I'm all for personal responsibility, but do you have any idea what a simple 1200 SqFt home goes for in this place?
In this overcrowded space, 1200 SqFt dedicated to your use is NOT simple, that is a Luxurious home that only the rich can afford. The price is high BECAUSE the demand is high. The simple answer is: Eventually the cost will be so high that you're financially justified in spending more $$$ on commuting, telecommuting, or working someplace else.
High demand and low available space EQUALS High Price or Exhaustion of supply. There's no getting around the fact that supply is limited........ If government tries to subsidize people with six-figure incomes, they'll just wind up raising the price even more, at least for the people with barely enough income that they no longer qualify for the subsidy.
The high price is how the markets respond to the shortage to tell you that you should move elsewhere, And
the high price that developers can charge for rents/sales also justifies developers consuming larger and larger amounts of resources to try to squeeze in more people, whereas, without that incentive there would be less total usable housing.
But the numbers say that she didn't do a bad job.
Yahoo ceases to be and will no longer generate any revenue for any share holder. That should put your short term $ in perspective. What shareholder value has she generated for the next 5 years? You know that thing CEOs are supposed to do? Set up a business to provide value in the future. How good are her numbers there?
Could anybody have done much better?
I'm sure a lot of people could have done better than kill a company through death by papercuts over a 5 year period to an eventual sell off soo poor that the new owners don't even consider keeping the name.
I have a better question: Should someone who evidently didn't do a good job walk away with stupid amounts of money? I mean give her a token few million for a tenure as CEO while the company sank, but she sure as heck doesn't deserve benefits for her effort.
Under Mayer's tenure, Yahoo! generated a 21% annual growth rate in market value
Which is only marginally above the other tech companies with similar annual growth rates. Speaking of growth, you know an easy way to grow value? Chop up things and sell it for cash then report good earnings. That's one of the problems with your figures.
Yahoo showed great growth in the earlier period marked a lot by divestment and cuts. Yahoo then showed growth in the last two years by not delivering anything other than speculation that they will be bought by someone. The end result is a company that is literally dead.
Under Mayer's tenure the company went under and got bought out. The shareholders got a bit extra as they always do so they are happy, but not even the name will live on as anything more than a memory of another company sunk by a crap CEO.
She hasn't earned a cent. She was given money via the same stupid metric that get shareholders excited about their company potentially going under.
No they don't. Have a closer read. There's some real gold in a directive that states that it should itself be reviewed before it comes into force due to changing standards. Combined with the fact that while the Annex itself states a lot of technical shalls, the requirements to follow the annex is full of shoulds.
Really the thing that makes this directive most irrelevant to any point you were trying to make is that the directive effectively grandfathers all existing technology prior to 2020, and is open to choosing a winner at a later date.
This doesn't mandate openness or the crappy CCS standard. What it does is create an arms race, which is exactly what is happening with the Japanese and the German consortium right now, both of which are looking at something other than CCS.
This is as much of a mandate to move to a solid standard as it was for Apple to provide USB charging on their phones. Here throw an adaptor at the problem. Sure it won't be fast, will lack all the features and technical capabilities that we're used to, but hey "directive" right?
What was said
What was said and what you think were said may as well have been in two different languages.
I mean both comments were effectively two full sentences and yet what you think was said and what was actually said has the words "you" and "windows" in common.
Because CCS supports 350kW charging, while Tesla's charger only supports 120kW
It most definitely does not. It was meant as a scalable standard, only in electronic and signalling. The current connectors can't even handle the same power as Tesla and any proposed upgrade to 350kW will likely need a completely different delivery system. But they'll call it CCS because it will be backwards compatible with an adaptor cable.
and because CCS is the de-facto standard across the world at this point
It most definitely is not. It is quite popular in public trickle charging stations in Europe, and the CCS type 2 adaptor was given a European standard number. That's about it. Every car company wants it replaced with something else due to serious shortcomings.
As I said in another comment. ISA slots were on every motherboard in every computer making it the de-facto standard. We should just stick to that and never look at anything better right?
The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity.