I'm probably a fair bit younger. I came to know the phrase, then (of) him, through the flash animation of the Happatai/Yatta song on Albino Black Sheep in the early 2000s (and these days on youtube if you search 'irrational exuberance yatta'; mildly nsfw in a few spots). Never bothered to dig into its meaning, though.
> Fossil fuels are roughly 40% of maritime tonnage, but in the model they represent about half of maritime freight energy because coal, oil, and gas are mostly long-haul bulk trades. Moving a ton of scrap metal a short distance and moving a ton of oil or LNG across oceans are not the same transport-energy problem, even if both show up as one ton in a cargo table.
as being exactly what was being talked about... more fuel is spent on transporting fuel due to distance it travels.
but your comment made me re-visit (i.e. more closely skim...) the article, and it's really about: "as the demand for fossil fuels is projected to decrease, (1) less long-haul shipping is needed and (2) a greater fraction of shipping will be short-haul, which will be practical for other types of freight fueling (i.e. what's shown in the figure at the top of the article)
I have no sense of how realistic the figure is. For example, I don't know the current projections for decline of fossil fuel demand over ?? year timeframe.
I read this and another half-dozen replies to the parent comment (but not the article, of course...) and was still confused. This comment was the clearest to getting me to understand it.
Example contributors as I presently understand it:
- we transport fossil fuels further around world (i.e. Middle East to the US)
- we transport most other goods some shorter distances
- iron ore transport is "up there" with fossil fuels; high ton-miles of transport.
And of course the cost of transport for a good is a function of distance, a la the rocket equation mentioned in other comments.
And the article is focused on making this point in the context of the effect of reduced demand for fossil fuels and steel (iron ore) on maritime demand. (which is interesting, and totally not what the article title was leading my brain to think about)
Edit: And then I went and actually looked at the figure at the top of the article; guess the real topic is yet a different framing than what I comment on above!
Instead of the value of evaluating a single scan, what about determinations made from evaluating regular deltas between images?
As a layperson, I'm mostly familiar with the concept of "get scanned, and a professional evaluates it"... are there scenarios where the approach of "imaging every few weeks, to make decisions based on trends" is currently done?
(From reading other comment threads here, I suspect the general answer is: other body-scanning startups have proposed the same thing, and it hasn't made sense)
As an aside, I could probably benefit from allergy shots, but the idea of having a regularly scheduled errand to do during the workweek is pretty unappealing, so I never seriously consider it.
> When he took the stand in his own defense, he portrayed himself as a mid-level functionary following orders.[32] He repeatedly claimed he was "merely a little cog in the machinery" of genocide, not a policymaker.
They may be looking at the societal level and saying: "I can attempt to teach my kids best practices, but I've learned I sure can't rely on my peers to do the same with their kids...", then feeling like the outcome of that, if left as-is, is societal decline... and then believing that something needs to be done beyond the individual level.
Do you think the category of people that "consume their news" via primarily reading headlines from aggregators (google/apple mobile built-in "news") is significant or no?
(this is a big part of my consumption, and is combined with scrolling HN/reddit headlines; often to paywalled sites, which leads me to mostly reading comment discussions on those two sites)
(edit: disclaimer after reading a few other comments: I use Android; so don't have personal experience with Apple News, which may in fact be significantly different/better product)
> You’re making a choice to prioritize profit (or foreign countries) over the country that you benefit from. This is an immoral and short sighted business decision, as you will eventually see a backlash from the host countries you’re effectively operating as a parasite in.
I have the vague sense we're far enough into e.g. offshoring that it's not purely about "profits" but about being competitive because all your competitors are doing the same thing.
But, then again, wealth inequality increase doesn't seem to be slowing (so profits /are/ being achieved), and I mostly think about businesses in robotics (and I don't spend that much time pondering it) where there's a lot of complexity in the stack, needing more "manpower", and being smart with money spent is maybe /more/ important. Robotics is a smallll sliver of software dev companies... (thus, "vague sense")
I assume the mention of benefits was mostly a polite way to decline giving a number... It might also be more applicable in other industries/roles where benefits are more varied.
In either case, it never amounts to more than a $10K swing in comp. Same for vacation time.
Yes, it's a polite way to brush off the question. But the end result is the same. A job offer way lower than what you're making, and now they have $20K in a bucket to go a little higher when you try to negotiate.
Last 2 positions I’ve had haven’t had 401k matching and the health insurance costs are eye watering. I might consider an improvement in both to be worth a fair bit.
In my experience, those are the two things that are impossible to move. They're built into company HR structures and they don't bend them for individuals unless you're C-suite.
In limited experience, I've been unclear if this strategy changes when dealing with companies that actually list the salary range (generally when required per some recent state laws).
Most of the time, I'd just answer "I'm ok with your published range, we can proceed." or similar.
But, I've also seen ranges that span hundreds of thousands of dollars. Like "Software engineer: $150k-$250" which is a ridiculous range that makes it almost meaningless. I mean, what are they thinking - any candidate worth their time is going to aim for the $250 end...
Even that range is much better than nothing. A person making 300k knows not to bother with the process and a person making 100k knows that it is definitely worth applying.
That feels like malicious compliance to me. I'd expect vastly different capabilities and output across the spread. At least in my region, the low end of that is somebody a few years out of college. And the high end is... well, pretty much nobody with that title is making that much.
Yeah, I think if they have published a range and you are comfortable with it, you can say "I reviewed the range on the website and am comfortable with it".
If you are not comfortable, then I'd be clear why, with data, upfront. "I saw the range on the website and it seems low based on X, Y, and Z. Is that range flexible?"
Whether the answer to that is yes or no, you'll be in a better spot whether to decide to move forward.
reply