typewithrhythm

It absolutely is a massive factor; because people plan a few years ahead. Consider how much it changes what you can afford if you save one year worth of payments in each case.

There is also less need to get the maximum possible loan if house prices are lower as a ratio to income.

This is both ignoring inflation, and the potential to shorten the duration of the loan.

It's not a matter of competition around current supply, it's a complaint about policy that has lead to a decline in what a 20-something can purchase over time.

Conceptually neoliberal societys do not have a strong way to seperate community and social goals from economic ones, because their very philosophy is that prosperity creates social improvement.

Meanwhile everyone is living in low trust economic zones with no community observable, other than anonymous services.

Its not about the actual mechanism of regen, it's how it interacts with the other systems on the car.

Modern ADAS is a whole lot more integrated on EVs than it ever was on combustion cars, not by some inherit requirements of EVs but due to consumer demand when considering a new ev platform.

The driver is increasingly more removed, things like drive and break by wire go through a long chain of controllers in order to allow ADAS, and the input from the user is really just one more signal from a sensor.

There is no longer any circumstance where these systems are completely "off". And none were I would consider off to be safer. (Yes, even gravel and snow)

In theory they can be mechanically, in practice high ADAS standards and functionality like regenerative breaking make it feel like a pretty high risk proposal to allow an end user in.

You can call it selfish, but you can't call it fascist.

In my perspective, it's less about what you should or shouldn't do; its about making sure that question is down to your individual morality.

Depending on the specific services in an area: everything from subsidised legal access to medications, to access to accommodations in schools seen as favorable (private environments to take tests, or extended deadlines). Some areas have specific assistance to parents of children with a diagnosis. Some have easier access to disability support services and payments.

There is substantially more going on than "tolerance vs intolerance". We have a huge influx not just because of changing diagnosis standards, but also because the financial benefit for getting a diagnosis has also expanded.

The views of people you are trying to label as fascist are more accurately described as individualism vs welfare state.

Very briefly visited, (I'm an Aussie) I saw lakes and dams; but I never really had a look to see if there was a good spot to build a pipe between or to create a new lake.

You don't actually need an excess of water, you need to be able to move enough between lakes though. You are not using any extra water from the system by adding pumps.

That's the real determining factor right, places with cheap big pumped hydro projects ideally already have big dams that are not full, so from that point it works. But then you need a reasonable amount of elevation between reasonably close lakes (or ideal new spots).

I don't really know if there is somewhere in Texas that works geographically; but the idea is if you have a good spot you essentially get an arbitrarily large store for the price of one dam.

At some point you get limited by fill/discharge rate, but the cost of storage in a big pumped hydro is still pretty cheap.

I gave several real, amoral, and tangible examples to explain why we should respect old debts in the current day, as it allows us to use the tool of currency to facilitate trade. No moral arguments are needed here.

You are also still trying to assign the idea of a specific debt being somehow more relevant than a specific pound coin. Due to the way nations create and balance currency exchanges this doesn't work.

It's simply not true to say we are paying for an old debt at a national level. The creation of a debt at a national level is similar to the creation of currency, this is immediately balanced by how people we trade with view the currency. This is all resolved at the time it's created...

You seem to think a nation is just a very long lived person, taking out specific loans from other people, but again; it's an abstract group that uses a floating currency to settle large trade agreements over time.

Because these agreements are made in currencies that are also abstract, it works.

These are all material concepts, not moral ones.

A collection of individuals all have their own moral choices to make, the "group" is just a convenience, it does not make moral choices. You cannot extend the idea of morality past the individual without a good justification.

Especially in the scale of a nation (where membership is non voluntary), the current members did not make any moral decisions that occures in the past, so trying to assign culpability to the current nation is flawed.

This is why these ideas are not compatible.

Your fundamental problem is you are taking ideas that apply to individuals and are trying to apply them to abstract groups. You are doing it again with the idea of trust.

Trust between nations is a concept that exists, but it's not the same thing as trust between individuals.

Trust inside a state is even more interesting, how can I possibly trust a state that arbitrarily redistributes money based on one topical historic injustice? Either it should be consistent and analyse all lineages for all wrongs, or accept that it's only a structure for allowing current people to interact civilly.

You have taken the idea that reparations are right, and are now trying to draw a line between reparations and other abstract concepts that are already accepted to try to be an advocate.

The flaw is that moral arguments that apply to individuals do not apply to nations, without some solid reasoning you have not made. So you cannot extend the idea that an individual should make good some injury to reparations.

You cannot will away an old debt without consequence because a current entity owns it, now, in the present. This is not a morality based decision. You are again trying to conflate abstractions that pertain to individuals and ones that pertain to nations. There is not a real concept of trust like between individuals, only a financial cost for not honouring debts.

I also don't understand why you think there is a direct relationship between the debts and what they were originally created for...

You clearly do not understand the concept of state or corporate personhood if you are trying to extend individual morality to apply.

Civil society is also a strange direction to go in, from trying to make the relationship to debts. To engage, the term only makes sense as a way for current people to interact, a "wrong" in context requires both a specific victim and an offender... It cannot be applied to historical actions as it gives no information to how current people should interact.

I would go as far as saying reparations for one arbitrarily chosen historic injustice undermines civil society; as it's impossible to claim one point in history is more valid than another, making any attempt a deeply unfair exercise.

Debt is a mechanic we use to settle long term concrete transactions, particularly between complicated abstract entitys like nations. To be able to enter into new long term agreements, we must respect existing agreements.

Morality pertains to how individuals should behave. There is no need for me to consider the actions of others I had no control over in order to act morally.

You are trying to compare abstract concepts in a way that weakens your point. Nations are not individuals. Similarly, individuals do not inherit debt.

You dont seem to understand; the debt is owned and exchanged by contemporary people, why or when that debt was created is irrelevant, because the body (government) that owes it has many other debts created over time. You can not pick and choose which ones to repay without causing everyone who you currently owe money to be alarmed.

Deciding to default on an old debt like that would be the equivalent of deciding any coin minted in 1993 is no longer valid, suck it up whoever currently has one in their pocket.

To be clear, you are the one trying to draw this parallel without any solid foundation to make it.

When you look the moral problem, there is a discontinuity that doesn't exist for abstract financial instruments. People make moral choices; you are trying to saddle people who didn't make those choices with some sort of culpability. This is a different case and needs to be made without trying to use financial instruments as a starting point.

If you say we are not paying a debt to slave owners, then slave owners do not receive money.

If you say we are not paying the current holder of a bond we created to pay slave owners in the past, then you damage your current credit rating. (In the worst case, potentially hurting organisations that let you have good terms for socially beneficial causes, refusing to pay back a charity that helps end slavery for example).

Because a debt like that is essentially a chunk of currency, that is passed between entitys; it doesn't matter when a debt a government was issued, the current holder is another contemporary entity or person.

Why a debt was created is irrelevant to the current holder, can't you understand why a government default is bad?

That is not a debt to slave owners, that is a debt taken on to pay for the costs of abolishing slavery.

It's also talking about real agreements for an entity to exchange money in the future, for a bond tied to the value of the currency... Not some vibes based moral justification.

Unfortunately I simply don't agree that it's a better product for everyone, for a few reasons, but the most simple is because there are costs involved.

A hypothetical zero additional effort inclusion at design stage, still wouldn't remove the issue where I now have an additional requirement limiting how I can approach things. I might also end up with higher overhead to modify a system as change requests come.

This is time and money I have to spend not working on the rest of the product.

Then you get into deeper issues, where if you actually have accessibility as a first class goal, much of your design should change. Consider an ideal UI for attracting new unguided users vs one with the expectation that users will have training and become experts. Then add in design for specific impairments. It's not easy and should be a big driver of the overall design, usually only done if the customer explicitly has a reason for it.

Again, it's not about deliberate exclusion; it's that I am trying to spend my energy in a way that gives me the most financial benefit (the selfish reasons as per the article), and accessibility does not do that.

You seem to have the opposite perspective on the relationship between someone who makes a product and customers...

I am never looking at one specific person or group when planning what to invest time in, I'm looking for the best return.

Its not a fair start point to claim I'm thinking on the level of who deserves access. Usually I'm following my own plans to try to break even.

This is a very artificial way to make the argument though; it's still not worth it from a revenue or user acquisition perspective, it's just a risk from a potentially fickle government body.

The context is that the UK government has extremely wide reaching powers to fine or imprison based on online speech, with much of the wording of these laws being contrived as anti terror. So by classifying a position as terrorist ideology, they can apply these laws and chill opposition.

It's a bullshit disingenuous media tactic trying to make people outside an area who would benefit from a project appear just as valid as the community members opposing it.

The fact is it's not actually your backyard just because you've added that label to yourself. (See the DPRK)

There seems to be a growing gap between the people who define "community" as the group of people who live in and wish to direct the changes in the area they are in. And the people who define community as the group who receives the benefits of government intervention.

YIMBYs is a silly term, since its usually a developers talking about forcing changes in someone else's neighbourhood. Considering the input they like, it's only from the second definition of community, notably people not currently in an area, or standing to endure the downsides.

The 3d printer The reusable rocket The driverless car

Plus a shitload more that reached enough maturity to be broadly useful. CNN's Vr Cheap Thermal cameras

You seem a bit too pessimistic to google things for yourself, but technology is genuinely moving pretty fast

Value capture pricing is a fantasy often spouted by salesmen, the current era AI systems have limited differentiation, so the final cost will trend towards the cost to run the system.

So far I have not been convinced that any particular platform is more than 3 months ahead of the competition.

Because a low and high cost phone do essentially the same thing, whereas a high trim car will do things like steering assistance in a way the low trim does not do at all.

And to support the differences high trim will have different sensors and differently distributed compute.

This means that the infotainment system will be running in different places on different cars.

There are other competitors for that segment, even the Q4e on the same platform has better UI. People still buy the ID4 because it's not enough of a deciding factor.

Someone like Ford for example will have several software platforms, some for low cost vehicles, some high, some that are adaptable between trim levels.

So as you go up in features on some model "the BigTruk" you might be going through variations of one sw platform, or jumping between platforms.

Some have several platforms for high and low cost based on centralised vs distributed, so for example an s class will not have much software or hardware shared with an a class.