85 karma · joined October 27, 2016
Personally I don't see any real chance of nuclear escalation over Ukraine on both sides. The war needs to end but to do that Putin needs to be given a way to deescalate and claim a win at home. But that can only be allowed to happen if Ukraine is made safe and secure once again and if Putin is willing to swallow that. And I see no evidence of that being true.
As for national incomes - see my comment below but unless you are subtracting out costs for healthcare and other services offered to all citizens that are not offered by the US government you are not comparing apples to apples either.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD?location...
Apparently healthcare in the US is something like $10k per person per year? Seems fair to take that from the US median income so we are comparing apples with apples. Looking at your wikipedia link that would put the US down around 11th... After Belgium, Norway, Austria, etc and that is before we start talking about education.
Look - your point that people in USA have more money is mostly true. But when you add in the extras you have to pay for the difference is not as big as you might think. And none of that explains why pregnancy related deaths are so comparatively high.
The choice isn't about getting massively poorer, it's just whether you want to be able to look your fellow citizens in the face and know you aren't for supporting a system that sees their children die so you can save a few dollars more in tax.
But we don't live in that society.
I guess we could argue about semantics but depriving me of my ability to legitimately profit from my work while the IA wrapped itself in a flag of doing good seems like at the very least a very low form of behaviour, as well as illegal. And I doubt many people would describe us any word other than theft.
Until then if you want to read an authors work then you need to pay their (usually very small) fee.
The IA blatantly stole the work of thousands of people. They saw a problem and wanted to act - laudable. They could have done that be arranging to buy unique copies of each book they lent out. Or they could have tried to come to some agreement with the publishers. Or a bunch of other alternatives.
They didnt.
They stole the work and thankfully there is some players with enough clout in the market to do something about it.
If the big publishers ever do go away it will be a bad time for those like me who are never going to make enough revenue from our works to warrant a court proceeding while our works are stolen.
An off the shelf AP is often going to have a lot of functionality you are not going to use but you are going to be paying for. It's going to consume power driving signals back and forth to the specialised printer chip. Its going to cost money to control inventory and deal with two chips when one could do the job. It may be end of lifed at an awkward time causing you to have to redesign or store a lot of inventory.
And it really isn't that much more expensive to develop one big SoC if you are already developing a specialised chip to go with the AP.
I'd estimate a team size peaking at < 10 over 12 months to go from initial specification discussion to GDS-II. Another $1-1.5M for qual and support through production plus silicon validation.
Put that all together and <$7M sounds to me like a good estimate and I've seen a lot of more complex projects come back for less.
Not wanting to be a gobshite here but how did you manage to spend >$20M for something like this? It sounds like you were being seriously ripped off if you were paying $1M per engineer for design tools - you might want to push your tool vendors on that next time negotiations come round.
Assuming there is no wealth redistribution then you had Joe and Jane have $19.128.28 and $69,330.20 respectively. Lets say they both die on the same day and leave all their wealth to Joe Junior ($19,128.28) and Jenny ($69,330.20).
Now it turns out that Joe Junior works hard and is really smart. He can get a 5% per annum return. Meanwhile Jenny is a bit of a flake but can still get 1% per annum from her investment.
After 50 years Joe Junior has $219,351.63 and Jenny has $114,022.65. So the hardworking Joe has turned his more modest beginning around and overtaken the less hardworking Jenny. The total wealth pool is now $333,374.28.
However if we had equalised their wealth on the death of their parents so that they had both started with $34,816.57. Jackie would then have ended up on $57,260.44 while Joe Junior would be on $399,255.53 for a combined wealth of $456,515.97 - significantly more than if wealth equalisation had not taken place
So that is one way it makes sense for the economy a a whole to redistribute wealth. Another is the fact that both Joe Junior and Jackie may have seen fixed costs (Medical bills?) on their life journeys. Jackies initial capital advantage measn she could weather those a lot more efficently then Joe Junior even if the return on her wealth she is generating is less.
And of course the same is true without having to wait for the next generation. Just because person A made good use of their resources for 10 years is no indication that they will always continue to do so and so are going to generate the best return on those resources - and the opposite is also true. That said while past performance is no indicator of future success it is a whole lot better then nothing.
TL;DR While completely flat wealth distribution is obviously a daft idea a simple argument shows some level of movement seems to be in the best interest of the economy as a whole.
Of course the flip side is you probably get a lot more 'parish-pump politics'. Candidates looking after their one tiny constituency to the detriment of the country as a whole.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1il_%C3%89ireann#Number_...