Readit NewsI guess in Europe there is just much less demand for systems like this because NFC terminals are you ubiquitous.
Is the above question rhetorical or do you lean more libertarian?
If he did go around pointing is gun at immigrants that would be the opposite of police propaganda wouldn't it? Most young kids don't interact with police directly, so nearly everything they know about police comes from the media they consume. The question comes down to what kids need to learn about police and what role media plays in that education. Families in certain communities have been educating their children on how dangerous police are for a very long time.
Is it better to introduce an idealized version of police to kids and let them learn on their own that police are dangerous or is it better to present police in children's media realistically so that they're prepared when they see their 8 year old classmate thrown to the ground, handcuffed, and arrested because they acted up in class or so they understand when they see protesters march past their house because police officers beat and murdered another person on camera without consequences?
I suspect that it's better to show kids what police are supposed to be like before introducing them to the harsher reality we live in, but I can't blame people for looking at shows like Paw Patrol and thinking that it's giving kids a very unrealistic view of policing at a time when they should be increasingly made aware of the issues and the risks they face.
as terrible as it is if we focus on the whole developed world “we” is just a tiny minority (even in the US, just unfortunately not as tiny…)
> unrealistic view of policing
so maybe they could do a separate version for Americans?
I doubt that those couple of watts per phone will make a dent even if we multiply them by a billion. Wireless charging is 70% efficient in theory, but lets move to 50. So a 17 watthours battery (biggest currently in phones) would waste 17 watthours per charge - equivalent of my any of those - my induction hob, my oven, my electric water heater or my oven working for 30 seconds. Or my gaming PC for that matter.
so 7 billion people, fully charging their phone each day, the phone battery being the biggest one on the market - each year they will waste around 0.17 percent of world electricity production. But since wired charging is also not 100% efficient - if we give it 90% efficiency - this means that we are saving in that case 0.12 percent of world electricity.
I doubt that it will save the planet. The only think it will help is make some people feel righteous with symbolic gestures.
That seems a lot? I’d have guessed it’s a magnitude or two less
Fast charging also produces a lot of waste heat. Out phones should know our patterns and for example slow charge overnight. Similar to what Apple started doing with the MacBook where it won't charge to 100% if if knows it will be attached to power.
Just how wasteful is it? 70-80% vs 9X% considering how little power phones use on average is insignificant…
You’d save what? 1-2 kWh per year at the very most? Totally irrelevant..
There's nothing obvious about this to me - how would you distinguish that from survivorship bias? Why then do shareholders and boards often come into conflict on this issue?
Claiming that someone is worth paying 100m per year is an outrageous claim that requires commensurate evidence, not a wishy-washy statement about boards thinking its worthwhile. Boards are made of people in a very small oligarchic circle - their behavior is more easily explained by remembering that they're social animals in a hierarchical context than pretending this is all perfect economic rationality.
So success of companies is entirely random? That seems statistically unlikely…
I mean are you really saying that there are no decisions that CEOs regularly take due to which a company might lose/gains up to millions to billions of dollars? Why wouldn’t you pay a CEO whose actions can bring the company billions a 100m or so? Seems like a good deal..
e.g. if you put a random highly competent, educated and very hardworking person in charge of Apple back in 1997 is it more or less likely that he would have done better than Jobs?
I mean, yeah I agree with you in part. In most cases it’s hard to distinguish real impact (even after a few years) from survivorship bias which is why this whole process is so inefficient. I’m sure that quite a few companies are just as likely (if not more likely) to hire a 100+ mil CEO who’ll be a net negative on as one who’s action will bring 10x+ in additional revenue compared to what most other candidates would have.
That was the largest IPO at the time, very complicated. I believe all the shares offered publicly were held by the Ford Foundation, for complicated tax and dynastic reasons.
But the main point here is how little the manager of the offering received. Imagine that today. $2.8 million would be nothing.
Then again, I don’t see much need for that when I can just NFC pretty much everywhere (of course the merchant still ends up paying up to 1% on every transaction)