IF they live in a place where this is perceived as safe.
How many Canadians are now rethinking that decision after the government banned people from using their own money if they supported a cause the rulers found objectionable? It's not everyone, certainly, but it's also not no one.
Banks are safe until they aren't. If you're lucky enough to live somewhere they are, for now, great! Enjoy that while it lasts.
But recognize that it isn't true everywhere, and it isn't necessarily true always even where it's true presently. Just because it's a reasonable thing for you to do right now, that doesn't make it a reasonable thing for all or even most people to do now, much less indefinitely.
That was the case, I think, with old NiCd batteries, but with lithium ion batteries, you maximize battery longevity by keeping it mostly charged, I read recently.
Not really, that’s still the sweetspot for most lithium batteries as well (being under 20% is much more critical than being over 80% though).
What’s different between them is battery memory effect. With NiCd & NiMH you are supposed to let it discharge until 20%, then continuously charge up, and then repeat.
With Lithium based batteries it’s a recommended practice to charge in short bursts and keep the battery at a medium level.
In any case, most devices now a days will manage the battery in ways that you should not really bother. It’s amazing the conplexity that battery systems have nowadays.
I would says so. If it's a rare and valuable skill, but is relatively easy to acquire, then people will eventually do exactly that. Perhaps they haven't just yet because word has not gotten out, but it will.
The only way a skill remains rare and valuable, is if the skill is difficult to acquire and master at a high enough level to be useful. All the high paid professions fall under that category. Software engineering is definitely one of them.
I'll say! If anyone thinks himalayan salt is a source of valuable nutrients like mercury, lead and (radioactive) plutonium, they lack basic scientific literacy.
capitalism in most of the world is less than 200 years old. Before that we had feudalism.
Most progressives want to amend capitalism with some socialism; social democracy exists or did exist in much of Europe, and is largely under pressure by the race to the bottom caused by globalization. And of course ever-more powerful multi-national corporations.
First bourgeoisie states/city-states started to appear in 1500-1600s (Italian region). Many countries experienced a periods of reaction and return to feudal state (France and Britain for example). Last traces of feudalism ended somewhere in 1860-s. So full capitalism is less that 150 years old.
Same cycle happened before with transitions to slave labor and feudal system. Formation change is not a single event, but a process, spanning hundreds of years.
What is the race to the bottom? And if so, it's a great thing. Lower wages mean cheaper products.
Powerful multi-national corporations often lobby for anti-capitalistic measures (protectionism, subsidies). Socialism only increases the influence of corporations via a bigger government.
Lower wages doesn't necessarily mean cheaper products, especially once you take inflation into account. The cost of living has been increasing drastically, despite any efficiency gains. Wages have not been increasing to keep up with the pace. Seniors who are now retired are now effectively effed and are forced to go back to work to make ends meet. The young who are trying to get a fresh start aren't able to and most people in their 30s still live with their parents because a full time job isn't enough to afford the most basic apartment.
Companies are more willing to hire outside labor -- effectively slave labor, because they are able to pay foreign workers much less than domestic citizens. Companies are also more willing to replace human employees with robots, because it's cheaper than paying a human to do the same job. Companies will not help employees transition into new job positions. Fast food restaurants are beginning to replace all their workers with robots. The truck driving industry is about to replace all of it's drivers with robots. Walmart is replacing it's stockers and cashiers with robots. Pizza shops are even going for full autonomy with self-driving pizza trucks that automatically make pizza while delivering it. A huge percent of existing jobs today will soon be taken over by robots. You can definitely ensure that all the jobs that are considered entry level will no longer exist. How then, will the young get their foot in the door and become independent when they have no jobs?
That race to the bottom has merely displaced millions upon millions of people and abolished the middle class, in addition to destabilizing the world economy. Capitalism is entirely incapable of keeping up with the modern world. The only way forward is a basic income.
> Lower wages doesn't necessarily mean cheaper products, especially once you take inflation into account. Wages have not been increasing to keep up with the pace.
The wages are lower even adjusted even with inflation.
> The cost of living has been increasing drastically, despite any efficiency gains.
> Seniors who are now retired are now effectively effed and are forced to go back to work to make ends meet.
But, why do you think this is due to capitalism?
> Companies are more willing to hire outside labor -- effectively slave labor, because they are able to pay foreign workers much less than domestic citizens.
How is it "slave labor"? Slavery is forced work. That's different from low wages, which are precisely why it's so wonderful. The poorest people of the world are getting jobs. It's bad but without a job they'll be in an even worse situation.
> Companies are also more willing to replace human employees with robots, because it's cheaper than paying a human to do the same job. [...] Walmart is replacing it's stockers and cashiers with robots. Pizza shops are even going for full autonomy with self-driving pizza trucks that automatically make pizza while delivering it.
That's great; we're moving one step towards robot utopia.
> Companies will not help employees transition into new job positions.
That's not in their contract so it's not their responsibility. Shareholders (most of us indirectly hold stock) want more money just like all of us.
> How then, will the young get their foot in the door and become independent when they have no jobs?
They will do other jobs that aren't replaced by robots. Those jobs' real wages will increase due to robots increasing purchasing power. Also, see lump of labor fallacy.
In fact, although this is probably due to the recovery from the 2008 recession, unemployment rate has been decreasing since the sudden increase in 2008. (https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000)
New technologies replacing jobs is hardly a new phenomenon. Robots aren't new either; they've been used for decades.
> The truck driving industry is about to replace all of it's drivers with robots.
Cheaper truck transport is great.
> That race to the bottom has merely displaced millions upon millions of people and abolished the middle class, in addition to destabilizing the world economy. Capitalism is entirely incapable of keeping up with the modern world. The only way forward is a basic income.
Who has been displaced? How has the middle-class been abolished? Globally, the middle-class is growing (7% -> 13 %) (http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/07/08/a-global-middle-class-is...) and inequality slightly decreased from 1981 to 2005 (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/ak968e/ak968e00.pdf, PDF page 2, Table 1).
> in addition to destabilizing the world economy.
What destabilization? If you mean recessions, socialist countries have had recessions too. And how are recessions due to capitalism?
EDIT: made corrections to part about global inequality
the problem is trust. there's a lot of people who don't trust capitalism and/or people with access to capital and thanks to technology only a few crazies are needed to completely destabilize the system. if you think about it it's actually amazing that the whole scheme hasn't collapsed yet.
If you've been a victim of episodic economic collapse since Reagan started deregulation, you think its collapsing (well, dysfunctional anyway). If you've saved money and kept your job, then everything is hunky-dory I guess.
A system that serves a fraction of the population is broken from some points of view. Its indeed 'collapsed' when it stops serving millions of people.
> episodic economic collapse since Reagan started deregulation
The Great Depression was before Reagan and there have been many recessions before Reagan. Why do you think it is due to deregulation?
Capitalism has done much better than socialism, empirically.
How does capitalism only serve a fraction of the population? It has served all of us; and it's done a pretty good job.
Socialism and communism only serve a fraction--lobbyist groups who can make the government do what they what. Indeed, that's what we're seeing with industrial protectionism and farmer subsidies.
That's because socialism is based on centralized control and force, while capitalism is based on individual freedom and mutual cooperation.
Full stack developer with 15 years experience, specializing in Python and Django (10 years). Also: Javascript, Angular, jQuery, AWS, Big Data, Linux, SQL, perl, PHP
