In the US there was a "cash for clunkers" program about 10-15 years ago that tried to clear out ineficient older model cars. It was fairly successful and stimulated purchases of newer cars. The downside was that some perfectly fine cars were scrapped.
I suspect that gas stations will start swapping pumps for chargers, and that will motivate people to switch too.
By the time this all happens though we will have more car sharing programs and maybe autonomous vehicles, so the ownership paradigm will be different in 2030 compared to now. Why buy a car that sits idle for 90% of the day?
> I suspect that gas stations will start swapping pumps for chargers, and that will motivate people to switch too.
This may happen some places, but I expect the charging infrastructure to ultimately look very different from the refueling one we have today. Today's fueling infrastructure is the way it is largely due to the difficulties of storing and pumping fuel safely (physically and environmentally speaking). There's no reason that an electric car shouldn't be able to 'refuel' at a restaurant, grocery store, or at work (ie, where we see most charging places pop up).
Having four-corners real estate and employees dedicated for electric charging all over even city is just inefficient.
Assuming charging will take at least 15 minutes or so, you really would like to be able to charge somewhere that doesn't involve hanging around a crappy convenience store while your car charges. A deadish mall near me has some Tela chargers right next to a popular grocery store. I expect that sort of thing will be fairly common.
Agree, but my point is that when the gas pumps are gone or hard to find it will make owning an ICE vehicle more inconvenient and encourage use of electrics.
Because you want to customize it, leave stuff in it, hop in it right now, etc. Most of the cost associated with owning a car--especially outside of the snow belt--is in the mileage so having a car that spends a lot of time idle isn't really all that economically inefficient.
Gas taxes set a floor for how low prices can go. They'll probably increase as gas motor cars are phased out before the process ever sink too low.
In Washington, US, they increased the registration fee for electrics to make up for the shortfall in gas taxes that pay for road wear, congestion, etc. So that's already happening.
The demand side is where it gets tricky. If there are only a few gas stations in your state it doesn't matter that the list price if oil is cheap. Gas stations will tear out their pumps as demand drops.
Increased gas taxes would drive behavior change towards electrics. Similar to tobacco and alcohol taxes to discourage their use.
I don't see diesel going away so soon though because of industrial, agriculture, and military use. It will probably be taxed differently according to it's use. In fact it already is taxed differently in the US for home heating, vehicle, and aviation use.
And if it’s about revenue, which is obviously the reason why the tax exists at all, what we’ll see is that the taxes will follow the money . They’ll find a way to increase the tax on the use of electric vehicles.
How much of the ad spend is coming from PAC's with unrestrained fundraising abilities, and dark money sources? Cut off that money supply with election reform and a lot of these ad network problems coupled to political polarization become a lot smaller.
Agree, and will add that this should be backed by LEO's tracking online posts inciting violence to people's doors, arresting them, and letting courts decide if it's a free speech issue.
> The western liberal value of free speech has never extended to incitement of violence
Here is the court precedence behind this in the US.
"Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action""
Likewise, private companies are not required to host any speech, as long as they aren't discriminatory against a protected class.
Cory Doctrow put it best: Let these companies ban whomever, for whatever (legal) reason. Then, push for anti-trust and decentralization, because the REAL problem is we have an oligopoly controlling social media.
It is common for software development expenses to be capitalized and expensed over time (depreciated).
A lot of what shows up as intangibles is from M&A activity. If the acquirer paid more than book value for a company, then all of the remainder goes into intangibles (goodwill).
The write-up argues that non-physical assets (software) show up as intangables (balance sheet) then argues that they are expenses (income statement). It doesn't make sense.
I don't follow what the article is arguing, and it seems to draw big and likely incorrect conclusions from loosely related accounting terms and data points.
> How do you end up with a network of the good ones?
> I have wanted to escape the dreaded cycle of dealing with these terrible recruiters
Focus on yourself. When you are in a good place yourself you will find non-terrible recruiters. And when recruiters reach out, have a copy/paste response to say thanks for reaching out. +1 bonus points if you have a friend looking for a job and you can share their LinkedIn profile in your copy/paste response.
And don't run away (escape), run towards something.
Its not like I don't focus on improving myself. Who doesn't focus on improving themselves in this industry? You have to keep improving or else you are finished at some point. Imagine a circle of the stimulating inspiring well paid jobs and another circle filled with the painful, boring non noteworthy jobs. The circles don't overlap. Somehow through connections, impressing that one higher up or being in the right place at the right time, some can jump into the good circle and never have to look back while everyone else is stuck. That does not mean all the people in the bad circle are bad developers. I have seen with my own two eyes a lot of brilliance(I know its just my word so you'll just have to believe me) but they are still stuck in that bad circle.
I love this inspiring response but someone who is on the outside trying to claw their way in cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel. I guess its a self fulfilling prophecy, don't run away and there is a chance in the distant future you jump into that other circle but if you don't try you have exhausted any chance. But what if you spend all that effort trying never do? What have you sacrificed in order to end up failing to get into that other circle?
I meant something slightly different (and I did not write it very well at all), but to give an example I spent the first 15+ years of my career chasing success, upskilling, focusing on self improvement. And my identity became tightly coupled to my work and each little win felt good for a day or two, then felt empty pretty quickly after that. When I let all that go and found a stronger sense of self worth, I found much more career success than I ever had before without really trying so hard for it. It came more naturally. Therapy helped me with this journey.
It's likely a simple case of following the money. Cost per action (CPA) ad pricing becomes a lot harder when you can't track people as easily, and that is likely a very lucrative ad format for FB.
Here's a good writup on the different types of ad pricing. There are a lot more features these days beyond clicks and impressions.
Bingo. ValueOptimized and CPA, on top of lookalikes drive huge revenue, and all become effectively useless. They retain their massive audience, but their differentiating value is severely challenged by this change
"The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twister pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt. There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities — all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The role is easy; there is none easier, save only the role of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance."
Let me introduce you to the concept of projection. We cannot other peoples minds. When we think we're don't that we're reading our own.
Since you're doing this, I'm guessing that you have been a cynic before, and you can see it in others very clearly... and now that you've seen the light, you want others in the position you were in before, see the light too? That's great. I may be misreading it, because, again, I can only read my own mind. So, you may want to correct me.
Anyways, here's the thing. I'm not coming from the cynical position at all. I love how the PR industry works. It is fascinating to me that they are very meticulous and elaborate. I'm a fan of Edward Bernays, the father of PR. I have physical copies of all his books, even the ones that he didn't finish writing and were posthumously published. He didn't start it, but he formalized it as a discipline so anyone can use it and now everyone does.
I have also worked for a company which has their own PR department. The PR representatives wrote articles (sometimes on the behalf of the CEO or CTO and sometimes handed pre-written information to journalists which they could publish with minor modifications). The articles are published everywhere, from local newspapers to forbes, businessinsider, ft, nyt, cnn... you name it. It's fascinating. The information is often times two or three steps removed from the product and reads like any informative news article or some strong opinions from experts or take on other products or reviews of related ones.
So, when I see these patterns, it makes sense that is exactly what is happening.
I grew up fishing for salmon and live near streams where this issue is happening. Some bright and young researchers worked very hard to identify this root cause. Yes, I felt annoyed by the snark and dismissiveness in your comment. It rings of cynicism and tears down their hard work as a corporate PR scheme.
If you cared to read a little bit about the study, you could find the funding sources. If you want to connect the dots to this mystical tire manufacturer waiting to take over the market please share your sources.
"This research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Governors Funds and the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay."
I see. I read that article. It was interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Having said that, I wouldn't be very surprised if say the president of Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality has stocks in a company which has come up with a material which could replace rubber in tires.
Again, it is you who see corporate PR schemes as inherently bad. I think a lot of good things happen because of hard work of people working in corporate PR. People having economic incentive in what they are doing makes capitalism work.
I suspect that gas stations will start swapping pumps for chargers, and that will motivate people to switch too.
By the time this all happens though we will have more car sharing programs and maybe autonomous vehicles, so the ownership paradigm will be different in 2030 compared to now. Why buy a car that sits idle for 90% of the day?