larkost

In that counter-factual do you propose that she/her company actually/eventually develops what they said they did? So a fake-it-until-you-make-it gone right?

She was saying that they had developed a system that could run a bunch of tests on a single drop of blood, and do so with better accuracy than existing tests. When in fact what they were providing used the off-the-shelf systems on diluted blood, returning horribly incorrect results.

Note that it was not "we will deliver this", the company (and often Holmes herself) were touting the existing customers already getting this. I should also note that behind the scenes Holmes had no great insights into how they were going to accomplish this leap forward, and knew that all of their work at that point had failed.

My parents' cat delivered a live baby bunny to the entrance hallways in the middle of my pre-wedding dinner. Once released the thing unfroze and zoomed under some baskets. It was an all-hands-on-deck exercise to corral both the terrified bunny, as well as the over-excited large dog who "wanted to get to know it".

Why is it unfair to tax a property that is receiving services at a rate proportional to its value? One part of the value of the police service this is paying for is for protecting your property, and certainly that is more valuable the more valuable your property is.

And one value of property taxes (one that is dysfunctional on empty lots) is that it encourages "maximum" use of high value property (lots of bad particulars here, but the overall direction is about right). While we may dislike an elderly person being effectively forced out of the home they have lived in for decades, it is usually for more "productive" uses (for the market definition of productive).

As an example my in-laws have three properties in Hungary that are empty, and have been for quite a few years. Cumulatively they get something like ten weeks of use in a year. But since Hungary does not have property taxes there is almost no incentive to make better use of these properties (yes, they could rent them out for an advantage, but there is no disadvantage pushing them to sell).

The reason Apple went to the trouble was not really a marketing exercise, but rather because a lot of U.S. government contacts required it, or a waver. This is the same reason versions of Windows were also UNIX certified. In neither case did this certification actually make them more "standard" in the way that the rules originally envisioned.

So Apple's use of UNIX in marketing was to make sure they never ran into that as a disqualified on a government contract. My impression is that those contracts largely no longer require that (one small measure of common sense has caught up).

Why do you think Republicans would institute an export ban? Trump has been touting every export deal he can (especially promises to purchase petroleum), he has even been measuring import/export levels as if foreign countries are cheating the U.S. if they export more to the U.S. than they import from it.

I am not confident that the Democrats would even implement such a ban, as they get pretty big campaign donations from the oil industry as well.

While they have been under heavy sanctions, they have largely gotten around this, for example by trading with China (who have just said they will not abide by our "unilateral sanctions"). So their oil has still been going to service global needs, and its lack will still have an effect (as will the missing Russian oil products).

Oddly, since the Iranians (and Russians) have been selling their oil products at a discount, they were actually having the effect of holding down the price of petroleum prior to the war. No idea about how much in real terms, but...

You have started out with the assumption that these higher efficiency tires are worse gripping. However, the article states that the manufacturer-supplied tires are generally more efficient (in order to get the milage numbers they advertise), and that it is the third-party replacements that are worse.

So either the manufacturer-supplied originals are more dangerous than replacement tires, or your argument is missing something.

The rest of your quasi-questions all would need to be evaluated to see if they are true or not... and one would hope that at least some of them were evaluated when creating the policy. You seem to be assuming they were not, without any real evidence one way or the other.

Your first statement is pure opinion (and a prejudiced one at that), so I will skip that.

Your second statement is a question worth investigating: why should the government be involved here? The simple answer is that the market has not moved for the problem of tire efficiency. There is a quote in the article that goes to the heart of this: “It’s very difficult or impossible for consumers to know how energy efficient their tires are going to be, as a result, many people unknowingly buy tires that cost them more money than necessary”. Large imbalances (like this) in information are one of the things markets do not work well in.

So the solution here is to (gradually) put a floor under how inefficient tires can be. This is one way to solve the market inefficiency (since it treated this as an externality).

I would rather have had them use an approach more like the EnergyStar system, where it requires a simple rating for the efficiency, including average savings and where this sits in comparison with competitors (in that range). I would even add to that a green/yellow/red system that would be allowed to slide the ranges over time to reflect what the market can currently produce.

Please cite and explain what those significant issues are. As it is your post is a "trust me bro", and is not contributing to the conversation.

I agree that this proposal would not solve all of the problems; absent more changes you would still see the creep up of healthcare costs at too high a rate. But slashing $1 trillion off of a $5.3 trillion costs is a pretty big bite of the apple. Even if you go with the more conservative $663 number, that is still a great first step. And both of those numbers are after adding the costs of covering currency uncovered people. So we are collectively getting more for significantly less money.

It does this by eliminating a very inefficient layer of our current system (insurance companies), and by having there replacement for that (the government) negotiate on drug prices (how much savings there is the reason there are two estimates). Currently insurance companies almost have a negative incentive to push down drug prices (their profits are limited to a percentage of total spending, and most large companies are pushing against that limit).

Most of the cost control pressures in our current system come out of Medicare/Medicade, and this would widen that out to the whole system. That in turn would wedge open the door to pushing on the other drivers of the cost spirals: hospital administration, new expensive drugs that are not worth the additional costs, doctor salaries ballooning, and the broken system between malpractice insurance and dysfunctional enforcement against malpractice.

From a quick look, these are very similar to the heat pump water heaters that are starting to become common in the SF Bay Area (it looks like gas water heaters will be banned in the next few years, so people are hopping on the band wagon).

At a glance the only difference is the ones I am seeing have the heat exchangers in the body of the unit (so take the heat from the room where the tank is), whereas these "eco-cute" look like they put that outside the home.

I worked for Fetch Robotics (now defunct), and there were a bunch of people (especially in management) who would constantly reference the Mean Girls "stop trying to make fetch happen" line in company-wide slideshows.

A couple of times it was cute... but they took it too far in my opinion. And sadly the company was bought out, and now they too have decides to "stop trying to make Fetch happen" (yes, officially it was bought out, but not for the actual robots part).

> Or should the innovators, firms, and customers all get less, and instead my wages should get bigger?

In almost all of the cases the "innovators" are themselves workers whose share of the outcome has been dropping. And the "customers" have never gotten a piece of the profits; we are already past the point where reduced prices would have happened (competition) in this system.

And I think that by "firms" you really mean some combination of executives and investors/shareholders. That is where the gains have been centralized. Do you really want to argue that management and investors deserve to have more of the gains? What have they done that makes them so much more valuable than similar groups in bygone days?

I live in the Bay Area, and I think this needs a little more exploration. You are correct both in that PG&E spreads the costs around the state, and that San Francisco (and a number of other Bay Area cities) is exploring creating it's own utility and removing itself from PG&E (like Palo Alto already has done).

It is a near certainty that power rates would be cheaper for these cities if they removed themselves from the PG&E pool. Right now they look to be on the hook to help pay for all of the (long deferred) power line under-grounding that the recent state wildfires have proven is necessary. Much of that under-grounding is to get power into remote locations, and does nothing for most people (other than the implicit reduction of wildfires, which is a complicated subject).

But there is a second side to that coin: without the big cities full of people (which are relatively cheap to service), all of the needed under grounding costs are going to fall to rural California areas, and they simply don't have the population or finances to pay for that.

Personally I am in favor of some mixture. I would make the utilities all completely non-profit, with no investors to demand returns (the current system has perverse incentives). I would also start looking at some drastic limitations on where the public pays for power lines. Yes that would make some rural locations financial impossible to draw power to, but that would probably be a part of a real-plolitik re-evaluation of where people can afford to live. This is probably going to line up pretty closely with pushing people out of fire-prone places that should also be pretty much un-insurable anyways.

The way these things normally work is that the project starts with some sort of a grant. Then that grant pays for all of the costs of the project: peoples' salary, materials used, time on equipment, plus money for the buildings and administration (overhead).

In this case the time on the equipment would need to be included, both a portion of the cost of building/maintaining it, and probably the energy needed to run it. Even where the government is providing the grant (likely here), it still needs to be accounted for.