For those who don't know, I'd recommend the Freakonomics The Economics of Everyday Things episode on dental insurance. IIRC, dental "insurance" has little in common with insurance in general. As a financial product, it's more like an invested savings account.
Another psyop. This is being published on purpose. It’s election time in israel and it makes Netanyahu look good to israelis.
There is also a lot of media coverage there right now around pro-israel orgs funding and winning U.S. senate seats.
>CA has the 2nd highest electricity cost in the country. No where in the article do they mention cost savings, nor end-to-end carbon footprint savings.
I imagine for APM, reducing dwell time has more impact on the bottom line than fuel costs. At the end of the day, they're a for-profit company so they're gonna do what makes the most sense for their shareholders.
The crazy thing about electric vehicles is that mile for mile, electricity is nearly always cheaper than gas. Even for me, paying residential rates in California, my EV is still cheaper than a hybrid! And APM has a contract for like 10Mw from LADWP, they're probably paying 1/3 of what I do for electricity. It's a pretty sweet deal- I can't imagine it's possible to get a 67% discount on diesel just by buying in bulk.
Plus, the port is one of the biggest polluters in the area. Wilmington has like 2x higher cancer rates than LA in general. If this saves a few hundred lives/year, would it be a worthwhile use of taxpayer money? How much? (and to be clear, unless you have actual data it's not clear to me that this is "losing" money at all. The port has like 20Mw of solar panels, that's a lot of electricity to take advantage of on sunny days)
> CA has the 2nd highest electricity cost in the country. No where in the article do they mention cost savings, nor end-to-end carbon footprint savings.
And diesel is approaching $8 per gallon. So ...
First, trucking inside the port has lots of idling. Electric trucks don't have that. That's a Divide By Zero error on pollution.
Second, trucking inside the port needs low speed torque. Electric trucks are superior at that.
Third, electric trucks seem to have better uptime. We'll see if that holds over time.
Finally, I'm surprised that some company hasn't made it a business to do electric trucks from the port to a transfer point out on the interstates and then hand off to diesel for long haul. I presume the whole "Subcontract All The Things!" of the trucking industry means the economics can't be made to work.
There was a mass shooting event at MSU back in 2023 and campus administrators made a lot of changes as a result so they are still very sensitive to the issue.
Had he required a signup process with student ID that might have muted the concern somewhat. But I totally understand his excitement at creating something and wanting to share it with his friends. It got way too popular which is a testament to the fact he had built something better than what existed. In the end I hope that university officials are understanding.
Wall Street is heavily regulated, and yet both of your examples still occur.
This happens in sports betting as well, which is also regulated.
Neither of your examples show a material change or resolution due to regulation. The only result would be increased bureaucracy and decreased technology advancement.
> Wall Street is heavily regulated, and yet both of your examples still occur. > Neither of your examples show a material change or resolution due to regulation.
I'm not sure how "still occur" became "the same result in both cases" - the latter is an extraordinary claim lacking any evidence.
Are you assuming that regulation is only admissible when it prevents every single event that is contrary to it?
Moreover, we are often seeing cases of regulation theater - the regulations in the books have convenient loopholes or are only selectively enforced, if at all.
Even in these cases it's a serious stretch to claim that the situations with and without regulation are materially the same.
Do athletes, refs, coaches still throw games? YES.
Your argument is that regulation would fix both, and my argument is that regulation has not fixed either. Wall Street is just as shady not with regulation as it was in the 1930’s without. The only major difference now is that the IRS is able to track and tax smaller entities easier.
Outside of mentioning that kids go to school and there was a birthday, personal life isn’t discussed.
The article is about manual labor required to live on the island. While 3 woman are introduced, the article mainly revolved around fishing, carrying heavy material long distances, and livestock which is man dominated in every country around the world.
Very likely the woman are caring for the heavy burden and labors required to upkeep their own homestead which deserves an article itself, but obviously outside of the point of this article.
As much as I see these 'prediction markets' as thinly veiled gambling, I agree. What both have in common is a direct buyer and seller, a seller whom thinks the item will become worth less, and a buyer who thinks the opposite. Kalshi just skims the transaction fees.
If you view it in those terms, it's really not much different than the stock market/broker relationship. Surely someone will say 'well at least stocks are ownership', let me introduce you to derivatives.
The real question I guess is how we come to terms with house gambling/prediction markets/stock markets being three sides of the same coin and how to regulate that.
I find derivatives on stocks extremely weird. I do get idea of primary market with goods. That can be useful, even there secondary market might be reasonable. But once it goes beyond use by primaries maybe it should be banned. So you should hold or at least have clear plan to produce the goods you buy or sell. So at least one side of the trade would have to have real stake in the game. And everything should be delivered not just settled.
Having puts for stuff you do not have. Or buying calls from someone who does not have it just feels pure speculation thus gambling not hedging.
The distinction used to be that CFTC regulated event contracts require settlement against an objective outcome, while gambling is more about chance. But state AGs are arguing that when you bet on who wins an NBA game thats functionally identical to a sports bet regardless of the contract structure. Hard to disagree with that tbh.
reply