That's not far off from what I had to go through the last time I took an education-related standard exam. Nothing but my cloths and ID were allowed into the room and they had a quite through check to make sure of it.
They're well known for abusing their monopsony power to force brands to offshore production and reduce quality of products.
First they take on a product line and become a big % of the company's sales, then they start tightening the screws and demanding price cuts. The manufacturer has to either give up a large fraction of their total sales or use cost-cutting measures like offshoring and materials substitution to reduce their cost so they can sell at the price Wal-Mart demands. Wal-Mart does this incrementally over time so the company has already started down the road by the time they realize what's being done.
This was a big part of the manufacturing offshoring movement of the last few decades. Of course one company isn't solely responsible for that trend, but Wal-Mart with their huge size was a significant part of it. This was before Amazon was a thing. Now the damage is done and everyone seems to be forgetting that Wal-Mart had a hand in it.
We learned when VW's diesel cheating scandal came to light that your friend's Passat probably wasn't as clean as the company claimed. It was fun to drive because VW made it run dirty when not on the test stand. This doesn't seem like a good argument for diesel vehicles.
It would make a ton of sense for park-and-ride like garages to have rental stations for cargo bikes or small electric delivery platforms (more like golf cart than car, e.g. Gator 6x6 though electric would be nicer). That way someone coming in would have a last mile solution that wouldn't present a huge danger to pedestrians. Or every few roads could be set to allow limited vehicle access for deliveries in normal hours and all roads allow nighttime deliveries. This wouldn't be a substantial burden while providing all the benefits of a carless space.
You say that like electric wheelchairs and scooters don't exist. People too disabled to even use those already require assistance anyway, so they're no worse off requiring assistance in a (nearly) car-free environment.
Still, the ratio of people to cars is striking when visiting from more suburban areas. Many places seem like a sea of cars and pedestrians are very out of place.
Let this be noted in other markets where we're told that 2-3 players are plenty of competition (looking at you, telecom). If any one company is too big to fail because there's not enough competition left, there's already not enough competition.
I would recommend reading [0] before being so quick to tear everything down. You're replacing the devil you know with the devil you don't know, so I think it's worth making a point of learning more about that one.
Solar may not have inertia, but wind turbines certainly do. It's hard to imagine one of those stopping on a dime.
Smaller batter installations can also help with frequency stabilization. The Tesla installation in South Aus primarily serves the purpose of grid stabilization rather than bulk storage, for example. I think solar needs that stabilization and storage more than wind, it's probably important to have a diversity of sources and locations with renewables to keep any one source from having too large an immediate impact on the grid.
You're absolutely right about baseload being a fallacy. I would argue that balancing the grid is probably an easier problem in the absence of big constant baseload generators like nuclear, than with them.
With renewables providing baseload generation, there is more capacity for variable renewable sources; if these can be sufficiently decorrelated (by geography, type of source, even design of e.g. turbines) then they would have a high likelihood of averaging out to support baseload needs while having greater backbench dispatchable capacity at play. You might only need to overprovision by (making up numbers here) 1.5x rather than 4x to have sufficient dispatchable capacity than if you combined say, nuclear baseload with renewable peaking. The aggregate effect of this would be making the renewable sources cheaper per nameplate Wattage.
You're missing my initial point that with constant dollars from the state, more students means the state's money gets stretched thinner over the student body, so each student has to pay a larger percentage of the cost of their enrollment.
The government is a more logical way to pool. The enrollment pool coincides perfectly with administrative boundaries so the system becomes simpler to administer. There is a single payer per nation or state (depending on the level of government used as pool).
That's just not true. Many costs scale with the number of students. Dorms, food, academic buildings, administrative workers, faculty (no you can't teach every class in batches of 500 like Econ 101, even then there is an army of graders), software licenses, land underneath the buildings, utilities and infrastructure, roads and parking, IT infrastructure and people to run it, grounds maintenance, student healthcare, etc. You can't just keep packing an arbitrary number of students into the same classroom.
At public schools, state funding cuts are part of it. States have been cutting funding for schools (directly or in proportion to expenses/inflation) for decades. At the same time many more students are going to college than they used to. These things combined increase funding share that needs to be made up by tuition significantly.
Plenty of disabled people can use scooters. Not all disabilities involve a wheelchair. Some people are just severely restricted on top speed, or distance, range of motion, or other factors. Scooters can make perfect sense for some people with disabilities who may not be able to ride bikes.
FWIW, asking someone where they're from can have really negative connotations. It sounds like "you're not one of us" to a lot of people. In the US it's an ideal not to judge someone by where they're from (sadly many do just that), but rather accept that they're here now and that's the important part. So while it can make for good conversation to learn more about a person's background, the topic is often avoided at first to avoid insinuating that the questioner is prejudiced against certain backgrounds. If more people actually held to that ideal, this probably wouldn't be as necessary, but there it is.
The assumption that baseline power is necessary seem like an unwarranted assumption to me, an idea that is unquestioned because that's the way things are done now. Maybe adequate provisioning of sufficiently uncorrelated, variable power sources combined with some storage is enough to replace all baseline and peak power sources. Maybe this can be done with less expense than nuclear + peaker plants. I haven't seen any nuclear proponents defend the necessity of the baseline power concept with an actual analysis showing that alternatives can't work though.
You could try reversing that and asking them to set an agenda before you a accept the meeting. Keep asking specific questions if needed. If they won't answer, you can pull the "it's your job" card on them.
I make no warranty on this method however, just a thought.
I think you're misunderstanding. It doesn't count for squat because it generally won't be listened to if it comes out of the wrong mouth. Much like this point has been misunderstood by a whole chain of people below you circle jerking over this comment, seemingly because they are generally inclined to defend Joe Rogan.
If you're trying to make a point about the author, you should state it. All I see except for the brief mention of censorship is a collection of quotes.
If they enclosed the gearbox, they could add a roller bearing on the reverse side of the sprocket to provide counterpressure to prevent flexing. Enclosing it would prevent grit from getting in as well.
GP isn't wrong though, if you're well enough to go work out at the gym you don't need to be in a hospital taking up very expensive limited bed space. Treatment for a very sick people is often done outpatient or in non-hospital skilled nursing or residential facilities. Not looking sick doesn't factor in here.
I'm assuming GGP was not referring to physical therapy facilities however, some hospital inpatients do require that.
Most of what you say is correct but it's wrong to say that regulation isn't responsible for race being absent from FICO calculation. It's fair to say that lenders would use factors like race in a heartbeat if it weren't illegal, but it is illegal to do that. If FICO were race-based, using FICO would be depending on race indirectly, but explicitly, to make loan decisions. Thus FICO can't be dependent on race.
I've been planning to go from "can work it out with copious examples" to "knows when to use apply, transform, etc. off the cuff" level of knowledge in Pandas - do you have any suggestions on good resources on this?
I'd like to understand better why the data structures work the way they do and thus have an intuition on what operations to use when. The O'Reilly Python Data Science Handbook[0] seems like it might be useful here, but I'm not sure if it is still up to date.
Grid power distribution itself is barely more than a century old, and you think it will take several times that to adjust to a mix of different power sources, despite that being already well underway? On what basis?
Better to implement a system with a high rate of false positives (more importantly, low rate of false negatives) from the machine learning component, with all positive findings passed onto the radiologist. If the system can reliably (big if) filter out 98% of the chaff then the radiologist can spend a lot more time separating the false positives from the true positives. This approach has worked well for me so far.
It's impossible to anonymize some data. If you're including demographics and locations then yeah, it's going to be hard or impossible to anonymize. If you're using surveys on emotional state or perhaps newsgroup comments? That's not so hard.