All open source projects are remote, including Linux. That's a rather exceptional. Not a company but shows that great, complex, engineering can be built remotely. Probably because engineers need focus and time to think. Gitlab is also fully remote.
Isn't taking the blame part of why CEOs get paid millions of dollars? 226 of them in this case. Pichai signed up for it and is objectively a winner too.
What you’ve said is nonsensical. Being the victim of some harsh words forgotten the next day while never having to work another day in your life is not any kind of responsibility.
If OP had negotiated the contract in good faith, I don't think this would have been an issue, but if there were lot of assholery in getting that contract, the network is happy to stick it back
I agree that it's deliberate, and I extend that to any sort of mining - after all it comes from the stance of misinformed "environmentalists" not being able to tell the difference because any of that type of action is bad
There are certainly people reposting comments that mix up lithium and cobalt and keep asserting that all EV batteries use cobalt and how terrible that is. They are not all environmentalists. A lot of them are just using those talking points as a way to oppose the move to EVs.
They also like to post a photo of an open pit gold mine in Australia and claim that it is a lithium mine while complaining about the massive environmental impact. they never respond when I post a link with proper attribution showing that it is not a lithium mine.
If nuclear power were profitable, no amount of vehement opposition due to environmental risk could stop it. There'd be nuclear power plants everywhere. Fortunately for your vehement opposition, considering all costs. nuclear power has always been the single most expensive way to generate electricity, has never been profitable, and never will be, even if it wasn't regulated. Investors can't be found unless a government subsidizes construction and pays for decommissioning and waste storage and security. The only reason so many nuclear power plants were even constructed in the US in the first place is that someone somewhere, or perhaps a team or committee, vastly overestimated the need for fuel for bombs. Anyway, it really sucks, but opposition and environmental concern can't really stop the destruction of ecosystems or environmental catastrophe if whatever is causing it is profitable. Nuclear is done and didn't need help killing itself, but keep that in mind if you have any other pet environmental concerns, i.e. that to win and protect the environment, one must figure out a way to obliterate the potential for profit in risking or destroying it. Otherwise, you're just shaking a tiny fist at the sky for all the good it'll do.
I don't believe this is inherently true. Theoretical designs exist that solve a lot of nuclear power's problems: this issue is that it got caught in a death spiral due to Chernobyl. That ended investment and R&D, so nuclear power plants didn't improve while other sources of energy did, so they got even less investment and R&D.
> this issue is that it got caught in a death spiral due to Chernobyl.
Nuclear (fission) power's unprofitability predates Chernobyl to the very first reactors and continuing up to this day. The Shippingport Atomic Power Station was the first commercial reactor to come online, and it was a small reactor, cost $78M to construct in 1958. Decommissioning and cleanup 30 years later cost about $100M. Considering the plant and the resulting mess were small, I really don't think it broke even, but I can't find any economic analysis that includes all the things.
A study in 2019 found that nuclear power has not been profitable anywhere in the world.[1] The study also found nuclear power has never been financially viable, that most plants have been built while heavily subsidised by governments, often motivated by military purposes, and that nuclear power is not a good approach to tackling climate change. It found, after reviewing trends in nuclear power plant construction since 1951, that the average 1,000MW nuclear power plant would incur an average economic loss of about $8B.
And R&D in fission is complete. We know pretty much all there is to know regarding it, and reducing cost simply is not viable through more investment in R&D. We've been working on this in earnest since the late 1940's, so it's no surprise we have figured everything out other than how to do it cheaply enough to achieve economic viability. There are some nuclear power applications where economic viability don't matter, such as nuclear subs and aircraft carriers, and I expect we won't stop building those, but commercial nuclear power just can't work because of the money, and nothing else is needed to say "no," and if it was economically viable, no other objections, such as environmental, would stop it.
Yes, it's never been profitable. The first photovoltaic device was built in the 1830's, and mass photovoltaic deployment only became profitable in the last decade. R&D in fission is absolutely not complete. The investment in it has been pathetic since before computer modeling existed, there's no way there aren't efficiencies to find. So much of the field references papers from the 50s and 60s, because that was the last time there was money and a non-strangling amount of regulation. Thorium reactors, theoretically much safer and cheaper, have barely even been tried.
It would take a huge capital investment to get a program like this off the ground, so it's too risky for the market. The invisible hand's rejection is not the same as impossibility.
> The first photovoltaic device was built in the 1830's, and mass photovoltaic deployment only became profitable in the last decade.
This is a bizarre comparison. The US invested about $1.5T total in developing nuclear power. Almost nothing was invested in developing PV. If only 1% of the money wasted on developing nuclear power had instead been invested in PV, nuclear power would have been dead by 1970. A recently passed bill earmarks $6B to keep nuclear plants open. Compare to recent DoE announcement to spend $82M on PV manufacturing. Even with this nearly two orders of magnitude imbalance of spending, PV is going to beat the pants off nuclear by making tons of money compared to nuclear power losing mind-boggling amounts of it.
R&D can not make nuclear energy cheaper. It is simply commercially unviable. If you can figure out a way to make it profitable, you can have all the nuclear energy you want, but a lot of smart and capable people spanning 4 generations have already tried and failed.
nuclear did need help to kill itself. I dont know about usa but in europe many political parties were funded to destroy nuclear. trading it for coal and russian gas. nuclear is the best energy we have today . nothing ever come close to it. renewables are a fad heavily backed by people that are making money out of it. You cant power a full sized country with it. it fluctuates too much. in terms of what you need to build and renew solar panels or wind turbines it has a deep environmental impact. it is actually as renewable as nuclear… look at germany relying on fossil fuels and killing the environment to fit your green agenda. living proof of a clown state backed up by corrupt politicians
Also worth pointing out that much of EVs and grid storage are shifting to cobalt-free lithium iron phosphate batteries. Many people aren't aware of that.
Currently set to resume in June or July, I believe.
But I find this line of thinking dubious. It costs more than $1700/month for 10 years just to pay for med school? ($160k total cost at 5% interest — and both of those values are at the low end.) That’s an incredibly stupid situation for our economy to be in. That is a massive barrier to entry for a some very important careers.
And on top of that, we’re saying that these massive payments are crucial to getting inflation in check?
Maybe you’re right that this “helps” superficially reduce inflation. But the root problem is much deeper, which is that our economic system cannot handle people making a decent money.
The root cause is likely a lot closer to big companies jacking prices of basic goods and services, blaming inflation, and making record profits in the meantime.
Our economy can handle a lot more people making more money. It just can't handle it suddenly. Especially during and right after a global economic shutdown.
Companies are still catching up with supply. Lots of chemicals and other base materials are still in short supply. A lot of this stems from China still having shutdowns and taking a long time to recover.
Companies also don't want to spend tons of money expanding production when they don't believe the increased demand will continue forever and especially while interest rates are increasing. After supplies catch up, and student loans resume, they likely expect demand to return to pre-pandemic levels.
I think there are factors there that is going to cause permanent reductions of production capacity in many economies, though:
1) Demography: Boomers have started retiring in large numbers, and a lot more retire in the next 5-10 years. There are not enough young people to fill all of the openings they leave behind. Also, work participation rate among young people is falling for various reasons. Unlike their parents, the boomers have a lot of saved up wealth and less of the frugality of those who remembered the 30s, meaning many will continue to have high levels of consumption into their retirement.
2) Reversion of globalism: Covid made many realize that global supply chains are fragile during emergencies, and many countries are re-shoring essential and strategic production, such as medical supplies, chips/electronics and agricultural products. The cost of this improved resilience is lower efficiency.
3) Increased world tension: With the invasion of Ukraine and the possibility of war between the US and China over Taiwan, world spending on armaments is going up, taking production capacity away from consumer goods. The same tension is already causing reduced trade.
4) Populism/socialism/environmentalism: There appears to be a surge in populist, socialist radical environmentalist sentiments in many places, with demands to "tax the rich" and other actions that will make investments less attractive.
In sum, I think these factors will have noticable effects on the supply side in many years to come, causing inflation and/or interest rates to stay elevated for 10 years or more.
Unless there is a sudden surge in automation, of course.
> But the root problem is much deeper, which is that our economic system cannot handle people making a decent money.
The value of money is defined by what you can buy for it. If there isn't enough stuff to buy, either prices go up or there will be shortages of those products. If I have to chose between paying 20% more for the bread or to find the shelves empty half the time, I prefer to pay 20% more.
In "other economic systems", meaning socialism, empty shelves are pretty common.
Dear sir, are you suggesting that something that worked well for certain things at certain times may not automatically apply to all 21st century industries in the year 2023?
Layoff ops are pretty standardized so I would be surprised if there wasn’t a template that has been commonly agreed upon to be as neutral in tone as possible
