Amazon barely cracked the top-10 stores in retail sales for 2015. There's a tendency for people who like to be online to over-exaggerate the effect of the Internet. Retail sales are still very much a brick and mortar business.
Now add the Tesla and solar panels on your house:
Basically, if you work the day shift, the addition of your solar panels at your house reduces the amount of power the coal plant needs to generate by y kWh. When you plug the Tesla into a charger at work, it increases the amount of power the coal plant needs to generate by y kWh. And the whole thing is a wash. Exactly the same as if you charged the Tesla at home using (only) power from your home solar panels.
A lot of people don't seem to get this. The marginal increase power use doesn't have to be directly connected to the marginal increase in power generation to have the same effect. This is also why you should conserve electricity even if you're in the Pacific Northwest which is powered mostly by hydroelectric. Any reduction in your consumption means a little bit of hydro power is left over and can be transmitted to the rest of the country, and a coal plant elsewhere needs to burn a little less coal. Exactly the same as if someone living next to the coal plant conserved electricity.
For the same reason, EVs are predominantly powered by electricity from coal and natural gas, not by renewables. Those are the two power generation sources which are flexible enough to ramp up with increases in demand. EVs are only powered by electricity from renewables if you wouldn't have built the renewable plant if you hadn't bought the EV. If you would've built the renewable plant anyway, then it results in a marginal decrease in the generation from coal and gas, while the addition of an EV results in a marginal increase in the generation from coal and gas. So the EV's power is coming from coal and gas. This is the case even if the electricity from your solar panels are going straight to your EV. If in the absence of your EV the electricity from your solar panels would've instead gone onto the grid, then by putting it into your EV you are depriving the grid of those kWh, and a coal/gas plant elsewhere needs to generate those kWh.
Tesla understands this, which is why they're trying to link home solar installation with EV car purchases. If you can link the two, then the purchase of the EV results in the installation of PV solar generation which would not have existed without the EV. And then you can truthfully say the EV is being powered by electricity from solar.
Not only is the chute jettisoned earlier than called for in the predicted timeline, but the retrorockets that were due to switch on immediately afterwards are seen to fire for just three or four seconds. They were expected to fire for a good 30 seconds.
In the downlinked telemetry, Schiaparelli then continues transmitting a radio signal for 19 seconds after the apparent thruster shutoff. The eventual loss of signal occurs 50 seconds before Schiaparelli was supposed to be on the surface.
That last sentence, if you assume loss of signal corresponds to impact with the ground, suggests de-orbit velocity relative to the ground was much higher than expected. The early parachute release may have been the culprit. Or the probe entered the atmosphere at too steep an angle (which could also explain the early parachute release - the probe would've entered higher density atmosphere more quickly thus increasing aerodynamic load on the chute to the point at which it failed). The burn probably began at a higher velocity than it was designed for.
If we're speculating, my guess would be the higher velocity when the retro-rockets were fired caused greater instability - aerodynamic forces caused the probe to rock more than expected. The parachute's purpose isn't just to slow the craft down; it also keeps the craft's orientation stable during this period of higher aerodynamic forces. Without it, drag on tiny asymmetries on the front of the craft can result in large turning moments. With a parachute attached, these moments are countered by the righting moment the parachute imparts on the rear of the craft every time it deviates from the proper orientation. Without the parachute, the craft can experience large oscillations or even flip due to these drag-induced turning moments. The large amplitude and higher frequency of the resulting oscillations could've exceeded what the rocket control software was designed to handle, and it shut off prematurely when it exceeded some threshold programmed into the software.
An old boss of mine said "If you had time to do it a second time, you had enough time to do it right the first time".
That shows a gross ignorance of the probability tradeoff involved here. Just because recall expenses for one product exceeded the marginal design cost to "get it right the first time" doesn't mean that's the most cost-effective way to design everything. The ideal production point isn't to design and manufacture everything so you never have to do a recall. It's to build stuff so that most of the time you won't need a recall. And the few times you do need to recall a poor design, the cost of that recall is cheaper than having to overdesign everything. If you issue n products and
Then "doing it right the first time" has a cost of n*$x, while living with the slimmer margin results in a cost n*$(x-y) + $z = n*$x - n*$y + $z.
So as long as n*$y (the total amount of money saved by designing all products to a slimmer safety margin) exceeds $z (the cost of the single recall), then suffering the occasional recall is the more efficient economic strategy. I know everyone would prefer having all their toys be perfect, but that perfection would come at the cost of you being able to afford fewer toys. You are actually able to afford more toys which work as if they were perfect if you're willing to accept that a few toys won't be perfect, than if you demand all your toys be perfect.
The tradeoff gets muddled when lives are at stake, since it's difficult to place a value on a human life. (Well, placing an economic value on one is easy. Social, emotional, and moral value is difficult.) But we're talking about a smartphone. A modern convenience which didn't even exist 20 years ago.
Also, the manufacturers aren't who you need to convince here. The people you need to convince to change are the idiot reviewers in the media who pan any phone which doesn't match their misguided preconception of what a "good" phone is, and the people who buy based on those reviews. Everyone here complains phones are too thin, and most of the people I know just end up putting a case on the phone to make easier to hold. Bendgate disproved the notion that metal was better, with quantitative measurements showing that the plastic phones were equal to or stronger than the metal phones at resisting bending. And most reviewers don't use a review phone long enough to run down the battery multiple times under real-world use conditions (loaded with lots of background apps sucking power throughout the day), so tend to undervalue the importance of long battery life. The manufacturers just build to the unrealistic market expectations created by ignorant and misguided reviewers.
It saves the banks money because it drastically reduces the fraud rate. So, no consumers are not paying for this
Banks and credit card companies do not pay for fraud. They've set it up so the merchants pay for fraud. If you spot a fraudulent transaction on your card, request a chargeback, and the bank approves it, the merchant is out the money and the merchandise - they've paid for the fraud. The fees the banks and credit card companies collect pay for transaction costs, and for people who default on paying back their credit card debt.
Also, it's disingenuous to claim the merchant or customer does not pay for these fees. The credit card companies got laws passed making it illegal for merchants to charge an extra fee for credit card transactions. Consequently when you buy something with a credit card, it's the same price as if you paid in cash (a rare exception being stores which use the "cash discount" loophole). So the fee is coming straight out of the merchant's markup on the item sold - the merchant is paying for the fee. If you want to kick it up one more level, the merchant has to raise its prices to compensate for this reduced effective price markup. So the fee is coming out of the customer's wallet, with cash customers subsidizing the fee for credit card customers since their transactions do not incur the fee, yet they still pay the higher price.
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon