bmh_ca

I summarized the information I have read on this topic in an answer on Skeptics.SO:

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/31144/1792

To quote a much more authoritative Europhysics article that subsequently came out (and which I since put at the head of my answer):

> ... The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion [that a steel frame building collapsed from a fire], fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. ...

> It's disingenuous to use "pollution" ambiguously to push a narrative.

That's something that should be taken up with the dozens of reputable newspapers from whom I have drawn that information (e.g. the Guardian, quoted above).

> The shipping industry ... isn't _that_ significant when it comes to climate change. In terms of sulphur based pollutants it's pretty horrifying, though.

Thanks, that certainly clarifies.

I take it you believe the Guardian is wrong / misleading / imprecise here? (as are a dozen or so more recent articles)

- https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping...

> One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds

> Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars.

The top seven or so shipping ships produce more air pollution than all the worlds cars combined ...

So one could say yes to your question, depending on what you call "major".

Some regard those as symptomatic of other problems or strongly correlate with other issues e.g. lack of restraint, cultural entitlement, issues with inhibition, poor math skills, societal definition and acceptance of "infidelity", addictions.

Infidelity and money issues are reasons for divorce in the same way that clouds are the reason it rains.

I feel a more valuable explanation would go deeper - into the underlying system that creates the result. In the case of rain, we call it the weather cycle.

Rapid expansion of credit strongly correlates with insolvency.

There's an excellent paper by Gudrun Johnson back when she worked at the IMF that captures it in the sovereign insolvency context.

> I doubt that.

Let me clarify: Nobody appeared to be interested in funding a graduate student to prove P != NP.

> This implies P not equal NP

I did some graduate level research on P =? NP, specifically in the SAT space <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfiability>.

In particular, I helped design MARMOSET (Marmoset Automated Reasoner Mostly Only Solves Easy Theorems), a competitive SAT problem solver. <http://www.cs.unb.ca/research-groups/argroup/marmoset/> . (It's a cool name... I didn't come up with it :))

The conclusion I drew was:

1. P != NP because you can convert in polynomial time every SAT problem down to Horn clauses, which are P to solve, plus non-Horn clauses that cannot be converted i.e. have intractable intrinsic NP complexity whose reduction to the polynomial space requires "clairvoyance" of the quantum computation variety.

2. Nobody's really interested in a proof that P != NP.

That said, I only spent a couple years at it, and my memory may be faulty and I might change my mind if I revisited the issue. Part of me has always felt that the Horn clause reduction is a first step to isolating problems for a next step, but again — it's been a long time.

You may be right, and GM's revenue remains massive so it's a fraction of revenue.

The only area of concern is the growth presumptions in the pension fund. They are often around 7.5%, whereas real growth was 0.5%, putting a potential damper on the profit line (but I do not know that relative magnitude of that).

People often think of the electronic-nature of their cars as Tesla's key advantage.

Other elements factor into share/debt cost analysis:

1. Culture — They appear to still have a startup "let's solve the problem" mentality

2. Distribution — There are no networks of dealerships taking a cut

3. Marketing — They don't need to pay for it at all right now

4. Legacy — There are no pension funds and other obligations on them

5. Environmental icon — There is a lot of political support for them

Tesla is still high risk, but they have a big potential upside.

Contrast with e.g. GM:

1. Old-school Culture of "if you build it, they will come"

2. Mandatory dealerships

3. Big marketing costs

4. Pensions are underfunded and they have a huge inventory buildup (and defaulting subprime leases are mounting)

6. They have a lot of political support, but it's not for environmental reasons

That's pretty cursory, but illustrates a few factors besides just the product.

Tesla's burn rate is a marginal-risk long factor, if/when they get past their manufacturing bottlenecks.

[edit]: Newlines.

> Why do we even allow cops on duty with the camera off? Why do we give them the choice of when it will be turned on?

As a matter of evidence, in many cases if one has a duty to preserve evidence yet fails in that duty, then a Judge may draw an negative inference against the bearer.

In many common law jurisdictions a Judge must draw such an inference, for example with the chain of custody in criminal cases.

A negative inference generally takes the form of a rebuttable presumption. For example, in the case of the chain of custody, if the police lose possession of evidence then the court is entitled (obliged in certain cases) to presume that it was tampered with.

In the case of body cameras, I would argue that a police officer has failed in an analogous duty — namely to employ a device that would create an objective contemporaneous audio/video record of events that does not hinder the ability of a police officer to perform their other duties.

Soon, I would hope and expect, the absence of body camera evidence will draw a negative inference against police.

We may not be there yet, because law is a slow moving — progressed by individual cases that can take years to work through the system of appeals that create persuasive or binding precedents, but this is almost certainly the direction I believe the law properly should take.

In my humble opinion, based on the examples I have seen, the people who benefit the most from this, by far, are good police officers that are naturally inclined to adhere to proper ethical and constructive behaviour of policing (such as those set out in the Peelian principles).

IAAL, but the above is not legal advice.

Vulcan was the answer imo. I haven't seen any evidence that Metal is catching on - but would like to.

> I don't know about your industry but the abiding memory i have from before the financial crisis of 2009 was of economists fanning the property bubble with the mantra ' the fundamental are sound' and how the worst scanario would be a "soft landing"

If you'd like to read about it, the best contemporaneous piece I've read on it is "All the Devils Are Here" - https://www.amazon.com/All-Devils-Are-Here-Financial/dp/1591...

Your comment reinforces my cynical opinion of economics.

A friend of mine who is a noted economist with a Ph.D. in statistics, commented to me with something along the lines of:

> The only reliable correlation in economic papers is the probability that an author will be published.

I take her comment to mean that big names from big universities get papers published, but publication is not based on the merits of the paper.

More to the point, she said that the statistics used for almost all mainstream economics is flat-out wrong.

The key (literally and figuratively) is in the trust of the biometric reader.

Automated HSTS, revokable public key pins, and certificate transparency.

I agree that this is not Uber's fault. I was only tackling the "why the free market doesn't correct" aspect.

On that point: The free market is not obligated to correct for the lack of demand for humans.

Uber is clearly the best option these people believe they have.

Knowledge is not perfect, and efficiency is not instant.

> It's no longer a "note" when it loses the debt provisions.

You may be right, but what makes you think that?

The common law and some statutory definitions require only that promissory note be, upon breach, reducible to what are called "liquid damages" i.e. "a sum certain in money". This does not mean monetary debt or future payment of money with or without interest. It just means reducible to a certain amount.

The purpose of having a promise with "a sum certain in money" is on the enforcement end. The monetary compensation upon breach (damages) of a promissory note can be unambiguously calculated by a registrar (as opposed to assessment open to interpretation by a judge). This expedites processes such as obtaining summary or default judgment.

However, the promise needn't be in money itself, as long as there is an unambiguous objective calculation of the amount of damages.

I'm not sure how it would be calculable in the case of a note without debt or interest; I'd need to read the note language. If there was nothing specific, one could argue it is portion of the pre-money to the the valuation cap, but that'd be a very loose guess.

It is not necessary for a promissory note to bear interest. As in the case of the SAFE, that provision is simply absent.

For those interested in reading further, here is an on-point interview with Carolynn Levy:

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/01/innovation-more-than-another-...

> The safe is just a convertible note with the "event of default," interest, and maturity date provisions stripped out.

> - Carolynn Levy (inventor of the SAFE)

edit ... You could argue it's no longer a convertible note with those provisions taken out, but I'm not sure how much mileage you'd get with that argument.

> The safe and its predecessor, the convertible note, have almost identical conversion features

A SAFE _is_ a convertible note, with standardized language.

AI will automate production.

It says nothing about consumption.

Economic activity requires both.

Effective at what?

A rather savvy economic-statistician once told me that economic theory is a very effective way to determine who has been able to get their theory published.

"I'm a lighthouse. It's your call."

> certainly the flavor can't!

Flavour doesn't fare well with the dryness and low pressure of airplanes at altitude.

See e.g. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150112-why-in-flight-food-...

This is the philosophy behind why I went with Knockout years ago - and am now helping maintain and write version 4.

Specific, narrow focus and it's served me well. Sensing the innate liability, I've never felt the allure of the full fledged framework.

> Unless you're talking about equity split in a company that is worth millions engaging with a lawyer is a waste of money.

I disagree. The company doesn't need to be worth money now for engaging with a mediator or getting legal advice to have value.

For example, a proper Full and Final Release, mutually agreed upon, can not just save you a fortune in future litigation, it can free you to seek investment in a future venture without the fear or need to disclose past stakeholders, and give peace of mind to work knowing that it won't be derailed by skeletons in the closet.

The spectre of litigation can at-best cloud your optimism, at worst undermine your prospects; it can be a weight upon your every move.

As time passes, the natural human bias is to over-value their past contributions, and undervalue the past contributions of others. The longer the time passes, the greater the bias. If you succeed, the more likely they are to demand what they feel they deserve, from their perspective.

They might be the type of personality to let it go; but if they are litigious, it's better to know it before there's real money on the table. If they're not litigious, they won't mind signing a release or making a deal.

Every situation is different, but getting legal advice isn't just about the money at current value, it's about the price of potential litigation, your peace of mind and ability to produce in the future, and the cost of the spectre.