aseerdbnarng

Am I being a moron or are the weights only applicable to trucks? The lowest rung is 7.5tons.

But of course it's absurd how big cars have become. If you're a 50kg woman why do you need a 2.7ton SUV to go from stop light to stop light? Get a grip people

How daft do you have to be go on a hiring binge in Europe without looking into the labour laws. These laws didn't just fall out the sky last Tuesday

How is this the top comment

It might mean the switch to EVs are insufficient if it bakes in unrealistic expectations of future benefits. The cost and subsidies to EVs might be better spent elsewhere. I’m not making a comment on pro/against EVs only that the cited paper makes an assumption I believe to be overly optimistic

I read through one of the papers and a key assumption that the energy mix powering the grid will more halve its co2 output over the next 10 years and cites Germany as the baseline trend. This is a crazy optimistic assumption to make

While the Chinese threat to Taiwan is not something to be dismissed completely, the article doesn’t mention just how incredibly vulnerable China is to possible sanctions targeting their food supply. China imports most of its food and as their farmland is quite poor, its hugely dependent on fertiliser to feed itself. Sanctions targeting these basics would be devastating so I really struggle to see a convincing case for the CCP risking national suicide and its own existence over Taiwan

I’m always curious how different insurers cover the use of hands-free driving. Would anyone still buy the FSD feature if people thought insurers would reject accidental damage claims? It feels like its sitting on sketchy ground

How exactly is the ECB supposed to provide cheap energy via interest rates? And what exactly is the thinking here? Energy bills have more than trebled and people are going to be thankful to central banks for paying 3x more for their mortgage? The best thing central banks can do is sit on their hands for now

I'd bet anything the restrictions are for insurance reasons otherwise the premiums would be too high

I price motor insurance for a living and in my models the absolute worst 'insurable' risks (ones that pass underwriting scrutiny) will have some sort of impact every 3rd year. If we filter that to more severe cases where there's bodily injury it moves out to 8/9 years.

What this means is the absolute worst drivers will go ~100k miles between causing serious accidents so the threshold between good, bad and awful drivers is really far out into the tails of the distribution. Without actual driving data to work from we don't know how safe FSD is and youtube videos are purposefully selected for views. Even so the sheer number and 'randomness' of fails is concerning because nothing like alcohol, speeding or inexperience to point to.

Things that spring to mind:

- Gas in an open space is the main one. It would need to be very potent stuff to be effective and something that potent in tiny doses is almost certain to be highly toxic

- Getting the gas widely disbursed in a built-up area may only be effective by destroying the buildings (so we're likely back to square one)

- Logistically a challenge as your own troops/transport would need to be quite close to take advantage (whereas dead people tend to stay put)

- Even if you could solve 1-3 it probably takes way too long to zonk someone out and it can be easily stopped by putting on gas masks or retreating.

This naturally human response thats existed for longer than commerce needs to be suppressed because it doesn’t further your career. Yup. Makes sense to me.

There's a (cold) calculated logic to this in that there are more than a dozen countries closer to Ukraine the refugees can escape to, so what exactly is the reason to open up the borders? its not like Germany and France are persecuting the refugees. I dont say I agree with it, but I can understand it

fair point. I was focusing on the 'removing subsidies' part and not the 'reallocate' part. Accept the correction

Whoa there chief. The whole 'that would be a good thing' is an overreach. There are 'better' ways to spend that subsidy but having a steady surplus of food subsidy or not is a way better position for a country to be in than implementing some JIT mechanism with supply/demand set purely by market prices. Just because agriculture makes up a small % of GDP compared to tech we can more easily get rid of Google than we can get rid of grain.

I dont agree with that and here's why: Whenever taxation > spending (ignore once off liquidation of assets), the government actively destroys private sector savings (dont take my word for it, go ahead and map the transactions on the balance sheets of the pvt sector, central bank and the treasury, and you'll see the transaction reduces pvt sector assets). What you're saying is rather than risk inflation eroding the value of those assets, lets just destroy them outright. The counter-argument could be that private sector would issue more loans on aggregate (create money) if inflation were lower but that borders on tea-leafy speculation

Gov debt is private sector savings. Title rephrased: We've reduced private sector assets by $119bill.

This is probably written by a programmer for that reason (and reading the ‘why R is bad’ comments) shows how misunderstood R is by most programmers. Its like giving someone an introduction to the english language by showing them the alphabet and listing punctuation. Yes technically all true, but none of it will stick

Someone housetrained you very well

Incredible how this Wired article knows whats better for workers than workers themselves

Quite right. The small graph in the article confirms it. If you zoom in enough you can see the power and torque are more than doubled during the 20second burst mode, but even so it is very impressive

Excellent summary!

Thats a great point! “I liked everything about the movie until my ox was gored” and in this case the movie goes for it leaving no one spared. The evisceration of techno John Galt and the media might be the most flagrant sins amongst professional critics’ social class

Its not good satire because its very heavy handed (similar to Idiocracy) but its criticisms seemed spot on to me. The characters were all there from the jingoist politicians, a media focused on trivial distractions, techno utopianists, a fragmented society that cant agree on common truths and ultimately a disastrous ending that could have been avoided. Its not a cheerful movie

"It is exceedingly complicated. There have to be guardrails and guidelines to protect children, to protect developers, to protect consumers"

I propose a heuristic that whenever 'protect children' gets used there's a high chance its a load of bull

This seems like a carbon copy of Notion which seems to have a lot of users so may be a better comparison

Once you get the hang of it, AN reads beautifully. The concept of Life Tables and the ways the math can be abstracted away using these mystical symbols is incredibly elegant.

Side comment, when you get into the weeds with actuarial exams you quickly learn to respect older actuaries who had to solve these complex problems using clever heuristics instead of computing power. Once those heuristics are internalized they are able to give incredibly accurate off-the-cuff answers using their intuition. I remember my boss and I spending a week valuing a new product and presenting it to the wise old chief actuary who immediately felt something was off in the numbers and could point out where we likely made an error. It took me all afternoon to find the error, but of course he was right.

Good for you for having a spine. I had a similar experience (not google). I was expected to do prepwork and the interviewer couldn’t be bothered to think up any questions other than following a script is incredibly rude and telling of that company’s culture

Return to office is just management reasserting ownership over the serfs dressed up with mindless business jargon (collaboration, innovation, culture etc)

Bad company who scared of the future and cant innovate, partners with bad people to halt the march of the progressive and virtuous. I believe this to be lazy clickbaity reporting

Remove the pearl-clutching and all Toyota is doing is trying to get the government to extend government subsidies beyond BEVs using the very same system of lobbying major companies use. Their methods are the same as every other company and their aim seems perfectly sensible