1,385 karma · joined July 27, 2012
Anytime they issue a new bond, figures change so difficult to give a straight answer. For Apple, bonds typically range around 3/3.5% yield. And prices of the bond usually stay above 90 cents on the dollar, AFAIK (not an expert)
Great. Is this system that provides, so far, minimal to no advantage over other transaction systems worth expending the same electric power that a small developed country (Portugal) uses?
The real intricacies of tulip mania don't matter. Who cares if it was not exactly the bubble we thought it was? It was still a bubble, with serious consequences to those exposed to it. Yes, it didn't move at the speed of the markets move now because markets then were much more slower and it only affected a bunch of businessmen.
So what? We use the analogy because we know markets sometimes go crazy around stocks and other assets, with no apparent justification other than thinking the price will continue to grow and usually based on not much more than faith. Tulip mania has become a proxy for that behavior because the absurdity of a flower bulb skyrocketing in price, but if you don't like it, you can certainly point to many bubbles we know existed, had more widespread effects and were equally based on nothing. Some of them are not even a decade old.
But, also, a 50% increase in housing supply means higher density of population, with higher buildings instead of single family homes and therefore more comercial space in large populated areas, meaning more jobs will be at walking/biking/short-bus-ride distance.
I don't know where you get this. In my experience nobody who advocates for socialized healthcare is under this impression. They know how the system works, just don't think it's an efficient way to run it (it isn't).
The way the incentives are structured on the American healthcare system now are beyond ridiculous and having public published prices is a way to start a much needed debate about the underlying issues, with data and facts instead of political viewpoints.
It's absurd that having a baby in an average facility in the US "costs" five times more than a private hospital in Switzerland. I put quote marks on cost because that's usually billed price and insurance tend to negotiate down, so in reality is more like twice the cost, but still absurd at any level.
I'm hoping this is sarcasm, but in case it's not the cost of opportunity here is the main issue. Imagine all that computer power applied to protein folding simulation, to name a simple, useful-for-everyone task.
Of course, but think of all the rich kids and trust fund babies that end up doing nothing useful with their lifes. I think Gates family background was incredibly useful in his career (as is usually the case with most entrepreneurs) but still decided to do things that were out of the comfort zone for a kid in his situation. Most of the other kids would have opted to follow a career in finance or law and use his family name and connections to carve a comfortable "successful-in-appearence" professional life.
Wealth is not as great a motivator as we tend to think. Social and family expectations are much more important, especially in rich and upper middle class families, in determining what to do with your life. Gates took and odd bet. He could because the stakes weren't that high thanks to family money, and it paid off.
Not only that, it's not always feasible depending on the depth of the tunnel. The 2nd ave tunnel is 80 feet deep, and in a city with heavy underground infrastructure already in place.
1. Ancient civilization enters industrial and post-industrial era.
2. Carbon levels rise, so do global temperatures.
3. In a desperate attempt to save themselves they try geo-engineering by slamming a massive asteroid in the too hot and thus unpopulated area of Yucatan.
4. Goes wrong.
I can see it working as sci-fi novel
Even if the detection box changed in size, it should have detected something. Tall or short, wide or narrow, static or moving... at least it should apply brakes to avoid collision.
Probably checking the computer installed for diagnostics of the autopilot system. If it's in self driving mode and you are the engineer in charge, you'd want to constantly check what the system is seeing vs the actual conditions on the road.
And the publishers can quantify how much it gets.
With the volatility of crypto assets this is not a viable solution for the publisher, especially because readers who have an ad-blocker installed are likely to block the mining script as well.
This is a publicity stunt. Nothing more, nothing less.
1. You knew the trade-off when you purchased an Apple device.
2. This is an unexpected change on a service your digital identity is tied to.
That's why the equivalence the OP is making here is absurd.
I do, however, like to come to HN because it tends to be a very civil space in which to share opinions, not a vehicle for attention seekers to spout whatever false equivalences their brain just come up with.
As far as I'm concerned everyone here is entitled to their opinion and I have never seen anyone's voice silenced in this forum. But when you start a message with "I know I'm going to get down voted but..." you are hedging on the value of your own opinion. You know it's unpopular but at the same time you are so concerned with the public validation of it that need to present yourself as a victim and the rest of us as some kind of oppressors.
No, you'll get down voted for the way you are saying it. There's a difference, and it's an important one.
Cheers
Of course not, but they do reproduce and can do quite fast for animal propagated tree species. We are talking about 3.04 trillion trees. Even if the natural germination rates are low, it would still be significant enough to make a difference in the assertion this article uses as introduction.
Like I said, a lot of things have to be taken into account, including local deforestation and its effect on desertification. Higher averages temperatures are forcing forests to move to higher latitudes, but they are also clearing areas of growth that are not yet inhabited by humans and were far too cold before for trees to propagate to.
I'm not suggesting that there's not a problem with the way we use our forest resources, just that the oversimplification of the starting premise of the article doesn't help at all.
US Forests History and trends (FAO): www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/x4995e.htm
WorldBank has numbers for global trends but only with data starting in 1990 and for forest surface: https://data.worldbank.org
It shows a slight decline, but as FAO points out, forest density (trees pr sqmt) is also growing so forest surface area numbers don't tell the whole story.
ehhhhhmmmm no. It's not simple math. Or if it is, those are the wrong numbers to pick. Trees can reproduce themselves without human help and there are around 3.04 trillion trees in the world so a lot of potential for these net loss figures to be waaay off.
As far as we know, the number of trees in the world is actually growing. Higher levels of CO2 and the arrival of plastics and aluminium have contributed to reforestation of large areas of the world (we used to make everything out of wood). There are more trees now than there were 100 years ago.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), in the US, forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. Same goes for Europe. The story might be different in Asia and certain parts of South America but in aggregate numbers I'd bet that we have net growth.
And Intel did not have a saying in packaging both vulnerabilities together. Researchers at Project Zero did, and with good reason, since both exploit the same function through different means.
> In other words it's capital investment taking out operational expenses. It's capital investment reducing the size of the economy.
I didn't know that coal or oil now produce pure energy by their mere existence, with no need for extraction, refining, transportation and combustion equipment and infrastructure. This is wonderful news and really changes everything. We should tell everybody.