That we should be overprotective of dangerous animals--in this case celebrating that they are living in the middle of a very dense city--is a luxury belief. It makes dumb rich people feel good and the costs are borne by others. For another example see the reintroduction of wolves in Colorado.
The hope, at least, is that the tariffs will encourage the creation of more, better, jobs in the US through re-shoring. This would, in theory, also increase domestic consumption though the time frame is longer.
>the tariffs will encourage the creation of more, better, jobs in the US through re-shoring
that isn't possible for any production other than a primitive one. The modern production is very complicated, and in particular contains long lists of components, materials, tools, technological stages of production and engineering services. I.e. it is a pyramid with very wide base. Even large country like US is too small to maintain all what is required for any even moderately complicated product. Tariffs are kind of shrinking the pyramid's base - the result is lower pyramid so to speak.
Of course, you and anybody welcome to bring counter-examples.
>This would, in theory, also increase domestic consumption
It would increase prices, and decrease productivity thus resulting in lower consumption.
Dell used to make computers in the US. Then they moved manufacturing to China. You're saying Dell can't make computers in the US ever again? If the economic incentives are there then the supply chains can be (re-)built, right?
How quickly did they move to China? Decades, right? Coming back takes that kind of timescale because everything needs to align – making PCs means that they need suppliers for every component, and those factories inputs, and logistics keeping factories’ production synchronized, and a lot of different skilled labor categories which aren’t trivially available. If you’re setting up a factory in the Midwest assembling parts from China, all you’re doing is ensuring that the results cost more and none of the key businesses are likely to come back because tariffs won’t make a factory competitive outside of the country.
You can encourage the whole thing to move but it needs to be a carefully considered long-term plan with strategic investments and ongoing investment. That’s the opposite of what we’re seeing now with tariffs changing every time an octogenarian gets cranky, and his party is trying to slash investments rather than grow them. No business is going to assume that any promise made will last for a business quarter, much less the years needed, and without some major funding commitments nobody is going to jump to line up tens of billions in financing.
similar like with networks the value of supply chain grows with its size, ie. more competing suppliers decrease the prices and increase the productivity and efficiency. It also lowers the risks of failing suppliers, and the supply risk is also an additional cost.
So, you suggest to rebuild supply chain hosted by the "technologically civilized" half+ of the world, i.e. by 4B+ of people, in a country of 340M. I.e. a supply chain at least 10x smaller, with at least 10x less competition (or the alternative - same number of suppliers 10x smaller in size). We all know what happens when there is 10x less competition. (and the alternative is even worse - the suppliers being 10x smaller in size is a loss of manufacturing efficiency which comes and goes with the scale of mass production and probably isn't possible at all as small suppliers usually quickly fail and/or scooped by larger ones, especially given that their addressable market is also 10x smaller)
> You're saying Dell can't make computers in the US ever again?
The person you are replying to said no such thing.
Yes, of course, in isolation, some manufacturers can build new factories. Not overnight. Not in a year, if the supply chain is remotely complicated.
Okay, lets say Dell, who moved their manufacturing out of the US nearly two decades ago, succeeds with their factory building and starts building here. Great! What are they building? Are they fabbing 100% of the components that are going into these computers they are building? Absolutely not.
I said: >the tariffs will encourage the creation of more, better, jobs in the US through re-shoring
they said: >that isn't possible for any production other than a primitive one.
What I find bizarre in this discussion is the refusal to even acknowledge that there are other economic effects at play besides the first order effect of tariffs increasing the cost of imports. A second order effect is to make building things domestically relatively cheaper, all other things being equal, because those things won't be subject to the tariff. Will the net effect be positive or negative? Who knows. But people refusing to even acknowledge that there are effects that cut both ways tells me that they are dishonest or stupid and you probably can't have much of a conversation with them.
It's because those second-order effects are pretty much theoretical and they're just a distraction. Nobody actually believes that tariffs will increase production in the US because you would need to be very naive and stupid to believe that. And, well, you're not. So yes, people might call your bluff and unfortunately this means we all have to actually try when we're creating our arguments.
The reason for this is that we understand it would take on the order of decades to make that kind of domestic economic reform. And we have seen this administration cannot even hold decisions on the scale of weeks.
So yes, you're correct that this could, theoretically, increase domestic production. In the same way that if I run my hand into a wall there's a chance all the atoms miss each other and I phase right through.
The reason you don't hear much about positive knock-on effects is that their time frames stretch beyond anyone's planning horizon. The only immediate effects will be losses, and they'll be around for a while.
There's no existential threat compelling enough to shut down trade for the generation or two it would take to see real benefits, and those benefits could be realized within the same time frame through other means.
This turns conversation around positive effects into a thought experiment people might not find germane to a current discussion. The tariffs simply won't be in place long enough.
> A second order effect is to make building things domestically relatively cheaper, all other things being equal, because those things won't be subject to the tariff.
that is just opposite of reality. Several people explained that to you here, yet you state :
>But people refusing to even acknowledge that there are effects that cut both ways tells me that they are dishonest or stupid and you probably can't have much of a conversation with them.
People brought you a ton of arguments, yet you haven't addressed any of them, haven't produced any counter-example, and instead shouted that bizarre statement.
how much of the value chain was actually in the US back then, and, how much could feasibly move to the US?
Even in the 90s, major components were made in Taiwan and Japan. And since that time, the US ability to make what we did previously has atrophied
What do we really get out of Dell moving PC manufacturing to the US if every single part they consume was manufactured in China or Taiwan? Final assembly is the lowest value part of the equation. Apple already did this shell game with the Mac Pro a few years ago and it didn't last long nor did it have a meaningful impact on anything other than the price of the product
The entire field of economics demonstrates the opposite. The result of tariffs will be fewer and worse jobs in the US, with everyone's standard of living going down.
A question for people who are security experts: do you think the model of a computer having limited users and privileged users, with a user gaining privileged access being a massive security problem, is really tenable? The CPU/GPU are shared resources on a machine and isolating the work they do by user is quite difficult.
Would it really be infeasible to simply design compute systems under the assumption that all users can get root access? Most of these vulnerabilities can be mitigated for free by not giving any access to users you wouldn't mind having root access.
> The CPU/GPU are shared resources on a machine and isolating the work they do by user is quite difficult.
The problem is, users aren't even the threat boundary any more. Some classes of attacks like Rowhammer have been successfully exploited from Javascript.
But Discretionary Access Controls is a standard part of OS design for a very long time.
It is certainly possible to go back to DOS-days and run all your programs without controls as terminate and stay resident programs. But that would be awfully inconvenient.
The concept of "users" isn't just for human users. It is used to do things like prevent your web server from being able to read and edit your password files and such things.
I'm assuming what they are thinking along the lines of is not that we'd do away with the notion of privilege levels, but more that privilege boundaries would become 1:1 with hardware boundaries. So perhaps you'd have a dedicated CPU core with its own isolated cache for running the kernel, or that sort of thing. Almost like multiple separate systems communicating across client-server boundaries.
I guess the question for me though (as neither a deep expert in security nor low-level hw) is, how much less efficient would that be than the kinds of mitigations used today for shared hardware? If it's far more guaranteed-safe and the cost is only just a bit higher than today's mitigations... that would be interesting indeed.
Its more like we build computers that way to protect people from running code they shouldn't and limiting the blast radius if they do. A lot of the protections that pushed iOS zero click jailbreak exploit chains to the $10 million plus range impact capability and performance heavily. However you do have a good user experience that "just works" and keeps people safe. Run as sudo no pass if want man just for many that's to much risk.
IIRC there was another paper recently, with similar methodology about computing xAx. These papers produce algorithms which aren't empirically correct, but provably correct. They do this by operating on a graph data structure, which describes the algorithm and then verifying the algebraic equality to the correct result.
There is a substantial difference here. And I think utilizing algorithms which only are empirically correct can be dangerous.
Wired headphones also just work, don't need to be charged, and are much cheaper. AirPods are a strict downgrade from normal wired headphones, and it is insane to me that people are willing to pay for them.
Enforcing laws consistently would be great but of course one great tactic of tyrannical governments is to have a lot of laws, but only enforce them against disfavored groups.
One San Francisco flavor of this to get charged for bribing officials to do their jobs.
Can anyone proficient with this kind of language comment on how useful it is compared to a more vanilla imperative language? It seems like it's designed for control systems, which is largely about correctly implementing large state machines. Are there problems that are incredibly difficult to manage without a language like dezyne? Outside of control and state machines, are there other domains it excels in?
Dezyne runs formal verification under the hood (Model checking), which basically means checking all possible situations that might happen in your code. You can create a requirements/constraint like statements and Dezyne will check is there a scenario where you violate them. Also it makes sure that every single has a correct handler, so no more unexpected timer interrupts.
It short words - you don't need to write unit tests and target code generates directly from the model
Sounds like formal verification is built into the language, which sounds nice for people who care!
Given this is spitting out C++ code, it could be that the ideal way of using this is to write your state machines with this, then use the output in a more traditional setup.
every app is big hierarchical state machine. from app using mechanical enginering devices to cenralized perpertual trading orderbook to networked game world state management middleware.
reply