of vehicles and the excessive cost of repairs.
Yep. CAFE-style regulation is the wrong way to attempt to reduce carbon emissions. The right way is to impose a carbon tax, then let consumers vote with their wallets and engineers work to make the right tradeoffs to meet customer demand. My guess is that consumers would choose to buy the more fuel-efficient vehicles and engineers might make the same tradeoffs... but now it would be clear that those tradeoffs are worthwhile.
Gas is not cheap.
Gas is pretty much exactly at its long-term, inflation-adjusted average price, and right where it was in the 1950s. Since then, it was a little higher in the 70s, a little lower in the 90s, a little higher in the early 2000s, but we're now back at the long-term normal price.
See https://afdc.energy.gov/data/1...
Whether the normal price of gas is "cheap" or "expensive" depends on your income and lifestyle, I'd think.
Indeed. And the issue was detected by looking at the data, finding fault with it and that is perfectly fine. Now, if the MAGAs and other denier-idiot assholes were right, the correction would never have happened. But it did. And that means things work and deliver good results. The process is just a bit more complex and takes a bit longer than their tiny brains can handle.
You clearly have not the slightest idea what the problem actually is. Well done, you are an idiot.
Well, if that is your take-away here, you clearly are a dangerous moron and asshole.
And no, there are NOT the same people. You are just lumping idiots in the press and in politics together with actual scientists because you have no idea how things actually work.
Nice denier nonsense you have there. The problem, which you are clearly not smart enough to understand is that this basically a permanent reduction and it is one that will be getting worse. You seem to think that at the end of the century, there is one point, where there will be some reduction. That is not the case. The reality is that each year will see an increasing reduction and that will last for a very long time. The problem is that very soon this will overtake total growth and then we will have negative growth each year.
Not a surprise that somebody like you does not get what is essentially a simple school-level "interest over multiple years" calculation.
Science is not broken, peer review is. And no, Science is not religion. It is the very opposite of it. A Science-denier like you will never understand that though, you are simply not smart enough.
I see you have never been part of this system. Your claims are pure hallucinations. There is no "enforcing" of any "consensus". Peer review checks, if done right, whether arguments hold up, data is plausible, etc.
The problem with peer review is that it is entirely unpaid while actually getting the publication can be very expensive, and many do it badly, just so they can claim they are doing it. I still regularly get contacted by journals wit requests to review one paper or another based on my publishing history. If it is open access and I am qualified, I will consider it. If not, I universally reject there requests now.
Not really. Science works on facts and evidences and sometimes there are errors and mistakes that then get corrected at a later time.
The Deniers work on stupidity. There is no fixing that and they do not need ammunition. They will just make stuff up.
A "much-needed move" would be to allow BYD cars to be sold here and let the free market economics (that conservatives ostensibly claim to love) sort everything out.
I'm not going to argue about the merit of allowing BYD or not. This is only about free market economics. BYD is heavily subsidized, and their entry in the market would skew any possible free market economics.
This is an appropriate place for tariffs. Not ridiculous, exclusionary tariffs like we have, but tariffs carefully calibrated to offset the subsidies as precisely as possible, putting BYD's cars on a level playing field against US EVs. I have great faith in free market capitalism and dislike anything that distorts the market, but sometimes you need to use regulation to correct for external market distortions.
you won't be able to buy your 'sensible amounts of ram' for at least two years at any sensible price
assuming the dip in consumer and non ai business spending on all manner of electronics and the jobs tied to them isn't huge enough to cause recession where we're hoarding money for necessities
the bubble will last more than two years, financial analysts say. And yes they use the word bubble.
even LPDDR4X I needed for a project is up 40%, leaving me too limp to support a Penis Bird
0)
( \
x
8===D
8|
|
o
^
(x)( )x
Of course there's no reason for it, it's just our policy.