Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)LE
Posts
0
Comments
106
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • The report gives a quick summary of what they include, but not any details or math.

    The cost of underlying energy (gas, diesel, electric)
    State excise taxes charged for road maintenance
    The cost to operate a pump or charger
    The cost to drive to a fueling station (deadhead miles)

    Elsewhere it says it assumes 12k miles in a year and is focused on the midwest and Michigan in particular. As it so happens, Michigan charges for registration based on the car value. EVs cost more than ICE vehicles in the same market segment most of the time. This would fall under excise taxes that they include.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they also tacked on the cost to install a L2 charger once as "cost to operate a pump or charger" — intentionally ignoring that it's a one-time fee to support EVs at a home. With those two data points they could easily add >$1000 to the cost to "charge" an EV for one year if that is what they wanted to do.

    The people making the report clearly picked criteria that sounds reasonable but also intentionally misleads people. Not a surprise.

  • The overall state matters far more than the local area for determining what your government is going to be like. Colorado Springs cannot make abortion illegal for its residents; Colorado can. Colorado Springs cannot ignore the state's laws on minimum wages, or LGBTQ rights, or any myriad other laws.

    It's why I, as a progressive, would have no interest in living in Austin Texas: as left-leaning as Austin is, the state of Texas plays a bigger part in that governance and would make it an undesirable place for me to live.

    Incidentally, Colorado Springs has been moving left. It has a non-republican independent mayor now, and the democratic governor even won the city in his reelection campaign (still lost the county, but came close). Trump won the county by 10% in 2020, after winning it by 20% in 2016. Likewise, Romney and McCain won it by 20%; Bush Jr. won it by 30% and 34%. In 1988 Bush Sr. won it by 40%. I expect the city-only results are even closer at the presidential level but cannot find data for that quickly.

  • Tuberville's asinine blockade of military promotions presumably played a big part in this. I think it's a smart idea even in a vacuum though. The types of people that would be interested in serving in Space Command positions are, I expect, going to be the types of people least likely to find living in Alabama to be tolerable. Locating the HQ in Colorado is going to be a lot better for their recruitment efforts.

    That's not to mention the official reasons offered, that it would be a clusterfuck to relocate the HQ. Which is a perfectly sufficient reason on its own too.

  • As someone that has read the books but not watched the show...

    For books 7-9, I think of them as an epilogue trilogy. The time jump, the overall ending at the end of book 9, the state of the characters... Basically all of it fills the same purpose that a traditional epilogue fills. It just tells an entire story in the process of doing so and needs 1200-1500 pages.

  • On mobile: Hit the three line menu button -> "Send link to device"
    On desktop: Right click on a tab -> "Send tab to device"

    Kind of odd that they're not the same language, actually. For what it's worth I'm on iOS so it might be different for FF on Android.

  • After a certain point, scores are as much based on hype as quality.

    That's not even a malicious choice, either. Hype influences our experiences and perceptions of whatever is being hyped. It's intuitively obvious that people will enjoy a good thing that they are hyped about more than a good thing that they are not hyped about. Hype is strongest just before release... which is exactly when reviewers play and assign a score to a game.

    A sequel to a well received game is going to have more hype than the predecessor in most circumstances. Morrowind sold something like 5-10x the copies as Daggerfall and came about at a time when there was a lot of upheaval in the industry from a target-audience standpoint: a lot of potential Morrowind players (and reviewers) would have not played Daggerfall.

    In essence, Oblivion was reviewed more positively because of the positive reception of Morrowind. The positive reception of Oblivion in turn boosted Skyrim.

    This is not to say people would hate the games without the prior game before it or hype, just that there is a "hype boost" for games.

  • The business ecosystem of people taking advantage of right-wing outrage has to be pretty interesting. People with the right social media skills can turn anything into the conservative "own the libs" hallmark of the week. Make your product cheap enough and it should be comparatively easy money...

  • Lots of things.

    Use public transportation.
    Have multiple experiences available nearby to do as a day activity.
    Have a large pool of people available to meet and know.
    Walk to anything interesting.
    In general just have lots of options and variety for anything: work, groceries, eating out, etc.

    Some small towns might have some walkability for downtown but nothing more than that.

  • I can't read the article but I think they're making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill.

    BEVs were nigh impossible to purchase a year ago. Tesla's MSRPs were ~$10k higher than they are today, not even accounting for the tax credit. Other manufacturers were seeing dealer markups of $10k+ on a new BEV. Demand for BEVs went through the roof as (1) supply chain effects meant the price difference between ICE and BEV went down, and (2) Russia's invasion of Ukraine sent gas prices way up. A 350% jump over last year doesn't mean much in that light — what inventory even existed on dealer lots last year?

    Both of those factors have faded. EVs are still selling well, but manufacturers are going to need to find more ways to lower prices in order to stay competitive and to keep demand up.

  • (1) I didn't downvote you.
    (2) I said something similar but critically different:

    Building a streaming platform that expects to have multiple billions of dollars in revenue across hundreds of millions of users is going to have enormous fixed costs that cannot be trivially scaled down if user counts are lower. If they plan around a much lower user count they can scale it down at that planning phase, but not after the fact (at least not easily).

    The intended size of the platform dictates the fixed costs.

    And...
    (3) The data you provided wasn't fixed costs. It was variable costs like server time, music rights, and bandwidth.

  • Every time I see crazy heat data for Arizona and other places like it in the US, it makes me wonder. When the fuck will we see a reversion of population trends of people moving south? Arizona, Texas, etc. are only going to get worse. Everywhere is going to get worse, but there's a lot of rapidly growing areas that are on track to be non-viable for 1/3+ of the year within 10-20 years.

    People should not be moving to Arizona, not with climate change as it is.

  • Interesting. That's dated October of 2009 and says Spotify had 5m users. Looks like they have ~200m users today. At a linear scaling it'd be twenty times larger, or £120m=$154m per month. That's $1.85b/year.

    In reality it wouldn't scale linearly, but it also accounts for zero salaries, which was the major component of my comment.

  • Fixed costs isn't the cost of having a single server with the storage. I'm thinking everything they need to have built up with the intent of having between N1 and N2 MAU, in order to make that viable.

    It's the cost of developing the software stack, of hiring the lawyers and accountants that (1) acquire the music rights and (2) handle the music payouts, it's the lawyers that handle the different legal requirements across every major global economy, it's the servers located in all of those countries with as many sub-national locations as necessary, it's the IT staff that manage that server uptime, it's the software developers that maintain that system and improve upon it so rivals don't jump too far ahead... Etc.

    Building a streaming platform that expects to have multiple billions of dollars in revenue across hundreds of millions of users is going to have enormous fixed costs that cannot be trivially scaled down if user counts are lower. If they plan around a much lower user count they can scale it down at that planning phase, but not after the fact (at least not easily).

  • Streaming services have an enormous amount of fixed costs. It might cost them several billion dollars/year to operate the necessary infrastructure even with zero customers, but the marginal cost to serve a customer might be on the order of $2/month on that $10/month subscription.

    It's why streaming and digital storefronts are such a sink/swim industry. Either a company gets over user number+sales threshold to override their fixed costs, upon which they become profitable and all further growth makes them exceedingly profitable. Or the company fails to do so or barely does so, and makes somewhere between giant losses to minimal profits.

    From a quick search, Spotify's user count should have grown somewhere in the neighborhood of ten times over since 2015.

    This is not a cost increase that is mandated or justified by inflation. It never is. It's a cost increase from a very, very, very simple fact: companies want profit, and Spotify's leadership has concluded that they will gain more profit by increasing prices than they will by not doing so.