What about the incentive to release "the most secure chips on the market", are you discounting that a bit too much?
Granted that human nature tends to mean these factors don't have a high enough weight, e.g. it's not the safest airplanes that sell the most, it's the cheapest ones that meet the regulations, and the regulations drive safety improvements, for the most part
I guess there's probably some margin in it - if both parties seem about equally vulnerable, there's not much lost. You could expend a lot of effort into security, but the nature of these bugs is still that they are fairly rare, often require pretty significant hurdles, etc. The mfg. could probably spend a lot more money and find a few extra bugs, but who knows if they would have turned into "real" exploits?
Remember that this particular bug isn't actually present on the newest chips either - and 12th/13th gen were shipping before Intel was informed of this bug - so it was fixed eventually, probably incidentally as a result of design changes.
The unknown factor is how much additional money you'd have to invest to gain additional security, given how esoteric many of these bugs are.
Indonesia bans the import of 2nd-hand clothing and footwear, specifically because a large proportion of it ends up in landfill or incinerators. That definitely would be a worse environmental outcome than being recycled into running track. I suspect the reason the shoes from the article did not go to landfill was probably because they were in unusually good condition.
I doubt any lawyer would bring a suit against one of the biggest corporations on the planet on contingency. Its going to be a hell of a lot of work to win even a clear-cut case against an opponent with this much resources. See also: the cave-diver that sued Elon Musk for defamation. Or Miller UK vs Caterpillar Inc (they won, but it took 5 years)
And maybe as the type of generation used for the marginal difference in energy required. If your country generates 90% of its electricity from hydroelectric and 10% from coal, you might still use coal for the comparison because hydroelectric power would be slow to add and the extra electricity for EVs would have to provided by coal
Assuming that it's more likely that marginal demand will be met by coal than by renewables makes no sense to me.
Coal is rapidly been retired as a source of electricity generation - 85% of generation capacity being retired in 2022 will be coal[1] - and there hasn't been a new large coal plant built in the US for over a decade[2]. In Europe the amount of electricity being generated by coal is half of what it was at its peak.
Meanwhile, renewables now make up about a 87% share of new electricity generation capacity in the the US[3]. Europe is similar.
Pricing the CO2 emissions cost of an EV using the dirtiest and fastest declining electricity source (coal) does not seem fair or honest to me.
Still... if you plan to add 100MW of renewable this year and retire 100MW of coal, then demand goes up by 100MW, do you now add 200MW of renewable instead, or do you delay the retiring of the 100MW of coal?
This is an important point. I live in Illinois which is over 60% carbonless mainly through aging nuclear investments. It would be naively optimistic to suggest that marginal demand will be only 40% fossil fuel since the nuclear will not be replaced.
> just because that group being hurt isn't "your" group of people, it doesn't mean they deserve it.
When the group is "the most successful in the current system", it's not exclusionary / discriminatory or exploitable. Whether their success is due to luck or smarts or inheritance, they succeeded in the current system by definition, because there is only one system. Therefore, they can be asked to pay proportionally more to maintain it. Furthermore, the bargain "to pay less tax, be less successful" is not one that any rational actor would make. It's inherently fair.
The only part you could reasonably quibble with imo is using wealth as a measure of success, but since it is the currency that taxes deal in -- one alternative: government takes some of your children -- it's the one that makes the most ssense. Still, those in society that find some way to life satisfaction without accumulating wealth do have an advantage in the proposed system. Maybe that's something we should encourage?
> pay proportionally more to maintain it. Furthermore, the bargain "to pay less tax, be less successful" is not one that any rational actor would make. It's inherently fair.
if it were really true that paying more taxes leads to more success, then they would pay more. But it isn't true - patently not true. The less tax you pay, the more you get to keep for yourself, and reinvest, and the more likely you reach higher "success".
I think they're referring to the date, April 1 is "April Fool's Day" in many countries. Some companies put out joke press releases on April 1 that are not intended to be taken seriously.
Know any good apps to gamify weight training? Strava really worked for me for running, now I'd like to replicate the experience with strength training.
Try the app Strong or get an Apple Watch and start tracking your strength workouts there (closing the rings is so satisfying - seems silly at first but it really works).
not really, but maybe have a have thonk about doing something for the hell of it, because it's fun or whatever. Just experiment and have a play and see if you can do something physical that's going to intrinsically motivate you (doesn't have to be weight training specifically, although you will most likely do it at some point or another to improve at whatever other physical activity will intrinsically motivate you).
Not everything in life needs to be gamified and you can make an "app" to track gym/life progress yourself with just excell/google sheets to track progressive overload/your measures and your phone to see visual changes in your body.
Granted that human nature tends to mean these factors don't have a high enough weight, e.g. it's not the safest airplanes that sell the most, it's the cheapest ones that meet the regulations, and the regulations drive safety improvements, for the most part