vonzepp

The football (soccer) equivalent is someone kicking the ball out of play so that the game is stopped to allow medical attention to come on, and once the medical attention is over, the opposition taking the throw in doesn't throw the ball back to the other team. Occasionally teams have not done this, and scored a goal, shocked by this the goalkeeper will stand aside to allow the opposition to score an equaliser

Yes. This isn't for dynamic events.

When you write off a car, you don't get the value of a new car, you get the value of the car at the point of time it was written off. So if you write a 3 year old car, you get the value of a 3 year old second hand car. Uncertainty on the price I guess increase financial risk.

NASA is a government agency and as a government agency it is used as a vehicle to implement the general purpose of the government.

To put a different example of the point. If the cheapest way to launch items into space was for NASA to buy rockets off Russia, would that be what it would do? No, because government policy includes independent launch capacity.

NASA isn't a private company, it is a tool of government and as such it can have have a wider role in society then a compariable private company will have.

Another note worth considering is that state and companies have different roles. Take NASA vs SpaceX. SpaceX launches cheaper rockets. But NASA for example does alot of its work in Alabama, which is supporting a poor regions econonmy and its communities. It might be more optimal to do this in Silicon Valley, or even China but as a government organisation this is part of it's remit. Like wise space science for the purpose of knowledge. SpaceX only remit is cheap rockets. Comparing the two on launch costs which I see alot, misses alot of the purpose of the spending.

Comparing private schools and state schools is far from easy without going really deep into the subject. Superfically comparing grades without taking into account the self-selecting nature of private education vs state schooling. The school bodies are very different and thus the burden on resources.

If India buys a widget off Brazil it will probably be paid in dollars. Therefore, people need to own dollars. Thus a demand for US debt. This lowers the potential interest rate. Other countries who's currency is not a need for people to buy, their debt is purchased by the attractiveness of its offering (i.e interest rate). If US dollar is no longer required than government bonds have to be attractive. Also, not all sovereign debt is issued in the home countries currency, which means that the printing press doesn't help. US debt is very large, interest repayment are close to military spending. Without the reserve currency that would get worse. Something like 68% of world holding is dollar 17% Euro, nothing else of note.

The other side is that as there is a demand for dollars. The value of the currency is higher than if it wasn't which increases the price of exports and reduce price of imports. Trump might want to weaken the dollar.

If there is a finite amount of software to be written in the world, and an increase in productivity of developers than that amount of software is done with less people. Also, if AI allows an non-software person say an marketing person, write a python script to query a few databases. Than the 10 person business data science team might not need a body as they no longer have to deal with the 10% lower level stuff.

If AI makes a programmer say 25% more productive. Then a team of 4 can do the workload of a team of 5.

Interesting signalling. From a Europhile to a Trump supporter, where Meta feel the regulatory head winds will come from.

Interesting reading the actual report. How strongly Ireland and England preform in Maths vs the Scandinavian countries

I'm Irish and the later is more correct. There isn't going to be a major political crisis over this. Irish corporate taxation is to the Irish electorate what the flag is to Americans. It's quasi religious.

The government isn't really blaming lack of money on the housing crisis more they are claiming it takes time.

Nuclear being illegal in Ireland doesn't help.

I find this debate a bit odd. Climate change is a global issue. So moving these emissions out of Ireland so Ireland can reach it's targets doesn't help if those emissions mearly happen elsewhere in the world. In reality, there is two options either these data centers are simply not built, which isn't going to happen. Or rich countries such as Ireland, take it on to themselves to see taken on datacenters as a burden they must carry, coupled with increased renewables. With Ireland's wind on the west coast potential, this is something we must Especially with a temperant climate

Moving the datacenters away from East coast Dublin to West coast. Galway in an ideal world would be also useful.