Ironically, this is the classic bias of "bothsiding" the issue. When one side is clearly wrong, just sprinkle in some "look, the others are doing something bad, which means they are equally wrong". A basic lesson from the propaganda manual.
I know what you mean, and I realize some of the things I've written sound similar to what various rightwing commentators tend to say (e.g.: "concept of objective truth must be analyzed critically.")
But my motive is very different. It's not to deny any kind of injustice or misinformation by hiding behind inherent uncertainties and bothsidesism. I'm not in favor of giving the benefit of the doubt to the powerful by default - that's already happening a lot under our current system of so-called "reputable sources."
Instead, I'm saying that this kind of injustice masking and misinformation may also be present in the very sources that ethical people may have come to trust by habit.
My suggestion is to use the power of LLMs as complementary tools to become even more rational and critical, in the direction of even better ethics and justice.
I'm advocating for even more skepticism of the powerful, not less. I'm advocating the approach Betrand Russell recommended for acting under uncertainties, and feel LLMs can be useful complementary tools for doing just that.
That is incorrect. Leaving EU is super easy. Leaving written accords with USA is hard, and that's what UK tried to pull off. Since the oligarchs pushing for EU exit to hide their black money were dumb, they forgot they have an agreement with USA making a UK-Ireland border transparent. And they basically spent 4 years trying to either tear down a USA deal or EU law, without having any leverage for either, since they are dumb. Since there no such things in other EU countries, their leave can happen much faster.
EVs are fine and dandy, but it is a luxury class of cars for now and it shows really. Most other countries are far far away from mass deployment of EVs or restricting ICE cars. EVs can win if either a) the car is cheaper than the same class ICE, or b) operational expenses of using EV car would be cheaper. Neither of which is happening yet. And the car do need to have some advantage, since EVs already come with inherent disadvantage of long and inconvenient charging, small batteries, limited locations for charging with buggy and broken stations, not working apps or cards etc.
What's silly is that the reality you describe is a choice that's been made, not something fundamental to EVs. Cars like the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Bolt are supremely inexpensive. China's BYD cars are extremely cheap for what they are.
American/European car makers realized there is a large class of people who are wealthy and will buy a high end EV for status reasons, and started chasing that market instead.
Which Leaf? Leaf 1st gen with 150km range in summer and 100km in winter and which are already decade old? Those yeah, cheap, but also useless. Leaf 2 are nothing like that. Even base model with small-ish 40kWh battery is 30k euro, and 60kWh model is starting close to 40k euro. And for that price it's a small c-class hatchback, competing with way better cars, like large and packed d-class sedans or SUVs.
And charging EV on a commercial station is currently more expensive than filling up a tank of a similar ICE with 95 petrol, per km of range. The only way to charge EV on a cheap, which is possible, is to own a house and charge it on a home line at domestic rates. And owning a house in EU is an expensive luxury.
Unfortunately, infrastructure need to improve a lot before the switch may happen.
The 1st gen Leafs are absolutely not useless. They have a specific use case, which they excel at. That use case is simply different from most cars, which are general use and can drive many hundreds of km. If your use case for a vehicle matches the 1st gen Leaf, it blows away anything else except a bicycle in terms of cost per distance.
In the US, DC fast charging costs ~$0.50/kWh. A typical EV gets around 3.5mi/kWh, which is $0.14/mile. An ICE car that gets 30 mi/gal sees breakeven at $4.30/gallon for gas. Which, while currently higher than the average gas price for most of the US, is less than the average for some states and certainly within the range of possibility countrywide.
Theoretically there is a use case for 100km range car, I won't object that. But in practice such a use case is extremely unrealistic, if alternatives exist at all. 100km range car is city-only car cheap car, basically locked forever to a single location. But cheap car is not a cheap thing in general, it is still 10-20 thousand dollars and requires all the car things - insurance, changing, parking spot, yearly maintenance etc. So with a very few exceptions no one would buy it as an only car. And buying a second car in a city is even higher luxury than a house. And even then, an intra-city car is competing with public transit in many cases.
What this means is there is no real market for 100-150km range cars, with a few exceptions where rich people can buy a stylish, expensive and impractical EV like a Mini EV. They won't consider Leaf 1. And non-rich people wouldn't buy such a limited and impractical car which still costs a lot.
In actual reality, Leaf 1 were popular in the period 10+ years ago, when there was almost no options in that segment. And during that time exactly two categories of people bought them in my country - taxists and people with private EV changing spots or private houses. My colleague bought Leaf 1 as a ICE Clio replacement, but only because he had a garage where he could charge it on a very cheap rate. Taxists the same, they were optimizing like hell. But Gradually, both categories replaced their Leaf 1, and now taxists are on hybrids mostly, and private citizens upgraded to more rational and expensive EVs. There is no market for very short range EVs today. Except as toys for rich.
> But cheap car is not a cheap thing in general, it is still 10-20 thousand dollars and requires all the car things - insurance, charging, parking spot, yearly maintenance etc
A used Gen 1 Leaf will cost you well under $10k for a car with 50k miles on it. The battery is so small, charging empty to full is $5 or less in most of the US and can be done overnight off a normal 120V outlet. There is essentially no maintenance except wiper fluid and blades. Minimal liability insurance on these vehicles is about $150 a year.
You make a great argument that they aren't a general purpose car for everyone. And you're right! I completely agree. They are not a general purpose car for everyone. But they absolutely have their place, and are far less expensive than you make them out to be.
Even the Ford Lightning (by far the best work truck on the market) was modestly priced compared to other Fords.
Ford claims there’s no market for “expensive” $60-70K trucks in the US, but go to any Ford dealership in the bay area, and they’ll have used ICE Ford trucks that cost that much.
(And I don’t mean the giant specialty super duty trucks — these are tricked out suburban kid transporters that look like they’ve never seen a camp ground, let alone a Home Depot).
Anyway, the Lightning was a fantastic model line. I hope someone else builds quarter ton EV trucks moving forward. I’m rooting for Rivian and Slate.
Yeah, visiting my ex-Gf family in Norway, I realized how much richer Norwegians are that it's not even funny. It's not really a market representative of the average buyer. Same how neither Switzerland, Luxembourg or Monaco are.
I am living in a working class neighborhood of apartment buildings in West-central Europe with average to below average earners, and there's zero EVs parked here on the streets, basically 90% of people have old diesel cars. Only when you go towards the suburbs with rich(inherited wealth) people living in single family homes you see everyone has an EV.
The distinction is quite clear, do you live in a house or have your own parking space and possibility to install your own charger? Then EV 100% no brainer. Otherwise people stick to ICE.
I do live in a house, could easily afford an EV and have plenty of solar to keep it charged. And I still don't have one because all of these EVs feel like the worst of the computer world applied to automotive. The last thing I need is a computer on wheels and I'm old enough that I know my current car is likely my last. For my kids it is different, and I'm sure that they'll go electric at some point but I hope that they'll be able to do so without buying a mobile privacy violation instrument.
The Dacia Spring proves that it doesn't have to be the case. The base version doesn't even have a touchscreen, let alone internet connectivity. It is a cheap car, in every sense of the word, but is shows that not every EV has to be like Tesla.
The issue is the small actual range on the Dacia Spring. Great for grocery shopping and going to work in a city setting, bad for long journeys in the winter time. Basically what people want is exactly that type of barebones EV, but with more battery.
That’s genuinely nice that it doesn’t have the multimedia crap. They do also have an “extreme” model with touchscreen and connected services.
At ~220km range it probably has about 100km in winter though. :-/
There is a slight difference between my mobile phone/carrier and the manufacturer of my vehicle, especially when the latter includes cameras, all kinds of telemetry and of course the near certainty over the longer term of compromise of all the data they hoover up.
Ironically society would benefit tremendously from “computer on wheels” because when you inevitably have a heart attack on the road your car won’t swerve onto oncoming traffic or crash into people.
To give you some perspective, the most popular EV in China costs $6000 (Wuling Mini). New. The second most popular costs $10000 (Geely Xingyuan). I tried both, and they are far less crappy than they have the right to be. They are cheap cars for sure, but they're perfectly adequate for regular use.
And Geely Xingyuan has a 40kWh battery in the basic configuration! This is utterly ridiculous for a car that is _that_ cheap.
So China basically murdered the global ICE market. It's gone. There's no going back. Once China figures out the logistics and sales, ICE vehicles will be dead in all of the less affluent countries. Especially because EVs combine almost too perfectly with solar generation.
Out of curiosity, do they support one pedal driving correctly (i.e., let you set it and forget it, and never unexpectedly accelerate from a stop unless you turn it off explicitly).
BMW used to, but broke it on the i4, and presumably all the newer ones. Kia’s implementation is completely broken.
I ask, because that’s the number one thing I’ll check for with future EV purchases, and it’s purely software.
I have not driven the Wuling myself, only traveled as a passenger. On Xingguan it's "normal", just like on Tesla or anywhere else.
The Geely did not come to a complete stop on regen braking, I had to use the brake pedal for the final ~5 km/h. Perhaps there was a setting to override this, but I did not check.
Tesla seems OK. I’m really spoiled by the “complete stop” feature.
The worst (which is what most brands are moving to in the US) is when it’s completely unpredictable. Basically, half the time, the car unexpectedly accelerates from a stop, or fails to engage regen.
On some cars, they even tie regen to a camera, so regen works well unless you are on a curve or cresting a hill. In those situations, the car accelerates or fails to slow down.
yes, there a lot of outdated perspectives in these threads. The world has changed, EVs are the cheaper option now, its just going to take awhile for some places to catch up.
This is a loaded explanation. Yes, war does require quick response, which is hard to achieve in a decentralized state. The small nuance is that war or similar events are comprising a tiny fraction of what a government does (not by impact, but by total amount of things to do). And guess what, direct voting is just fine and fast enough for such thinks as any and all taxes, industry wide restrictions or permissions, economic focus, foreign policy, immigration, healthcare, education, social security and so on.
> And guess what, direct voting is just fine and fast enough for such thinks as ... economic focus, foreign policy, immigration, ...
How would 2 countries wirh direct voting negotiate a trade treaty that requires give and take? Have a referendum on each proposed clause modification? How long would that take? Even though you dislike it, representative democracy is a necessary optimization, which is why every surviving polity uses it to a degree. Even coops like Mondragon appoints officers for say to say operations.
Can you name a single entity with more than 500 members, and operates daily that uses direct voting?
Lots of places use direct voting on many issues, including Switzerland, California, ...
> negotiations
It doesn't seem hard to conceive of and it's widely done: The negotation is done by representatives, who bring the final agreement to their constituents for approval.
For example, that is how unions handle collective bargaining agreements, and sometimes the leadership's proposal loses.
There is no country with direct voting (aka democracy) since Ancient Greece. Swiss are close and they are alone. But I wish that such a country existed.
Also, I didn't say that ALL decisions needs to be directly voted upon by the whole population. But core concepts should be. And there should be a mechanism to surface people's concerns to a referendum level too, e.g. after getting a certain amount of signatures or votes. Getting to your question, people can decide in general, do they want to join a trade treaty with countries a, b, c and that should be enough I think, at least for the early form of such democracy.
"Primary" is fundamentally anti-democratic concept. It basically says that we, oligarchs, will pick whoever we want and you, plebes, will vote for him. Just like the first past the post system, where two oligarch's candidates are having a nice little internal contest, is anti-democratic. Until that is fixed, no amount of pleading and rationalizations will help "fix oligarchy".
Billionaire doesn't pay tax: let's settle with you paying half of all stolen money as a fine and we'll drop the case.
A regular citizen doesn't pay tax: lets jail or deport you, bar the entry for a decade, take away your home, car and anything you own in general and make you unable to find job for the rest of your life. Also your tax is double that of the billionaire, glhf ;) .
> In percentage terms this means that during the 1970s between 15 and 20 percent of Italians evaded taxes while the rate climbed to 26 percent in the 1980s. In the 1990s, tax evasion fell again, hovering between 15 and 20 percent. Workers employed in manufacturing evade very little, whereas the highest evasion rates can be found among the self-employed
> The severity of evasion becomes obvious when we consider that the Italian state annually collects only a total of €350 billion while losing €250 billion through evasion (D’Attoma 2016).
> If one asks Italians why they evade taxes, they primarily say that they evade because everyone else does so
> A distant second is the reason that Italians would be more likely to pay taxes if they had the feeling that the state would spend their money more wisely. Much lower in the ranking come issues such as the soft penalties for evasive behavior, the complexity of the tax rules, and the unlikeliness of being caught. A total of 87.1 percent of all Italians think that their fellow citizens evade taxes
As Italian, I really disagree. The only entities that pay all the taxes are employees because the taxes are collected directly from the salaries.
Big companies have the opportunity to make tax elusion (there is a reason why many Italian companies have legal HQ in Netherlands or Luxembourg), small companies, artisans and freelancers usually avoid to pajly VAT
Even if evidence did agree with this uncited, broad assertion (I've seen nothing to that effect), it'd still be an indefensible justification for inequity in punishment.
Even if billionaires don't pay income tax and are only taxed occasionally when they sell assets, there isn't much doubt that the corporations they create and invest in generate massive amounts of tax revenue in the countries they operate. Not to mention all the revenue generated from property tax, income tax from their employees getting paid by the company, local fines and fees, sales tax, import duties, etc.
You can want the super wealthy to pay more tax when they sell stuff to fund their lifestyles, but that doesn't mean their work isn't generating large amounts of economic activity which turns into tax revenue for governments.
Billionaires don't seem to create anything new when they're billionaires. You look at companies like Google or Meta and they acquire companies and teams but what sort of truly successful projects and products did they create from whole. It seems like a string of failures, canceled projects and lackluster product offerings to me.
If we can tell poor people how to behave for their own good then we can certainly help billionaires out too by taxing them back to creativity.
How is it that concentrating wealth in private pools is better than spreading it around?
> the corporations they create and invest in generate massive amounts of tax revenue
Economic activity does generate tax revenue, billionaires generate economic activity. But if we took the billions (leave them millions, gready as they are) and spread it around it would have the opportunity to generate much more economic activity
The concentration of wealth, and the resulting concentration of income and widespread middle class impoverishment is catastrophic for our economy.
It is why, in real terms, incomes have been static for thirty years whilst the size of the economy has roughly doubled
Recently saw an article where "The billionaires ask to be taxed more". I don't really fall for that PR. :-) The reality is that when a government actually comes for their money, anyone with serious wealth simply ALWAYS finds a legal way out. Capital is completely fluid.
Saying that massive companies pay their fair share just because they create local jobs or pay sales tax completely misses how governments operate. Governments do not care about the side benefits when they want the main pile of profit. You can see this right now with Italy going after Amazon for over a billion dollars and threatening to put its managers in jail.
For years, big companies legally ran their profits through low-tax countries and treated places like Italy as just shipping hubs. Now, Italy is trying to change the rules after the fact to grab that cash. Threatening executives with prison is just a strong-arm tactic to force a quick payout.
This aggressive approach is exactly why wealth is shifting so quickly. If a major country can rewrite the rules to trap you, the only logical move is to leave. It is no surprise that smart founders and wealthy operators are quietly packing up and moving their lives and companies to places like Cyprus. ;-) When you can get total legal clarity, a very favorable tax setup, and year-round sunshine, staying in a high-tax country that treats you like a criminal is just bad business.
I've confidently picked 8+blue and is now trying to understand why I personally did that. I think that maybe the text of the puzzle is not quite unambiguous. The question states "test a card" followed by "which cards", so this is what my brain immediately starts to check - every card one by one. Do I need to test "3"? No, not even. Do I need to test "8"? yes. Do I need to test "blue"? Yes, because I need to test "a card" to fit the criteria. And lastly "red" card also immediately fails verification of a "a card" fitting that criteria.
I think a corrected question should clarify in any obvious way that we are verifying not "a card" but "a rule" applicable to all cards. So a needs to be replaced with all or any, and mention of rule or pattern needs to be added.
I wonder, did they pay for the artists whose art they took without paying or asking to train that LLM model they are promoting? I guess we know the answer :)
Article mixes "elites" and real elites. The mere usage of the term employment is a dead giveaway, among other issues. Real elites are not employed by someone as a general rule, with some exceptions of course. Article would be more aptly named "Overproduction of qualified or overqualified workers".
It's been awhile since I've read Turchin but I'm pretty sure in his own examples elites are indeed employed in prestigious positions. Which is really his whole point, there are only so many prestigious positions. His example using musical chairs has always stuck with me.
reply