I don't know either. But it could be greed. I know of two companies of different size merging, and the owners retaining managers from the smaller company and purging the rest.
Why? I don't know. But there may be the assumption the smaller company is leaner, pays less, and its managers know how to deliver more with less.
But that smaller company was small for a reason. This is often missed.
Police said the car was traveling on Foothill Road when it hit a pole, then a tree, causing a massive blaze and killing the four occupants.
I'll note that at one of my former workplaces, we lost an incoming family in basically this same thing. Gasoline car, if I remember right. Doesn't take an EV to have an accident like this.
The owner of the vehicle filed the complaint last week, writing that before the crash on multiple occasions, the steering wheel was automatically veering to the right, even when lane assist was turned on.
Then don't freaking drive it. Especially don't lend it to a family that you care about.
If it cuts accidents down, the feature outweighs it's repair costs.
If it cuts them down enough. Still, the article has enough details to make a guess:
1/3rd of repair costs are for the accident avoidance stuff. So we can assume that it increased repair costs by 50%.
Cut crash rates in half:
50% of 150% = 75%
A car that is 150% as costly to repair if it gets into an accident, but is half as likely to do so, has average repair cost at 75% that of the car without said features.
IE It saves you on repair costs, on average.
More complex work would be necessary to account for things like accident severity, that vehicles can simply end up totaled, initial cost of the avoidance stuff, savings from avoiding hospital stays and morgues.
But in general, it doesn't take much accident avoidance to actually be worth oodles of money.
Renewables have issues. I'm no fan of windmills - birdkillers that generate harmful infrasound; and how do you recycle turbine blades anyway? But there's been promise shown recently with vertical windmill designs and wood-based construction techniques. Solar panels were net-energy-negative until a decade or so ago (if you factor in the cost of mining and smelting the panels). Now you still have the cost of batteries.
But you're too kind to those who espouse your own viewpoint. The ourworldindata article in particular makes the laugable claim that nuclear power is the most land efficient. It implies all the nuclear power generation in the world occupy just 765 sq kilometers of land (calculation based 0.3 sq m per MWh x 10% of 25500 global terawatt-hours being generated by nuclear).
But 765 sq km is when nothing goes wrong. Just Chernobyl already rendered 2,600 sq. km uninhabitable.
> would be relevant if people were proposing
I don't trust the people proposing. They've been proposing and pointing to new and shiny designs for decades. We will still find new ways to stuff up.
> Removing land from use to grow crops by utility scale solar is no accdent...
Which may be true. But those solar panels can be removed in a week and the land returned to farming. Dams can be blown up and windmills torn down. Even coal and gas fired power stations can be shut and the land used for other things. Try doing that with the Chernobyl exclusion zone. And this isn't even counting the land or resources allocated to storage of nuclear waste.
> Nuclear power isn't perfect
No power is perfect. But nuclear power is in a sinister league of its own for the damage it causes when things go wrong. And things ***WILL*** go wrong.
You won't let an infant play with a straight razor. Why are we still playing with nuclear fire?
But in the next decade, the COO believes talking to an AI like you would with a friend, teammate, or project collaborator will be the new norm.
Just remember: This upcoming AI may very well be a friend, teammate or collaborator. But it will be to the corporation that creates it, not to you.
Just like with current tech companies, their business partners and advertisers will be their customers. You will still be the product, but with the creepiness factor cranked up by an order of magnitude.
Substances most people do not regard as addictive (weed) or inherently dangerous (alcohol) are viewed as both by the Federal and most State criminal justice systems.
The leak came from the use of 2 million interns for the sneakernet to achieve the airgap while still consuming Total Information Awareness data
Evolution takes over from there
Why should there be legitimate traffic across a border? The whole intent of a border is to stop traffic.
As for the rest, well, make more ammo...until all the ducks are dead.
The company management is pointing the finger at workers, and they're right to, just as long as they point the finger at themselves too.
These kinds of problems start at the top. If management demands workers do the impossible (or at least the wildly implausible), they know that reports of success are going to be fraudulent. The question is, are they goign to get away with it?
I really think the main argument *for* carbon offsets is that it *potentially* can harness free market mechamism to *efficiently* reduce emissions. This would be in contrast to a pure government mandate that everyone cut their emissions by some percent. The problem is that the marginal costs for industry X might be prohibitive; on the other hand industry Y could easily cut more. So why not have X pay Y to cut more than required? This *internalizes* the external benefits of extra reductions for Y.
Of course, it's very easy to screw this up, starting with letting people get away with fraud. But if you allow fraud in *any* market, that undermines the efficiency of the market. If you are going to get the entire economy to reduce emissions by some set goal, you need some mechanism to distribute those reductions so they're made where it's most efficient, and financial efficiency is one thing the free market excels at.
Anyone who has ever tried to do home recording with bluetooth headphone knows of the BT delay problem: the audio you hear through the headphones is delayed, in some cases, by several hundred milliseconds. Which means that if you're recording against a backing track, your playing/singing will be out of time. When you play back the combined tracks, your part will be behind the beat and you'll sound like an amateur. And recording multiple tracks in this manner only compounds the problem.
So, if you want to do professional, or even demo quality audio recording, you need at least a headphone jack, because that audio is not measurably delayed. Apple devices might make great status symbols, but they're really more for consuming content, rather than creating it.
> > "though attempts have been made to represent this as a specifically nuclear subsidy"
> Did you bother to read your own quote?
Reading this statement and appraising it lead to different outcomes.
> If a bearing failure on a windmill causes a wildfire then we can expect the costs of extinguishing the fire and compensating victims to be borne by the state..
Wow -- I'm surprised by your assertion: that wildfires caused by private wind farms are indemnified by (practically) all the governments of the earth.
> Go ahead, try spreading lies
In the absence of any references, I doubt your assertion. But unlike you, I'm not going to attribute it to malice.
In the meantime, nuclear plants slowly get built. And ever so slowly, not-so-insignificant tracts of the earth are rendered permanently uninhabitable after nuclear accidents.
(Source - Googling these disasters and their exclusion zones)
Hopeless optimist that you are, you probably see a declining trend (or no trend) in these bits of earth we are writing off in pursuit of our nuclear dream.
But this isn't even counting the land or resources allocated to storage of nuclear waste.For example, France produces 2kg of radioactive waste per inhabitant per year. (Source: https://www.orano.group/) Let's extend the French model across the globe. So we generate 4 kg of radioactive waste per inhabitant of the earth per year -- in perpetuity! No problem! We'll just virtify the waste -- using nuclear power to smelt the glass and steel. Now that energy is cheap, lets build flying cars powered by green hydrogen produced using nuclear power? Whee - why not! Now we generate 4 kg of radioactive waste per inhabitant of the earth per year -- in perpetuity!!!
Look, I don't pretend to have the answers. All I'm suggesting is this: perhaps your freedom from doubt about the benefits of nuclear power is unwarranted.
It is even simpler than all of that: Good enough means that all necessary factors are dealt with even if it is less than ideal from a "perfect" standpoint.
Anything less is not "good enough' despite people constantly pushing this idea from laziness.
The flush toilet is the basis of Western civilization. -- Alan Coult
