I’m confused friend.
The article you linked to says:
… Canadian lumber producers would not be able to absorb this, the price of lumber will adjust upwards ….
Is that not, quite literally, a direct contradiction of your earlier statement that:
90% of the tariffs will be absorbed by Canadian companies
And if the price increases, is that not the consumer paying the tariffs?
Ummm no.
In the real world consumers ultimately end up paying the tariffs.
Domestic suppliers have a tendency to raise prices is response to increased demand and decrease competition from imports.
When Trump implemented a tariff on Washing Machines in 2018 during his first term. The price of imported washing machines went up, the price of domestic washing machines went up, the price of dryers… which weren’t tariffed went up.
Eventually it did led to more washing machines and dryers being manufactured domestically. Which did lead to a small increase manufacturing in jobs. But it was a net loss for the consumers.
Tariffs function as a flat tax on goods. Like all flat taxes this benefits the wealthy and hurts poor and the working class.
After going nuclear against ad blockers, at some point google is going to introduce a new “feature” where YouTube uses AI with your phone’s camera to automatically pause videos when you look away from your phone.
Then they’ll make it so you have to buy a subscription to turn it off during ads.
It’s a lie.
By making it “unlimited” they don’t need to pay you out of you don’t use all of PTO days.
If you use it more than they think you’ve earned you get terminated.
Employees end up afraid of taking their PTO days and typically end up taking even less time off than if they knew there was a expectation of 3 weeks or whatever.
My favourite thing ever seen in source code was a comment that read “this code is temporary” with developer initials and a date that was at the time about 5 years ago.
Followed by another dated comment from about 3 years later that read “Temporary my ass”
😂
I feel genuinely bad for any democrat supporter with an ear injury right now.
No.
MW is the maximum capacity not the average.
A nuclear reactor runs at close to its maximum output pretty much 24/7/365.
A solar farm only operates during the day, and even then it only operates at maximum output in the middle of a clear sunny day.
The overall average output of a nuclear plant is typically around 90% of its capacity.
The overall average output of solar farm is 20-25%.
This massive farm will still only output a bit more electricity than what a single nuclear reactor outputs.
A nuclear power station typically has more than one reactor, so compared to a typical nuclear power station this isn’t even close to the average nuclear plant.
Though it does beat a few of the smallest nuclear plants that only have a single reactor.
Nuclear outputs a fuck-ton of electricity for its size.
Sandford Fleming (the guy who invented time zones) actually made it easier.
Before timezones, every town had their own clock that defined the time for their town and was loosely set such that “noon is when the sun is at its highest point in the sky.” Which couldn’t be measured all that accurately.
If it wasn’t for Fleming, we’d be dealing with every city or town having a separate time zone.
Yes you’re correct. I will qualify my previous statement as hydrogen powered road vehicles don’t make sense for now.
The problem at the moment is that electricity generation is not carbon free and in most countries not even close.
Unfortunately the transition to a carbon free electric grid is being significantly retarded by policymakers that are, as you say, myopic. As a result it will be at least two more decades before hydrogen makes sense.
The carbon footprint of lithium battery manufacturing, is small compared to the carbon footprint of electricity generation. Until that changes significantly lithium batteries will continue to be a better choice than hydrogen fuel cell.
Hydrogen may make sense in a future where we’ve eliminated all fossil fuel electricity generation and there’s an abundance of carbon free electricity that can be used to create green hydrogen as a form of energy storage. Though by the time that point comes, we may have developed battery technology or some other energy storage technology that doesn’t carry the same carbon footprint that lithium ion does today.
Hydrogen doesn’t make sense and never did as a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in vehicles.
Most hydrogen is made from fossil fuels, and has a lot of emissions during manufacturing. But even green hydrogen, which is made by using carbon free generated electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen doesn’t make sense.
If you’ve build new renewable power it’s more efficient to use it to charge batteries than to use it to generate hydrogen.
There might be a case for compressed hydrogen, In vehicles where batteries are too heavy like aircraft.
But for road vehicles, batteries are more effective at reducing emission.
If you’re building any new renewable power, you’ll reduce more emissions by using it to displace coal power, the to generate green hydrogen.
Some day when we’ve eliminated fossil fuel based electricity generation, Green hydrogen might start to make sense. But anybody trying to do it right now is not being as helpful as they could be.
Stated goals of the UN charter according Wikipedia:
to maintain international peace and security, uphold international law, achieve “higher standards of living” for their citizens, address “economic, social, health, and related problems”, and promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
Did they even read the charter before having their little temper tantrum?
I question the methodology here. The same site lists Linux desktop share at 2% in my country specifically. It feels like if it was that high you’d see it on people’s laptops more in coffee shops and what not… but I’ve yet to see a single other person using Linux on the desktop.
I know most of that 4% is in India… but still feels like it should be more ubiquitous if the number is that high.
If a website using home realm discovery adds anything more than one extra press of the enter key or mouse click of an ‘ok’ button, get a better password manager.
If you’re annoyed by that one extra click that’s fair. Click counts matter.
It’s called home realm discovery. It’s common in business apps though it’s usually used with email & password logins not username & password logins.
It’s done that way to support federated logins. Larger companies will often used a single sign on solution like Okta or Azure AD. Once the user’s email address is entered it checks the domain against a list of sign on providers for each domain and redirects the user to their company’s federated login if it finds it there instead of prompting for a password.
This has several benefits:
The user doesn’t have mutiple passwords to remember for different apps. Which is know to result in users either reusing passwords or writing down passwords somewhere.
When an employee quits or is terminated the company only needs to disable their account in their company directory and not go into potential dozens of separate web apps to disable accounts.
The software vendor never receives the password, if the vendor’s system is compromised they don’t even have password hashes to leak. (Let alone plain text or reversibly encrypted passwords)
Websites that work that way are (usually) doing it right. If that doesn’t work with your password manager, you should (probably) blame the password manager not the website.
The challenge with green hydrogen is it needs to be created using green electricity. If the electricity isn’t green you’re still burning fossil fuels to create it. Creating hydrogen from fossil fuel generated electricity and then burning it is less efficient than just burning fossil fuels directly and results in a net increase not decrease in carbon emissions.
As we build additional green electricity generation, it’s currently more impactful to use that to lower grid demand on fossil fuel generated electricity than to use it make green hydrogen. If it’s used to make green hydrogen instead, we’re only delaying the day we finally eliminate fossil fuel electricity generation, which again benefits the fossil fuel industry.
Only at some point in the future, when we’ve completely eliminated fossil fuels from the electric grid, and have created an excess of green electricity generation does green hydrogen even become possible to create.
And even assuming we can achieve that some day. It’s less efficient to use electricity to create hydrogen to power vehicle than to use batteries. Anything that can be converted to connect to the grid directly or run on batteries is better doing that than running on hydrogen.
It’s not completely crazy… there are some potential use cases for green hydrogen that would make sense in some theoretical future where there’s an abundance of green electricity generation, allowing replacing of fossil fuels where more direct forms of electrification isn’t viable. Aircraft in particular come to mind here since hydrogen stores much more energy per kg than batteries, which are currently too heavy to be viable in aircraft.
But almost all promotion of hydrogen today, including green hydrogen, is either more greenwashing by the fossil fuel industry or the work of well meaning idealists that have unwittingly become their shills.
Green Hydrogen is not a solution for the vast majority of things it gets presented as a solution to.
Wow… lots of people in here bashing the subscription model, but let me point out it’s maybe not as bad as you think…
If you sell a product under a perpetual license model (I.e the one-time purchase model). Once you’ve sold the product, the manufacturer has almost no incentive to offering any support or updates to the product. At best it’s a marketing ploy, you offer support only to get word of mouth advertising of your product which is generally a losing proposition.
Since there’s little incentive to improve the experience for existing customers. Your main income comes from if you can increase your market share which generally means making products bloated often leading to a worse experience for everyone.
If the customer wants support, you need to sell them a support contract. If they want updates you have to make a new version and hope the customer sees enough additional value to be worth upgrading. Either way we’re back to a subscription model with more steps, more risk, and less upside than market expansion so it takes a backseat.
If you want to make a great product without some variation on a subscription. You need to invest heavily upfront in development (which most companies don’t have the capital to do, and investors generally won’t invest in unproven software)
From a product perspective, you don’t know if you’ve hit the mark until people start using your product. The first versions of anything but the most trivial of products is usually terrible, because no matter how good you are, half to three quarters of the ideas you build are going to be crap and not going to be what the customers need.
Perpetual licensing works for a small single purpose application with no expectation of support or updates.
It works for applications with broad market needs like office software.
For most niche applications, subscription models offer a better experience for both the customer and the manufacturer.
The customer isn’t facing a large transition cost to switch to a competitor’s product like they would if they had to buy a perpetual license of it, so you have a lot more incentive to support and improve your product. You also don’t see significant revenue if the customer that drops your service a couple months in… even more reason to focus on improving the product for existing customers.
People ought hate the idea of paying small reoccurring fees for software instead of a few big upfront costs. But from a business model perspective, businesses are way more incentivized to focus on making their products better for you under that model.
Will you accept wolfram alpha as credible source?
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Solidus.html
Special care is needed when interpreting the meaning of a solidus in in-line math because of the notational ambiguity in expressions such as a/bc. Whereas in many textbooks, “a/bc” is intended to denote a/(bc), taken literally or evaluated in a symbolic mathematics languages such as the Wolfram Language, it means (a/b)×c. For clarity, parentheses should therefore always be used when delineating compound denominators.
What is your source for the priority of the / operator?
i.e. why do you say 6 / 2 * 3 is unambiguous?
Every source I’ve seen states that multiplication and division are equal priority operations. And one should clarify, either with a fraction bar (preferably) or parentheses if the order would make a difference.
You state that the ambiguity comes from the implicit multiplication and not the use of the obelus.
I.e. That 6 ÷ 2 x 3 is not ambiguous
What is your source for your statement that there is an accepted convention for the priority of the iinline obelus or solidus symbol?
As far as I’m aware, every style guide states that a fraction bar (preferably) or parentheses should be used to resolve the ambiguity when there are additional operators to the right of a solidus, and that an obelus should never be used.
Which therefore would make it the division expressed with an obelus that creates the ambiguity, and not the implicit multiplication.
(Rest of the post is great)
No one should ignore Trump’s tariff threats. Tariffs would hurt the economies of both countries involved. Literally no one wins in a trade war.
The last time America passed large blanket tariffs like the kind Trump is threatening was the Smoot–Hawley Act of 1930. Which had the effect of reducing both imports and exports by almost 2/3 and was broadly considered to have significantly prolonged the Great Depression.
I’m not sure why Trump thinks tariffs are a good idea. He talks about it like it’s a way to get other countries to pay money to the US… but that’s not how tariffs work. Tariffs cause inflation for the US consumer, which is bad for the economies of both the USA, and the country being tariffed.
I suspect Trump framing of this as “external” revenue will be used to justify income tax cuts which will predominantly benefit the wealthy in the US and the expense of both middle class in both countries.
Countries being threatened by Trump should focus on diversifying their trade partners to mitigate the damage,
Americans should be calling their representatives and demanding they put a halt to this nonsense.