It ended up with a big payday for big oil IIRC.
Now that we are getting the socialists back in power (they was the ones behind the last attempt) they've promised to have companies buy into it too instead of just using taxes.
I consider myself fluent in Norwegian, did I still miss something?
Edit: to be clear, I don't care at all about those stupid point. For that matter dang should be free to reset them every day like he seems to do with his own.
I only care about them as an indication of whether what I said came across as wrong or something.
A more productive comment would have talked about how the Norwegian carbon tax was intended to fund research and how exactly it failed to do that and instead just created profits for oil companies.
I don't have time to fix it now, but yes, this is my point:
I'm not against taxing pollution or using tax income to fund research, only against the part where we (Norway) literally gave money to companies without demanding results.
The taxes are also paid for by the yuppies at a disproportionate rate to their income share.
See: share of income taxes as broken out by income segment, in most every developed nation.
One of the central defining characteristics of a yuppie is a well-paying job. That means paying higher, progressive tax rates in most affluent nations, including Australia.
https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/individual-income-tax-rates/
See: what happens to California if you remove the tech yuppies pulling down $200,000 - $500,000, as well as their party buckets of equity compensation, the taxes of which the state rolls around in during the good times. California would become a formal second world disaster with no ability to fund anything. Illinois with nicer weather.
We at .com are delivering medicines to poor people in this unfortunate country that has no infrastructure. (baby crying, dog being kicked away from table with flies on the food, and sad music playing)
Disclaimer: This was done one time for advertising purposes, and is not indicative of how our whirlybirds will be used.
(Off topic, but here goes. You know those drug commercials that state if you can't afford the medications, we a Whizzerbio will help out with costs because we are there for Everyone.
This is how it worked when I looked into it. You, and your doctor have to fill out a bunch of forms.
The meds are only sent to the doctors office. So you will need to go there to pick the medication up, and I imagine setting up another appointment. I have no idea why they don't deliver to the patient, or reimburse the pharmacy. I imagine they want it delivered to the office so the pharmaceutical rep can have a real reason to talk with doc?
Only one patient per doctor are allowed to participate in this promotion. Doc has 1000 patients, but only one poor guy gets the free med.
I looked into this ten years ago, so things might have changed?
Now they are necessary for academic research in deep learning and other fields, which would not have gotten GPUs as advanced as they are without the market boost.
Of course that’s just a theory and it’s never possible to go back and see what would have happened. But it seems reasonable to me.
1. GPUs used to be much less programmable and had fixed-function graphics pipelines.
2. General purpose GPU computing was demonstrated a decade before the 2012 deep learning craze. OpenCL/CUDA was quite mature in 2012 and used by high performance computing.
3. Transistor scaling (Moore’s law) has been speeding everything up exponentially.
4. There are a lot of non-GPU solutions now.
If GPUs didn’t exist, someone still could have trained a deep model on a cluster of CPU, and then we’d end up with GPUs (or similar hardware) again. So it’s not necessarily true that gaming->GPU->deep learning implies that GPUs couldn’t be used for deep learning without gaming, because you could have had CPU->deep learning->GPU. I think this was much more of a case of the stars magically aligning than some preset goal by Nvidia/AMD.
In fact, there are plenty of cases where you had CPU->research->HW accelerator. One example (on top of gaming/rendering) is compression or parity coding, which was slow initially and then had add-on cards and/or CPU extensions.
How are people chuckling about this video when this is clear signs this will have real environmental effects and costs that if we are,"lucky" might be a taking point to politicians/CEOs in a couple of decades after irreversible damage is done
Coffee wasn't on the agenda it seems.
I find it difficult to believe coffee delivery even now or "going forward" significantly subsidizes drone technology development. Even if you expand that to delivery of other frivolities.
Do you have any numbers? Or reasoning?
Drones have already long had the capability to do all this, lift and endurance, auto flying and navigation, GPS, even cameras and some autonomous visual recognition.
What drone technologies are being subsidized by coffee delivery?
> Drones have already long had the capability to do all this, lift and endurance, auto flying and navigation, GPS, even cameras and some autonomous visual recognition.
If that's the case (which it is, you're right), then why are we not already delivering medicine to remote areas with drones?
Also coffee is not being delivered to remote areas so I don't know what that has to do with anything.
Really? Are spoiled yuppies ordering coffee a significant fraction of projected drone deliveries? I doubt it.
50% markups may make it viable if it gets off the ground and becomes and ind operation but that’s not footing R&D.
This is probably news to a lot of VCs who regularly make investments in hope of an eventual market.
Your comment is so profoundly wrong, and yet so confidently written. You're comparing Coke, a long-shelf-life mass market product, with (often) emergency/low-latency delivery of products which would be impractical to stockpile in every remote village, even if they could affort it (e.g. certain types of medicine and consumable medical products, blood, etc.)
Coke doesn't need low-latency delivery - they can use high-bandwidth + warehousing. This isn't possible/practical for some types of products.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delivery_drone#Healthcare_deli...
Unless it is a AI powered blockchain drone, that would be unbeatable!
Drones are much faster than cars at getting to remote places. There are many, many villages throughout the African continent that can take several hours to get to due to lack of paved roads (you need a 4WD, and it'll be a bumpy, slow ride). Sometimes the territory is dangerous to drive though. Drones can also be used even in more developed areas when roads have been completely washed away by a flood/hurricane/landslide/etc. The industry certainly has been hyped, and it's still early days, but your claim that they're not useful is absurd.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/in-the-air-with-ziplines-medical-d...
Consider a rarely needed but life-saving antivenom that is expensive to produce, requires careful+chilled storage and is just not that abundant outright due to difficult production. A snake bite could happen anywhere, but its infeasible and potentially wasteful to have it stocked at every local facility. If a drone could be used to deploy it from a central facility to where its needed in a timely manner on-demand, that could save lives. In the developed world, roads make ground transportation a more suitable approach for this problem (in addition to everything else that makes the problem itself less frequent), but in many parts of the world the ground infrastructure is simply not there.