Unless the weird smells come from the driver. If a customer causes a smell the car will be cleaned and the customer fined. If the driver is smelly - like from sitting in a car all day - there's nothing to be done.
Who can tell who caused the bad smell? If you have a driver they'd know but how will Waymo know which of the 20 or so riders dragged in dog doo, maybe the doggy doo accumulated through the first 10 rides. Who foots the bill then?
Yes, everyone loves it, but it fails the surprisingly sane criteria. Try uploading a video to YT on 9. Or even do a cloud phone backup. Why do we tolerate connections that force us to be nothing but consumers online? Creation needs real upstream bandwidth.
Starlink is also painfully expensive. I've sent them several customers, but I know what it is: a last chance for rural people who've been abandoned to rotting DSL lines. That being said, line of sight is impressively competitive both on bandwidth potential and the most important factor to casual users, cost.
For anything wired I fully agree, but radio-based connections are sometimes power limited (as opposed to bandwidth limited) in the uplink path.
You don't want your mobile phone to drain even faster than it already does, or a Starlink antenna exceeding microwave radiation limits for anyone walking past it (I've seen many of them installed on the ground or at least below eye level).
In my major metropolitan san diego suburb, I have one option for high speed internet. No fiber in the ground. (Closest is about 2 miles away) and I live in a canyon, so 5g is very hit or miss. I get Spectrum Cable. And they give me ~200 Mb down, 10 Mb up for 80$ a month. The upload speed is hard limited. Its abysmal. If I need to back up my server, I pack it up and take it to work. It's literally faster to move my server to a new location then try to back up 10Tb of data.
He also states doing zero research on the product space and just bought one, presumably the cheapest, easiest one to procure for the video. So while much better versions may exist, he was only showing they do and not making a statement on that make & model in particular, nor attempting to make any claims regarding all induction wok appliances.
They do not cite it, but searching that sentence on Google brings up a few articles mentioning a “20-year study by The Williams Group involving 3200 families, show that 70% of families lose their wealth in the second generation and 90% lose it in the third.”
But I can’t find an article in a quick check on er website.
There are some mentions on their website about how splitting the family fortune dilutes it and causes families to lose money.
There are families in Europe that pass the bulk of the family fortune to the oldest son. That son does what they can to help the rest of the family live comfortably, but the rest certainly aren’t rich. So, this statistic may only be applicable to American families or places where it’s common to successively divide the fortune up.
The original source was a study in the 1980s examining 200 family businesses in manufacturing in Illinois, and since then a collection of financial advisors and estate planners have cited it (often without attribution).
Edit: As an aside, I understand that different industries have different standards - but it seems insane to me that any professional piece, let alone a well known brand like Nasdaq, would drop a statistic like that without any kind of attribution.
This is the entire premise in The missing billionaires - A guide to better financial decisions, Victor Haghani and James White, 2023. But this is an investing book, not sociology. They consider billionaires in the introduction and they point to the Forbes list rather than a specific study. Which is not unfair. Billionaires are counted and listed. Not hard to take a glimpse.
Their observation is counter to the usual cliché narrative that the rich have only one way. Up, can't lose.
Indeed if you consider that, starting with, say, one billion, I would be able to invest not too conservative, not too aggressive and still draw out insane amounts of money to "live on". Meaning that in theory, starting with a billion, there is only one way, up. Meaning that a billion dollar wealth, invested, should own the world after a few generations.
But this is obviously not what's happening. The Forbes list is full of relatively new wealth. Ancient wealth (more than 3 generations) stands out in the list. It's not common. And the highest wealth is first generation! And that's even though magazines tend to list the wealth of an entire family on one line - never mind that it's dozens of people.
