gregable

Unfortunately it's never that easy.

Should you be able to blast music at high volume outdoors if you pay a nuisance tax? If your wood burning stove heater makes the nearby aqi shoot up, is that ok if you pay for someone else to upgrade to a efficient furnace?

What about embedded manufacturing energy? Should the government not only tax CO2 within it's borders but also somehow audit CO2 for the entire supply chain? If not, some nation will make the call that fossil fuel burning is an externality that they can avoid paying.

Let's also admit that none of us can build an computer or a car from raw materials. Even if you would pay a premium for an efficient machine, most consumers don't understand what the future energy costs to them are going to be, will not demand efficiency, and thus suppliers will not build it. Apartments are rarely well insulated because the renters are rarely willing to pay more in rent to save more on energy costs.

As much as we'd like everyone to make rational decisions about complex transactions, most people will not. Im not arguing for stupidity even. At the level of the individual, the savings available by analyzing the options are smaller than the cost of the analysis. Its not worth much of my research time save $1 / yr in extra power efficiency. But across an industry it is.

Interesting thought, but does it change anything? Each vehicle is still driven the same # of total miles and the same number of annual total miles are driven, so I'm not sure if the resulting carbon output is any different.

Tons of other risky assets have high "interest rates". Sell puts on high volatility stocks for example.

Also the ability to recover kinetic energy during braking which is lost with ICE engines.

Perhaps the difference is that UBI doesn't pay you for working. In your counter-example, for the UBI to result in the same thing requires that the worker work exactly the same number of hours. UBI is usually per-person, not per hour worked.

If you tie UBI to per-person, for better or for worse, you distort the market to increase the price of labor. Each person has to work fewer hours to have the same income as before, thus you'd likely see less labor supply and thus higher price.

By tying UBI partly to labor, for better or for worse, you distort the market to decrease the price of labor at least in comparison to per-person UBI. I'd imagine vs. the status quo it's an price increase, but stacked against per-person UBI it should generate more labor supply and thus a price decrease.

If made independent from livable wages, it isn't clear that increasing the price of labor is optimal at the moment. It would seem to accelerate the pace of automation which would increase the pace of inequality. It would also slow overall economic output - the $11/hour generating job may cease to exist.

I'm not an expert in this area. It seems like an interesting thought experiment for a transitional period to UBI+automation would be to have government pay for higher minimum wage.

For example, current minimum wage is $7.25. We up this to $10 paid by employer and $5 paid by government. For each 2c above that the employer pays, the government kicks in 1c less up until $20. Exact numbers are just examples.

The issue with only higher minimum wage is that it accelerates the economic move towards automation. That may be seen as a good thing in this crowd, but too high of a pace of change could cause suffering.

Tariffs usually

One option for you might be the Brultech GreenEye monitor. They are considerably more expensive and unless they've changed a bit more of a roll-your-own on the coding side.

Perhaps, pick your favorite number. I think it's pretty clear nobody believes fundamentals support $300 though. Was wondering why market short pressure doesn't prevent it from getting that high.

That's what I figured might be the limiting factor. At some point, nobody wants to take the other end of the short, so it becomes impossible to short further.

Sure, but irrational enough not to short a $6 stock priced at $300?

I'm curious, if this is the case, why doesn't the market realize this and short sell like crazy right now, given it's clear the price isn't sustainable. That would then generate more negative price pressure and generally keep the whole thing from happening in the first place, no?

I have wondered how possible it might be to set up a few such cameras in a region and use them to triangulate meteor landing sites, maybe go find them after? I don't know how precise you could get, but it feels like if you could get down to a football field or something, maybe you could find the recently fallen ones, at least the large ones.

Perhaps partly, but the 70% increase from 2018 to 2019 can't be explained by Covid-19.

Totally agreed. The spirit of the whole thing seemed about adventure, exploration, and fun. Unfortunately the reality of the finder seems to be a far different set of stress which I hope he eventually is able to escape from.

I've seen instances of this before, but never one that couldn't possibly be explained in any other way. For example, getting an ad for an HBO show that I talked about. Well, HBO is pushing said show among my demographic, could easily be a coincidence.

The AMP javascript is served on the cdn.ampproject.org domain, not google.com.

Signed exchanges are an extension to digital certificates, such as used for TLS. This is independent of DNS.

Signed exchanges is actually separate spec from AMP. The browser implements it independently. There is no requirement for AMP pages to use signed exchanges nor for signed exchanges to be AMP.

Signed exchanges guarantee that the content cannot be modified by the cache, such as ad injection.

Google has never injected ads into any cache served AMP document (technically if the publisher uses AdSense, this is false, but that's not the point you are making).

It's difficult to follow what definition of theft is being suggested. The cache does not modify the document rendering, it's essentially a proxy. In a semantic sense, this is no different than your ISP delivering the page or your WiFi router.

I believe the issue with this is that users already largely don't understand decorations in the URL. For example, the difference between a lock and an extended verification certificate bubble. Educating a user on what a bundle URL means technically may be exceedingly challenging.

Correct. Open as in not resolved yet, but intended to be resolved in the future.

Long term versions are now supported, so publishers can lock in a specific version.

Publisher hosted copies are in the pipeline, as I referenced in the parent comment. My choice of verbiage was a bit confusing it appears.

Technically yes, but not very practically. The domain is cookieless, so it would be difficult to even identify a specific user, other than by IP. Also, the JavaScript resource is delivered from the cache with a 1 year expiry, which means most times it's loaded it will be served from browser cache rather than the web.

That's correct. Only with the private key can one sign a Signed Exchange for the publisher. Like TLS, if you have the key you can already do quite a lot.

The same could be said of any CDN hosted javascript library. For example: jquery. There is an open intent to implement support for publishers self-hosting the AMP library as well.

While that's theoretically possible, the library can be inspected and does not do these things.

There is a publisher selected expiration date as part of the signed exchange which the client inspects. The expiration also cannot be set to more than 7 days in the future on creation. This minimizes, but of course does not eliminate, this risk.

Certificate revocations do apply to signed exchanges.