Knowning little about the specs required for automotive grade it could be that the tech couldn't handle the vibration, temp extremes/changes and other hardships that car parts encounter. Just a theory.
You don't even have to carry it over, just require the original signed file in a competition. Though whenever you look at security you always have to consider what happens when it gets cracked.
"They" being the Federal Reserve, who's mandate is to balance unemployment and inflation. So yes, Cars, homes and everything else in the Fed's basket of goods needs to stop going up by 6%/mo. The Fed is limited in their toolset, so in order to do that they can raise the federal funds rate basically causing any loans given to have a minimum APR (Why lend to Jack for 5%, when Uncle Sam will give you 6%). So if you're taking out a loan, your payments are going to be more expensive. Thats going to nuke lower return investments and make borrowing to grow your business harder.
> The Fed is limited in their toolset, so in order to do that they can raise the federal funds rate basically causing any loans given to have a minimum APR
The Fed is limited much the way a surgeon would be limited if they had to manage a tumor with a mallet.
The solution here would've been targeted taxes to extract the excess liquidity that pooled up in the economy after all the loans and grants, but with a deadlocked legislature this was not going to happen. So, mallet it was.
Getting agreement on reducing spending is a much harder ask. What are you going to cut? The military? They're incredibly well connected, it's basically impossible. Social Security? Old people vote, it's political suicide. Social Safety Net programs? Already been cut to the bone.
It's also questionable how much of inflation is due to supply shock versus how much is just corporate profit taking. Corporate profit margins have been incredibly healthy despite what is supposedly a supplier squeeze.
You're right, it's way easier for the government to spend money it doesn't have. The end game on that path isn't pretty.
But that's not my question or point, and maybe I didn't write my other post very well.
The post I'm replying to suggests more taxes should have been used to suck up the excess liquidity. I'm suggesting that liquidity was caused by too many large spending packages and Fed rates that were too low in the first place... Hence, it might be inefficient.
Of course I'm biased, as my spending power has gone down tremendously in the past 1.5 years. I blame the large increases in money supply and low Fed rate for causing a wild near-free money environment.
"less government spending" doesn't address the pooled-up liquidity in the economy; it just addresses government spending. Hence the need for the scalpel (finely targeted taxes)... or in the absence of such, the blunt instrument (broadly-impactful rates).
They both extract money, but one's specific to things such as luxury goods, gas-powered vehicles over a certain weight, homes over a certain size or cost relative to local income, a tax per stock trade, whatever makes sense, whereas the other... not so much. Targeted taxes without an increase in spending would result in a net reduction in the budget deficit or even potentially a budget surplus, which then is essentially how the money is removed from circulation. And without using the mallet, businesses can continue to grow in a cheap-money environment.
I'm not an economist; I've just absorbed a lot from working in FIs in the past. But there's probably an economist here who can affirm or debunk what I just put forward.
I earned a degree in economics, business & management.. But it doesn't matter much.
Re-reading my post, it looks like I could have written it better.
I was referring to the stimulus spending, in particular the last one or two huge packages. It might have been more efficient to not do them in the first place. At the time many economists were very concerned about the overall effects on the economy. We were already running at 5+% annualized inflation, right?
I understand the general ideas behind Modern Monetary Theory, that it looks like you and the original post are referring to. Wild spending corrected by surgical taxation...
MMT sounds great in academic papers, but it runs into problems in practice. We can't just raise taxes wherever and whenever we want. There are too many problems to list with attempting to do that, from the lobbyists, to officials wanting to get reelected, to the errors of misidentifying where the taxes are to be applied. Not to mention all the existing laws around taxing.
It's expensive to send out a bunch of money, and then tax it back... I suggest that it's more efficient to spend less. But I realize there is a fat chance of that ever happening!
Seems you're commenting more on the feasibility of surgical taxes rather than the effectiveness of them.
Which is fine; no disagreement there from me. But I'd also posit that government spending on the administrivia is a positive - it's yet another way to keep money moving and likewise keep momentum in the economy.
I guess my point is: the ideal would've been to surgically tax money out of the system, but since we can't (for all the reasons you and I both mentioned), the alternative was rates. And while I hear your point re: cutting spending, you're arguing its merits on the likelihood of it happening, not so much whether one's better than the other. And neither spending cuts nor surgical tax hikes would happen anyway, hence...
...rates. lol
tl;dr: we're saying the same thing. You're talking about which one's more feasible, I'm talking about which one would've probably been more ideal to maintain momentum.
They had 16 companies in this survey that were remote, 2 that were "office", And the rest were some form of hybrid. They considered anything other than full remote "some office". This could easily get skewed if one of these office companies had 10x'd their revenue.
And even though they grew faster, the attrition for Office was higher.
>> BTW, Nick Bloom at Stanford and others have done extensive research with thousands of people on remote and hybrid work here, and here…
^ from the article
> Home working led to a 13% performance increase, of which about 9% was from working more minutes per shift (fewer breaks and sick-days) and 4% from more calls per minute (attributed to a quieter working environment). Home workers also reported improved work satisfaction and experienced less turnover, but their promotion rate conditional on performance fell.
^ from the linked paper.
…but hey, go the statistically irrelevant one to share with people if you want a cool link to prove whatever point you want to make with it.
You only get to say that when there are no other studies. If other good studies exist (which they do) then your study should add something. That means that your study should either replicate an existing study with similar or greater statistical power, or investigate something that the existing studies are not testing. This study does neither. It re-asks questions that have been answered with such low statistical power that the answers are meaningless.
> The survey sample size was 37 companies from the Reach Capital portfolio. That’s large enough to see patterns, but not large enough to generalize across all startups. Next, Reach Capital’s portfolio of companies are in education and the future of work. The revenue results by workplace configuration may be different in other markets.
But the subtitle of the article is:
> Data shows that pre-seed and seed startups with employees showing up in a physical office have 3½ times higher revenue growth than those that are solely remote.
There is no world where "data shows" or "have" is the correct presentation of this size of a sample. Hopefully the HN mods caveat the title of the post here.
DRM and Content contracts. They can't just throw 4k into an unsecured environment because they need to make a best effort to enforce that their 4k content isn't pirated.
Windows/Apple have special APIs which allow video decrypting to be done on the GPU. And the GPU will not allow you to access the decrypted video surface.
This is why you can't screenshot Netflix on Windows/Apple - the region where the video is will be black.
It's not. If you can see it, you can copy it. It just makes life harder for a small number of legitimate users on Linux or rooted Android phones because their license/contract says they need to use DRM.
That would be on the executive and the company to negotiate that aspect in the contract deal. Executive contracts almost always have lawyers behind them.
I think the EU had chip and tap to pay before apple. So the over there Apple looks like it implemented a solution and then blocked competitors from using the platform with already established payment terminals. In the US, the optics are very different because Google, Samsung and others came way after apple took the reigns and drove adoption of tap to pay.
Google actually got there prior to Apple in the US with Wallet, but then played the typical google branding mess and got caught up in that insane carrier game that went on (can you believe we had a payment app called ISIS?!) so they lost any ground there lol.
Which is ridiculously annoying. I have to edit the HTML every single time to remove "readonly" on that field and paste in my randomly generated password.
That's why I use tampermonkey/userscripts. Make a script that removes disabled property from all form elements in the page, and set it to run when the document finishes loading on every website, then disable it so you can turn it on when necessary. I've got a number of similar scripts (the most used one is generally enabled; it prevents squarespace sites from navigating to a site login even I hit esc to stop the page from loading).
Why are some fields like that? I have never understood why. It happens a lot when entering in bank account numbers. I am almost always copying and pasting the bank account number directly from my bank's website, but yet, these fields require me to type it in, increasing the possibility of a mistake.
I wish I could remember where I saw this UX, but the best is when they not only don't let you paste, but also treat the bank account number like a password field and don't let you see what you're typing in... and you have to do it 2x.
Most likely because the amount of furor and kerfuffle that would be created when "the security system broke" would basically be equal quantities of facepalm and hustle that would phase between canceling each other out and producing undirected chaos.
Like, this brand of "security" is being persisted with, in 2022, when virtually nothing else uses this sort of approach, and the writing's been on the wall for so long you almost can't see the wall for the writing anymore. And yet.
At the end of the day from an actual-security standpoint there's a lot to be said for generally rooting this kind of thing out and doing away with it, but given the direct association to vaults and banks and government (and probably military) systems and whatnot it's one situation where the blowback might genuinely cause enough bad press to require a summary firing or two as a token of reassurance to the type of old-world mindset in charge of this sort of thing. Maybe.
*shrug* that's a worst-case-scenario imagining what might happen, at least. I honestly have no idea. I just get strong "swim away!!" vibes from it, heh
It will enrage you to find out that some sites actually track the value, and if more than one character changes per keystroke, it'll reset the value. It's rare, but I have seen it.
Ya, it seems less that they killed it, and more so they just rebranded or released a successor product. Microsoft mobile wasn't killed, it was replaced by windows phone.
Its basically like writing code. Aladdin was prototyped, Proof of concept, then put into production. So if anything needed a complete re-write, it wouldn't affect final production.
Hayao seems to doing continuous refactoring, so as long as you don't need to edit too many scenes already drawn you can potentially come out with a good final product while giving production as much time as possible.
