Comment Does that matter? (Score -1, Troll) 136
Apple already knows the EU is going this way.
Apple is probably already close to leaving the EU, since the financial risk of staying there is too great.
Apple already knows the EU is going this way.
Apple is probably already close to leaving the EU, since the financial risk of staying there is too great.
Our modern view of labor is kind of interesting. Where it was once seen as an asset to companies, now labor is a cost, a company liability, to be eliminated with automation, self-driving cars, etc. Efficiency is the name of the game. If it were possible to completely remove all employees from all processes, companies would do it in a heartbeat (can we replace CEOs with ChatGPT please?). Yet if that were really done, who, then, would be the customers and how would they afford even the cheapest goods?
A higher minimum wage in a number of states will usher in many uses of robots to take over lots of jobs, and more robots doing jobs like that means more robots being able to move into other jobs more quickly.
Yep. Global warming isn't why hydro isn't being used, it's because of the moneyed interests trying to end solar and protect bespeckled otters and flying trout (while significantly and negatively impacting waterway health in the process).
That's got to be one of the most 'greenwashed' things I've heard. If the planet's hydrological cycle were indirect solar, water cycles would be measurable daily and correlate to sunlight. It does not.
If you mean that solar is also a 'green' technology similar to solar, you would be correct - except for the significantly lower efficiency and increased cost. Eg. you can make a solar system significantly more efficient by adding a water battery to the system to generate power during the night, which says something about how inefficient the whole process with solar is in general.
Corps of Engineers are largely responsible for this. They've been systematically reducing water levels in damming bodies of water for "flood prevention" for decades. Things really started to heighten after the Midwestern/Nebraska flooding in (IIRC) 2005. Lower water levels = less hydro power intake pressure = less power.
On top of that, Instead of increasing holding capacity by adding more hydro power, they've been reducing holding capacity on the argument of 'environmental impact', as well - gotta protect those purple spotted beaver trout.
The irony is that these hydro dams produce ecosystems which would not have otherwise existed and substantially increase habitat. They help prevent flooding and reduce ecological (and financial) damage. It's a bit backwards how things are being orchestrated - it's not green, and it's not good for either the economy or ecology.
AI needs interconnections.
Starlink exists, for locations that cannot be tied back to the primary internet connections of the area.
Also this is more about future profitability than current, assuming projected power needs for AI are correct. At some point it could easily be profitable.
This seems like a pretty good use of otherwise wasted power....
However I wonder if any some point, it would actually be more profitable to use that energy to power compute for other things - possibly AI farms.
So if your phone is full and you want to copy some files off to your laptop, you can do that (without making multiple phone-local copies of the file)?
No?
That's what I thought.
https://twitter.com/SteveRattn...
If you include older workers it hasn't fully rebounded since COVID. A lot of older people suddenly retired and haven't come back.
Does Assange have any obligation to protect US classified information? I don't think he does.
A valid argument against charges of treason, which Assange was not charged with.
If some nation catches you stealing their secrets, good luck with the "I never said I wouldn't!!" defense.
Look at the section, "Win Rates and the ROI of Fighting Chargebacks" in this document:
https://midigator.com/chargeba...
It says the industry average merchant win rate is 30%.
The other big loss that varies with charge amount is the risk of the consumer not repaying the loan. That is paid by the bank, not merchants. Of course the bank is also getting paid for that risk by charging interest on balances carried month-to-month, and people with a history of not paying have very high rates.
I don't want to rush to the banks' defense since they are doing fine for themselves and I wish there were more competition in payments. But it's not true that large purchases cost the banks no more than small ones.
You seem to have forgotten all the other things credit cards do. Like giving you a credit. The cost of debt DOES scale by the amount. Or did you expect to have a mortgage with a "flat interest fee" because the cost of transacting loan doesn't scale with the size of the loan?
You seem to have forgotten that Visa and Mastercard assume zero risk if the cardholder defaults on the loan. They only transact the payment. So they should get paid for the transaction, nothing more, nothing less. Banks that issue the credit card assume the risk. And how do they profit from the risk? Interest rates, which do scale with the size of the loan.
Not to mention credit cards have you covered in case of fraud and your card gets hit with transactions.
Thank you Truth in Lending Act. What, do you think our corporate overlords want to bear that responsibility? You know as well as I do that they only have to do this because legislation requires it. And a neutral party like the FTC could make sure that the cost of managing that responsibility is included in the transaction fee. We already have another consumer insurance that merchants pay for that protects us, the consumer. It's called the FDIC. Nobody's complaining about it. So why are you complaining about the TILA?
If we citizens made a huge fuss about it, we absolutely could amend the TILA to cap transaction fees in a manner that is transparent and fair for all parties involved. If we made a huge fuss about it, that is. Until we do, Visa and Mastercard and Amex and Discover will continue to contribute massive campaign donations to Republicans and Democrats to keep the status quo exactly as it is.
2% as a transaction fee is robbery, especially with today's infrastructure. We should get it 0.5%
It doesn't take a computer scientist to tell you that the cost of transacting a payment does not depend on the amount of the payment. Whether I pay $1 for a candy bar or $10,000 for a first-class ticket to Singapore, the cost of transacting is practically the same thing, especially in today's electronic age. Even 0.5% would be highway robbery for merchants if the amount went above $500.
Transaction fees should be a flat fee, or perhaps a percentage if the cost is under x-amount of dollars (maybe 2% up to $100), then a flat fee for anything above that amount. And this fee should be governed by the FTC. And if that fee was passed on as a surcharge to consumers, even better; at least then everyone would be transparent and honest about what it costs to transact a purchase via credit card.
As long as this fee remains a flat percentage, that means that every time I use a credit card, I'm paying a 2% tax to Mastercard or Visa, because we all know that those merchants pass those costs onto consumers. And to hell with rewards; they're only giving me back a small percentage of what I'm paying them, which only incentivizes me to spend more! It's no different than if I walked into a casino, and the house promised me 2% cash back on everything I spent; the house would just set a new edge where I'd still lose, but I'd lose more, but I'd keep playing longer thinking I was getting more money back.
Fuck our corporate overlords.
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro