School uniforms is somewhere where Facebook has facilitated some social good.
Various community facebook groups and "buy nothing" facebook groups facilitate giving away items you no longer require. That the items be given for free, no strings attached is often a firm requirement.
School uniforms are a common item to be given away because children frequently outgrow uniforms long before they wear out.
Its very helpful for families with young children as they outgrow clothes incredibly fast and also don't yet have any resistance to the idea of second hand clothing.
How so? I'm not seeing the benefit over exporting A, B, and C as functions, and then putting them together in another spot (like a composite root for pure DI, or an IoC container, etc).
Is the argument for top-level await that you don't need the other spot? Because I feel like you still do - except now it's implicitly inside not only A, but likely B and C as well to some extent. And in a very inflexible way.
That is interesting actually. You could argue that the tiny amount of leave Americans typically receive contributes to emissions. With people being unable to spare additional time for travel there is a strong disincentive to use any form of transport apart from flying.
> That's not really true. Once you exclude people who died in childhood the average life expectancy shoots up.
An entertaining use of the word "true".
Yes, if you exclude a lot of the data, the average changes :)
Sarcasm aside, that is an important point in average life span statistics, but doesn't change the point that preindustrial life was "Nasty, brutish and short", as the old saying goes.
Also, 1850s England was the richest place on earth, almost a century into industrialism. Already a vastly elevated existence compared to our "natural state".
Your own numbers say that the richest population in the world in 1850 - way into industrialization - died at 55 on average, after ignoring child mortality. Which BTW means they watched maybe 1/4 of their children die.
If any population lived like that today, their lives would certainly be called nasty, brutish and short.
OK, the nasty and brutish part might not have been huge.
Modern medicine is great, but it turns out to not add that many years to our life spans. Mostly money does. Or more likely, the healthy lives money buys.
Put in other words, it's much better to not get sick than to have great health care!
(I'm not just bullshitting here, this is what the data shows (not that I have any links with proofs to show (so feels free to not believe this :)))
Firstly, what are you working in exchange for? Are you performing some kind of useful work for someone else, receiving nothing in exchange then going and being a hunter gatherer for some reason? Probably not.
>You didn't work for a few hours then order food for dinner
Money has existed for a very long time so purchasing food ready to eat isn't so far fetched assuming your life took you near a non-trivial population center. Bartering goods like food, clothing etc has existed for even longer.
>You probably worked a few hours, then spent the next many hours either harvesting and/or creating all the requirements for life. Maybe you spent 2 hours hunting a deer, then an hour creating clothing, then an hour cooking, then an hour mending the hole in your roof, etc.
It reads as if you are assuming that a given individual is going to have to do everything, which doesn't seem to have been the norm for most humans. Most people didn't live alone. Instead of doing all of that maybe you spent 2 hours hunting a deer. Meanwhile someone else created clothing, someone else cooked, someone else mended the roof.
Its also worth noting that all of these jobs have a very well defined point of being done. It doesn't matter if it takes you 2 hours or 20 minutes to acquire food. Once you have as much as can reasonably be consumed before it goes bad you are done. If you catch a deer within 30 minutes you are done. If someone else did well fishing then there is no value in going hunting at all.
Most farmers lived on farms. They actually did have to make a lot of their stuff themselves. Yes, you had a large family, but you needed that to be able to survive.
>Once you have as much as can reasonably be consumed before it goes bad you are done. If you catch a deer within 30 minutes you are done. If someone else did well fishing then there is no value in going hunting at all.
You would salt and preserve the meat/fish and consume it in the future.
Imagine how you would live, if you could only buy metalworks from the store. Basically everything else you'd have to make yourself.
>You would salt and preserve the meat/fish and consume it in the future.
That is very environment specific.
Depending on when/where you are salt was expensive or extremely laborious to produce. Salting, smoking etc is itself laborious, can require special purpose equipment and can take weeks. Its entirely possible that the effort to obtain the supplies and equipment to preserve your surplus food exceeds the effort to simply obtain more food in the future.
There is a reason why salting/pickling/fermentation was common in places that had winters severe enough to impact the availability of food Vs anywhere closer to the equator. People did it when they faced a large chunk of the year when starvation was a serious concern.
You should look into inflation. Most jobs pre-industrialization absolutely would not provide you food with delivery or several shirts in exchange for a couple hours of unskilled labor (which is what you can get today).
I'm not sure it's what the parent comment is doing, but it's beyond baffling to me when I see this view in the wild. You'd have to be completely ignorant of staggering amounts of history, economics, and basic arithmetic to think that historical incomes were anywhere close to what we have today in terms of consumer goods, and yet I see this very often. (Not to be mistaken with more reasonable arguments that rely on the differences in utility derived from goods whose prices have gone down and goods afflicted by cost disease)
Well, one also has to be completely ignorant of staggering amounts of history, culture, and social understanding, to think that historical cultural concerns where anywhere close to what we have today in terms of consumer goods and buying more stuff...
You could be perfectly content (and more happy than most office drones with 1000x the stuff) with a couple of clothe articles, food and a basic home...
> Well, one also has to be completely ignorant of staggering amounts of history, culture, and social understanding, to think that historical cultural concerns where anywhere close to what we have today in terms of consumer goods and buying more stuff..
Uh, sure? This is a complete non sequitur, as nobody is making the claim you're describing. If you actually read my full comment, I address this directly by saying that it's a much more reasonable argument that utility from all goods isn't equally distributed and the important ones haven't gotten easier to get at the same rate as the unimportant ones.
That doesn't mean that it's not incredibly factually inaccurate to think that access to consumer goods hasn't become mind-bogglingly higher
And even if you replace "office drone stuff" with more highbrow items... You really don't need a lot of books either. I'd die an accomplished man if I grokked what's on ~2m of my modest bookshelf. Hell, if that was all what was available at me, I'd probably get there sooner.
Feels like anyone going head to head with Tesla is in for a hard time. It must be very hard to compete with the cachet of Tesla and the speed with which they improve their vehicles.
I myself was waiting for the Taycan, its looks stunning, and is very impressive, but on pure specs, its actually the same size as a Model 3 Performance, and a little slower... So I just ordered a Model 3 Performance. I currently drive a Model S.
Honestly, the Model 3 and the Taycan will probably be miles apart. Some of my own reasons for wanting to wait for the Porsche instead of getting a Tesla:
Handling: There is no way the Tesla will handle similarly to a Porsche. Steering feel, cornering, road feel. Porsche is the king of handling for a reason, and I'm anxious to see what they can accomplish with the low CG of an electric vehicle.
Consistency: The Porsche can keep doing pulls from 100% down to 10% charge consistently with no performance degradation. This was actually Porsche's main focus, an actual electric track car.
Fit and Finish: Again, anybody who's seen both a Porsche and a Tesla up close will know it's not even a competition.
Charge Time: The Porsche will charge twice as fast as a Tesla, which (assuming you can find a fast enough charger) is pretty cool for quick recharges.
You don't buy a Porsche for 0 to 100 performance as there are better cars on the market for that. You buy a Porsche because you want the fastest track cars that will best any other car on the Nurburgring. The Taycan will be the fastest production electric car on the Ring.
I think there is a very high chance, that it will be, but right now the M3P, is beating even the BMW M3 and Mercedes C63 AMG around tracks, as shown by Top Gear and others. I do however think that people buy them, because they are performance luxury cars, with a great interior, and great features. Thats why I was looking at it anyway. Unfortunately because of the danish tax system, and when the car will be available, the Model 3 Performance, makes much better sense for me..
Porsche occupies a very interesting part of the market. At the low end it competes with BMW/Mercedes.
At the top end (Turbo S/GT3/GT2) it starts to compete with Aston Martin, then McLaren, then Ferrari/Lamborghini/etc. You can spend £45k for a basic Cayman up to £180k+ for a heavily optioned 911 Turbo S and more for lower volume/limited editions like the GT3, GT2 etc. (ignoring eg the 918)
So where the Taycan as a range places within that is quite relevant. All the signs at the moment are that it will price similar to the 911 ie probably starting at £65-70kish. But we only have one data point which is the £130k for the Turbo trim level.
The all-wheel drive dual motor car it's going to be around 130k USD. With that amount of money you could easily buy now any Model 3 (which could cover the day-to-day) AND another internal combustion engine car. I mean: okay, you'll have to maintain two cars vs. one but still.
Would that just be locations or actual stalls ? Because the number of actual stalls I most often saw here in Germany from e.g Ionity is limited to 2. Which is a no-go for me.
Do any of these actually operate near 350kw with any production cars yet?
Anyways, it's a good thing for the whole electric vehicle ecosystem that multiple charging options become available. That multiple companies are competing on charging infrastructure is excellent!
> Do any of these actually operate near 350kw with any production cars yet?
Not yet. The Porsche Taycan is launching with 250 kw charging (with 350 kw charging to come in future) but I haven't seen any information on its charge curve. The Tesla Model 3 can charge at 250kw to about 20% state of charge and then it progressively drops off.
I think Tesla's main problem now is that the major car companies will be releasing multiple EVs across multiple brands year after year. It's going to be difficult for Tesla to keep up.
Tesla isn't the only one making poor tire choices, the BMW G12 came with awful noisy all season run-flats. At least they were rated for appropriate speeds though.
Given that Tesla isn't even trying to make nice cars the bad tires seem far less surprising.
Yeah.. I've been hearing this since the Tesla Roasters came out in 2008. Yet, nothing in the market has yet to compete with the 2012 Model S when it comes to range/performance.
I.e. the Mercedes CEO? Also for the other two.... really? Who t.f. wants voice control in their car? Better lights are nice, sure... but it's a minor improvement (most people drive most of the time by day, and even by night, all car lights are "good enough". I paid 2K EUR to get better lights in my car, and they're great when I have to use them, but even I wouldn't have picked my car based on this criteria.... I even hesitated to give the extra money!)
Mercedes has a voice controlled GPS navigator in older C models. It never understood where you want to go and the text input is atrouciously useless, just like the TV on screen keyboards. If you had it, you'd probably ended up using a paper map since it has way better ergonomics.
> Better lights are nice, sure... but it's a minor improvement
I love my fancy $10k headlights, they're a huge improvement when speeding through euro highways in the middle of the night. There's just nowhere for the cops (or anything else) to hide.
>The Global Times is a daily Chinese tabloid newspaper under the auspices of the People's Daily newspaper, focusing on international issues from the Chinese government's perspective
