> What's the problem? Only poor people care about test scores as they imagine high test scores is how one can pull themselves out of being poor. When you are rich you can also do pointless things just for the fun of it like build bridges to nowhere. None of these are problems unless you try and look at it through a poor man's lens.
That may be a reasonable take at the level of an individual. But it's nonsense at the level of a country.
Wealth is the ability to get other people to do things. But if everyone is becoming less capable, then that's not a problem that wealth can fix.
Outsourcing may be a temporary solution to his problem, but I don't see it working well long term.
> But if everyone is becoming less capable, then that's not a problem that wealth can fix.
What suggests that people are becoming less capable? More importantly, what suggests that people are becoming less capable in an irreversible way? If people are less capable, but it is reversible, then wealth can fix it. As you said, you can use wealth to get other people to become more capable.
> What suggests that people are becoming less capable?
From the root level comment in this thread:
> Student test scores have worsened more than in other Scandinavian countries, and critics of the government say there are too many boondoggle tunnels and bridges to nowhere.
-
> More importantly, what suggests that people are becoming less capable in an irreversible way? If people are less capable, but it is reversible, then wealth can fix it.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that this trend is irreversible.
But big trends like this can be difficult to turn around - if it were easy, the trend wouldn't have happened in the first place (or, at least, it wouldn't have been detectable).
> If people are less capable, but it is reversible, then wealth can fix it. As you said, you can use wealth to get other people to become more capable.
You can't just say "wealth will do x". That's really a semantic shortcut for saying "people will do x". But presumably people are already trying to improve the countries test scores. And people are already trying (at least to a certain extent) to spend government funds wisely. I'm not really sure how wealth will change what's currently occurring.
Oh, so you mean not that they are becoming less capable in general, but that they are becoming less capable at testing? I suppose that is a reasonable take in light of earlier comments – but, again, wealthy people don't see value in test results, so what difference does it make?
This is like noticing that people have become less likely to share "hand-me-downs". You'd no doubt see that as a travesty if you are struggling to buy clothes, but if you look at it from a place of wealth where you are buying clothes as if they are nothing, what does that mean to you? Not much.
> if it were easy, the trend wouldn't have happened in the first place
There is a logical leap in there that you haven't explained. In the same vein, it is easy to grow food in your garden, but it is abundantly clear that people no longer see the need, even where they once did. Just because something is easy does not mean that there is reason to do it. You are going to have to elaborate.
> It is not so much that used diamonds are worth less (although they might decline in value without provenance to prove they are natural or if they are chipped) but the huge markup on retail jewellery.
Precisely.
And on top of that some jewelry stores are worried that customers would consider a below wholesale offer to be insulting, so they often refuse to buy piece back at all.
From what I've heard there's a countervailing effect for EVs, though - they end up generating more particulate pollution from tire wear because of greater vehicle weight and greater torque.
The number that I've seen bandied about is ~20% greater tire wear.
> They are looking at lightweight EVs at lower speeds. But Americans drive heavier EVs at highway speeds. The rotors & pads are huge.
Perhaps other EV drivers can chime in but, if anything, I think I use my friction brakes less at highway speeds where, in general, you're not really supposed to do a lot of braking. I'd say, overall and regardless of speed, my friction brakes are really used only to bring the car to a complete stop or for emergency braking to avoid a potential accident.
> Perhaps other EV drivers can chime in but, if anything, I think I use my friction brakes less at highway speeds where, in general, you're not really supposed to do a lot of braking. I'd say, overall and regardless of speed, my friction brakes are really used only to bring the car to a complete stop or for emergency braking to avoid a potential accident.
Some people are very responsible with money - they have an emergency fund, contribute to their retirement fund, and don't carry a credit card balance.
Other people (who have a choice) spend to 0 every month, don't save, and have maxed out credit cards.
In the same way, some people drive very safely; they keep a responsible distance between them and the driver in front of them, and don't tend to speed much. I think this style of driving would naturally lead to what you say - less use of friction breaks in general, and especially at highway speeds.
And other people are constantly speeding, and tailgate the person in front of them when their path is blocked. For the people who drive this way, the greater acceleration of EVs just lets them drive that much more recklessly. Which ends up necessitating even more usage of friction brakes.
I'm one of the chill EV drivers too. but imagine the distribution over vehicles that are 30-75% heavier, and the range of drivers from chill to agro (leaning toward agro), and you can see the benefits and costs start to cancel out.
I still expect EVs to be a net improvement on brake dust. just not as massive as the study. maybe about 1/2 - 1/3 of the study's results
Not sure about that. If you accelerate a 2t vehicle to 60mph and then decelerate it back to 0mph then they would stress the tyres in the same way, no matter if you do EV & regen, EV no-regen or ICE, right? (I am keeping the weight constant).
Prompted by your comment I had a look at vehicle weights and two facts stood out
- ALL new cars are getting heavier EVERY YEAR because we keep adding more stuff (average car weight, and average SUV weight trend upwards from 2016 to 2023)
- The average electric car is heavier than a petrol equivalent but is lighter than an SUV
Weight certainly a problem, but the focus on EVs for weight is generally blown out of proportion.
> The interesting thing is when this breaks down. Obviously if you eat a weeks worth of food every day for a sustained period of time, you will start to gain weight. Or if you run 12 miles every day, you will be in such a deficit that it won't be possible to lower your metabolism enough. Outside of the extremes, I think it's a cliff, where you have to have some kind of shock for some period of time for your body to react.
Objectively, I don't think this is accurate.
Most people who are overweight got that way slowly.
Dr Mike[1]'s theory is that modern processed food is to blame - not because it's unhealthy, but because it's too tasty. Companies that make food are in an evolutionary arms race with other companies to get consumers to choose their products. And one of the best ways to do that is to make the food as tasty as possible.
Another things many companies probably try to optimize their food for is low satiety[2]. That way consumers consume, and therefore buy, more of their products.
In addition to food being much tastier than ever before, it’s also much cheaper. Despite current inflation and cost of living concerns, we spend far less on food than any time in history. Food in the 1960 was almost twice as expensive as it is today. Food costs used to be higher than housing costs!
> How many frivilous assault allegations against male drivers are there? I've never heard of this happening personally.
It comes up from time to time if you watch Uber driver videos. There's a reason why many drivers have a camera that records the interior of the car: alcohol + entitlement can manifest in many ways.
Most commonly, passengers cancel the ride and expect to be driven to their destination anyways. But worse stuff happens from time to time.
For a while, I was optimistic that Apple would at least continue to release the SE every 3-ish years. I'm guessing they wanted to finally kill the fingerprint reader and other SE-specific features[1]. And maybe even the SE with its reduced price didn't sell that well.
---
1. Yes, I understand that these features were present in other phones, but the SE was the last phone actively sold by Apple that had them
The SE has always seemed, to me, a way to repurpose older iPhone components into a more modern shell, which is why the SE line has been replace by the 16e. 16e uses iPhone 13 dimensions.
> I don't understand the purpose of consumers owning individual solar panels in a large array. How is that better than a single entity owning the whole array, and what function does the consumer provide?
I don't now if it's better, but it is different.
The benefit to the utility in this case is much lower capex - it's basically like the restaurant franchise model, but for power.
But like you imply, there's a tradeoff that can be made between capex and opex - in this case, the utility could own everything and consumers could pay for electricity on an ongoing basis. IMO, this model is superior due to reduced principal-agent problems.
Practically speaking, you're probably not going to get 1000s of years out of any storage method. There's just too much stuff that breaks down.
Heck - a lot of historic dams are in the low hundreds of years old and are experiencing serious problems.
IMO, the shorter lifespan of batteries isn't that big of a downside as long as the "bad" batteries can be mined for raw materials eventually.