What bothers me about this right here is that at one time or another one of these was heralded as THE solution that would alleviate poverty. Why is it always food stamps, minimum wage, and ubi? I thought minimum wage would have solved/alleviated the food problem. It seems to me that there is a general failure to acknowledge the big picture. Being impoverished means lack of resources. I say pick one general solution, either ubi or negative income tax, and let the poor choose what they need. It does a real disservice to the poor to always be for every policy that is notionally meant to help them. It seems disingenuous and not very well thought out. As Eminem famously said,”these goddamn foodstamps won’t buy diapers”.
The people most in favor of school vouchers in the U.S. are mostly conservatives who oppose programs for poor people in almost all other contexts. When it comes to school vouchers though they act, disingenuously in my opinion, as if concern for the poor is what really matters to them in this issue. School vouchers, ultimately, are a way for religious conservatives to have the public pay for the religious indoctrination of their kids.
My comment was an attempt to point out this hypocrisy.
There are positive and negative rights. Everything you mentioned in the first sentence is a positive right while the second is a negative right. A right to healthcare implies that someone else must provide it(unless you meant that someone is actively preventing you from recieving healthcare). The right to 3d print an object does not mean someone must provide a 3D printer to you.
You implied that due to lack of positive right’s you had no inclination to care about the negative one. As a result I was led to believe that you didn’t understand the difference and why it may be the case that people care more about one than the other due to the core philosophical difference between them.
I completely agree! The minimum wage is not automatically adjusted for inflation (unlike the $12.92 million estate tax exemption, the $17k gift tax exemption, etc). If we go as far as to adjust for productivity, then the minimum wage would stand at $26/hr, matching the relative value it had in 1968 — a time remembered as a golden era for the American economy
I meant to ask if the theory is true, it should work for any number, until marginal propensity to spend is equal amongst everyone. My point being that a theory should be general. One person could argue for 17$ while the other argues for 15$. I don’t see how one would using a general principle would decide which value is correct.
This principle would just be summed up as an inelastic good in economic terms. Market forces apply wether or not we want them too. To me it seems, this would result in us being willing to pay any price for it, which may even be the correct principle. It should however, then not be surprising when cancer treatments cost 100s of thousands.
LEDs central wavelength changes with current. Some flashlight enthusiasts will not touch current regulation and prefer to use PWM because that means the color output does not change. From what I understand you can even use this effect to calibrate a diode laser to a specific wavelength(within reason).
This is not really a problem, you can away calibrate the differences on a pixel-by-pixel basis on each frame with modern mobile GPUs.
The bigger challenge here is pixel architecture, but if apple is actually slicing up wafers into a couple million pieces to build these displays, they are already sort of moving away from the typical TFT architecture and may be able to integrate more complex pixel drivers, potentially including things like touch sensors directly onto the pixels.
It is not possible to calibrate it away without knowing what the central wavelength of the LED is. That would require a spectrometer and if you manage to build one on chip per pixel which is currently not possible/practical.
I don’t understand what you mean with the GPU. It is has no information about the exact color of the LED.
This is equivalent to saying that you can't build a color-accurate display at all because you don't know the central wavelength. Not only is this inaccurate (LEDs are binned for exactly this purpose), but brightness variations are by far the greater contributor to display inaccuracy.
The shift in wavelength is primarily determined by temperature and current, and they work in opposite directions so sort of cancel each other out. And in any case, we're talking about well-characterized shifts on the order of a few nm over the operating range. The eye's cones are broadband, so you're not going to notice wavelength shifts, especially compared to the brightness variations over the same range.
This is a big deal for white LEDs because you have no control of the resulting color temperature (the phosphor emission and blue component wholly determine the output), but for an RGB structure, you have pixel-level control over each component.
I am sure your right about the eyes. But I would posit that most people wouldn’t know uncalibrated from calibrated anyhow. So seems like a moot point.
As to binning LEDs that works because it is constant. You can calibrate it once and done. But if you change the brightness by changing the current, it means your calibration is out of wack. Perhaps you can make a calibration at multiple current settings, but that seems inconvenient when using PWM will achieve the same thing.
I'm sure you could calibrate a compensation in theory (don't know about in practice), but that would also necessarily decrease the display color gamut, no? It's not like you can produce "all" the colors from any three primaries -- they have to be very specific.
So if the color shift is noticeable enough to require correction, then it's definitely enough to substantially decrease the color gamut as well. And so a range of wider-gamut colors simply can't be compensated for at all.
Just saying a bunch of places that have mass transport does not address his question if there are systems where massive subsidies aren’t involved in their creation. I do not know what the situation is in india, but in at least in europe many of the transport systems require massive subsidies. While japan in the meantime has privatized their system and runs very, the original creation was also state directed.
But economically viable and subsided are mutually exclusive because when at that moment the question is not being asked wether the person consuming the good would pay the full price of the service. Economically viable does not mean an expert or technocrat gets to decide for you wether or not something it worth it. Deciding wether or not something is worth is fundamentally an individual’s decision. Of course the expert may say, “look, the cost of getting x amount of people from a to b is y times cheaper using this solution”. But that never takes into account if the people would have preferred a different mode of transport all together. For example, some may prefer the greater carrying flexibility of a car or the ride comfort of one. Of course that is not to say that automotive transport isn’t subsided and that the owners pay the full cost of ownership. The TLDR of it is that economically viable requires people to put money where their mouth is. Someone else CANNOT by definition make that decision unless you believe that some people have “correct” values and others don’t.
I think as soon as you recommend to reduce someone’s quality of life you can forget about it. I agree with a lot of the other recommendations, but telling someone to stay home sounds a lot like dismissal. However, anything where behavior can be changed without changing QoL should be done.
Let’s say americans don’t understand what their rights to speech mean. It doesn’t matter since you didn’t repudiate the fact that they may have stronger speech rights.
You are glad that you don’t have the right to bear arms. But that does not seem to me to refute that a constitution is important to prevent erosion of rights or that the US is ahead in terms of rights. Just that you personally don’t care about that right.
Finally, you state that in the U.K there is also a protection from unreasonable search. Fair enough. But is it stronger than what is in the US? Is it protected in form of a constitutional right or just a law that can be repealed at any time?
The strongest argument is that despite these apparent constitutional guarantees, it has not prevented police from infringing on these rights. I would agree. But that seems to me to be an issue of enforcement. Not having these would mean there would be no legal basis to change police behavior, only a social impetus. That may be enough but I would like to have both options.
What is "unreasonable", and regardless of the theoretical protections, are you at risk and do you have any practical recourse?
The scale of Civil Asset Forfeiture in the US suggests to me that large sections of US society are at risk and have no practical recourse.
Does the US having a written constitution actually help its society to retain their rights, or is it a fig leaf covering the rights you've already lost in practice, and an entitlement preventing society from changing rules that benefit those with power who exercise "rights" that ought not be so set in stone?
In the UK, Parliament has stated its intent to abide by the European Convention on Human Rights. It's true that one parliament cannot bind the next -- at any time, the UK parliament may decide to repeal everything and change even the foundations upon which our country's laws are built. The checks and balances in the system (including the House of Lords) protect us from the over-reach of a poor choice of government. Even with a large majority, and a stated aim of repealing the Human Rights Act, the current government has found itself unable to dismantle the our protections to the degree it would like.
I don't think you can argue that the US constitution gives you an inherent advantage in maintaining your rights.
How is hoping they fail going to improve things? Wouldn’t you rather hope they fix it and then maybe lower their prices as a way to get back customers?
No second chances on price gougers from me. They knew the ethics of that before they chose to do it. Maybe other manufacturers can learn something from their demise.
Most of this "gouging" is at the dealership level where prices are raised above the mfg prices. Hoping the company fails just seems asinine as a response.
I think what is very poorly communicated by the scientists writing these papers, is often that it is about investigating a “model” system, generally because its is easy to work with such system(i.e) shows interesting properties above 4k. Its less about producing stuff with graphene, and more about understanding the physics behind it. What eventually actually gets produced may actually use materials that are similar to the model system but not actually it.
