I had hoped the point would be pretty obvious. Most people’s homes represent a significant part of their net worth, often a majority of their assets. The unrealized gains on that are taxed.
Billionaires generally (are there even any counterexamples?) do not have the majority of their net worth stored in assets that are taxed the same way. It’s a meaningful difference.
Other than Apple music and iCloud, they’re generally less intrusive about popups than Microsoft. Their tactic is to completely prevent competitors from integrating with the system at all rather than nag you to use a setting. For example, there’s no way to use Google maps or Spotify in all the same ways you can use Apple music or Maps.
Normal people regularly owe taxes on unrealized gains. That’s what property tax increases are.
A torque converter is part of the whole transmission system even if it’s a separate housing. When you buy a new transmission, it comes with a torque converter.
Torque converters also create the majority of heat in automatic transmissions and are why automatic transmissions get coolers in the first place. How many manuals have you seen with transmission coolers?
deleted by creator
There is independent government oversight. That’s NHTSA, the agency doing these investigations. The companies operating these vehicles also have insurance as a requirement of public operating permits (managed by the states). NHTSA also requires mandatory reporting of accidents involving these vehicles and has safety standards.
The only thing missing is the fee, and I’m not sure what purpose that’s supposed to serve. Regulators shouldn’t be directly paid by the organizations they’re regulating.
Just for context, a large chunk of “top tech talent” at the companies in the study are going to be making 200-400k. While there’s still going to be issues with pay, it’s a pretty different situation than fast food workers or similar.
I’m not assuming it’s going to fail, I’m just saying that the exponential gains seen in early computing are going to be much harder to come by because we’re not starting from the same grossly inefficient place.
As an FYI, most modern computers are modified Harvard architectures, not Von Neumann machines. There are other architectures being explored that are even more exotic, but I’m not aware of any that are massively better on the power side (vs simply being faster). The acceleration approaches that I’m aware of that are more (e.g. analog or optical accelerators) are also totally compatible with traditional Harvard/Von Neumann architectures.
ML is not an ENIAC situation. Computers got more efficient not by doing fewer operations, but by making what they were already doing much more efficient.
The basic operations underlying ML (e.g. matrix multiplication) are already some of the most heavily optimized things around. ML is inefficient because it needs to do a lot of that. The problem is very different.
There’s probably a bunch of reasons for the multi wing design, but the big one is going to be improving lift/carrying capacity without increasing the width.
The most efficient wings for low speeds are glider wings: as long and thin as possible. That makes them inconvenient to pack and folding joints are weak points. The second wing adds lift, but also problems: it’s less efficient than a single wing of the combined length would be and the front wing makes the rear wing less efficient. The winglet improves the situation somewhat. Facing downward also improves maneuverability.
You’re misunderstanding how their wealth is distributed. By and large, they’re not directly owning the land and paying taxes. They just own significant stakes in the actual companies holding property. I’m sure they own a house or three, but it’s not significant compared to their other assets.
I’m not taking a position on whether property taxes are good. I think they are. I’m just pointing out the discrepancy.