People that walk or bike are also more likely to do small shopping locally. This benefits the local economy and gets less money to international big box retailers, which generally pay less taxes.
If you drive by a small market you often won't park your car to go there. Cars and trucks destroy streets fast. Having less of them keeps repairs less frequent. Infrastructure for walking and biking can exist for multiple decades or even millennia
So you’re saying that people should do shopping locally, spend more, and waste more time to prop up inefficient businesses who don’t benefit from economies of scale? Tell that to voters and then try to win an election. Society exists to make our lives easier, not to prop up as many businesses and employees as possible as a make-work make-taxes program.
Oh my god the obsession with 'economics of scale' is such narrow minded nonsense.
Shopping locally is more efficient, because the distribution network distributes things locally much more efficiently then a bunch of housewives in their SUVs.
Sure its cheaper for the shop providing the food, but for the society its more expensive. What you are completely missing is the massive cost of all the infrastructure and the massive subsidizes therein to create these centralized stores. And then the massive cost in time and capital investment for every users to buy a car to pick that stuff up.
You are also ignoring the massive waste this creates because people only go shopping every 1-2 weeks. And you are ignore the lack of fresh foods in the food system because of this behavior. That of course Americans eventually pay in their medical systems.
If you actually do some research you will see the systematic bias that is in the zoning code, infrastructure cost calculation and services. Walmart often consumer more in just police services then they pay in taxes. Walmart is systematically gaming the property rights system to pay almost no taxes. And yet Walmart uses a huge amount of land and requires a huge amount of public infrastructure to sustain itself.
If you really need to do some massive pickup of stuff for a party or something there are still larger stores you can go to as well, just not for everyday stuff.
Actually having a shop where I can locally pick up fresh food every day or every other day is actually much more convenient and saves far more time. And I know this is crazy for Americans to consider, but as a society it would be nice if people without a car could also buy food sometimes. This video points this out:
Cities only exist because of economies of scale! Public transit, road maintenance, utilities delivery, public recreation facilities, and the plethora of small and large businesses are more efficient in a city because of economies of scale.
What people don’t benefit from is laws to artificially benefit small businesses at the expense of the consumer. Here in New York, we have this stupid law that one corporate entity can only have one liquor retail license. This law was created at the “behest” of the lobby of liquor store owners. The end result of this is that liquor is more expensive than my hometown of Vancouver, despite NYS collecting a significantly lower tax rate than BC province. That money all flew into private coffers, and the consumer still gets bent over in the end.
I also take issue with the implication that Walmart incurring policing costs is bad for society. The implication is that Walmart should either have private police or be a shoplifting free for all. The former is a bad idea because Walmart police don’t have the same responsibility or accountability to the public as public police. The latter is a bad idea because society will collapse without property rights.
> Cities only exist because of economies of scale!
Sure if you want to have an intellectual debate about what the economics of scale means then that's fine but your point about economics of scale about suburban super-markets was still wrong and that was the context of my critic.
The rest of your post is irrelevant to my point. I have not advocated for any policy specifically to help small business. Small shops in cities can and are operate by major cooperation. There is no contradiction between large companies and small/urban locations. Not sure why you are even bringing this up. Are you so 'America'-brained that you think large companies can only exist in large commercial zones right of highway exchanges?
> I also take issue with the implication that Walmart incurring policing costs is bad for society.
I didn't say the issue is that its incurring policing cost, I said the cost it incurs is higher then the taxes its paying. The whole point of taxes is that they finance the operation of a geographical area. And everybody living or operating in that area should help finance that area.
If somebody operates in that area that incurs more cost then benefits then that somebody should only continue to be doing so if people consider it a 'social good'. And supporting Wallmart a highly profitable company, clearly doesn't fall under that.
So designing policies so that a multi-billion $ company can show up and extract value from your town is nonsensically stupid.
In fact you are stealing from other business and people in your area to give more profits to wallmart.
> The implication is that Walmart should either have private police or be a shoplifting free for all.
No 'the implication' is that when a community does land use, infrastructure and tax planning it should consider facts, and consider cost to provide services and infrastructure for to those areas.
The fact is, most communities make most of their money in the 'down town' that is true even for very small town and even villages.
What you are proposing is basically that a community should finance, build and maintain a lot of public infrastructure, then finance continue police and other services far away from where most people actually live to protect cooperate property (and specifically the parking lot) all while Wallmart does everything in its power to pay the absolute minimum back to the community it is in. Both by local tricks and by tricks on a federal level.
There is also keepass, which you can sync with whatever free cloud storage you want. It might not be the nicest password manager you can use, but you can always use it for free.
Bitwardens free tier is also generous enough that a lot of people won't have to pay
KeePassXC has been repeatedly threatened with blacklisting by the WebAuthn alliance. Once for allowing exports of passkeys, once for not requiring reauthentication of an already unlocked vault when providing a passkey.
electricity peaks are probably reduced over time by hourly electricity prices. If a lot of people can save money by using electricity at cheaper hours the peak demand is reduced.
Plugging in your EV might charge to 40% immediately. When it charges to 80% doesn't matter if it has that charge in the morning. So it probably charges somewhere in the night.
Starting your dishwasher, washing machine dryer on a timer before you go to work, so it runs when energy is cheaper.
This doesn't eliminate the need for storage, but reduces its need.
They steal it, but give everyone free access. You can download it for free, but can also torrent everything. They don't hoard for themselves, but everyone gets access to what they have. That is the crucial difference.
Only giving access to your material over downloads means that people have to pay if they want to get more of it. If those people don't share it then the material is going to be lost again.
Torrenting all the material slapping using their frontend as a base and just making money is different.
The EU governments should gradually start switching to open source solutions. New software projects should be open source by default and only closed if there is a real reason for it.
The EU is already home to many OS contributors and companies. I like the Red Hat approach where you are profitable, but with open source solutions.
It's great for governments because you get support, but it's much easier to compete, which reduces prices.
Smaller companies also give more of their money to open source. Bigger companies can always fork it and develop it internally and can therefore pressure devs to do work for less. Smaller companies have to rely on the projects to keep going and doing it all in house would be way too expensive for most.
> I like the Red Hat approach where you are profitable, but with open source solutions.
The Red Hat that was bought by IBM?
I agree with your goals, but the devil is in the methods. If we want governments to support open source, the appropriate method is probably a legislative requirement for an open source license + a requirement to fund the developer.
It seems like every other year I read a story about Munich switching to Linux. It keeps happening so evidently it's not sticking very well. Either there are usability or maintenance problems, or Microsoft's sales and lobbying is too effective.
Why would TSMC do this? Companies want the best chips and they can only get them from TSMC. If there isn't an alternative and building the necessary infrastructure in the US takes too long the Tarif is useless.
Even my old GTX 970 can throttle down to like 10W while still being able to display and iirc also h.264 decode 1080p60, let alone putting it in a mode that at all matches S3/suspend-to-ram via PCIe sleep states.
I'm pretty sure laptop with extra dGPUs normalized aggressive sleep of the power gating kind for their GPUs to keep their impact on battery life negligible (beyond their weight otherwise being used for more battery) until you turn on an application that you set to run on the dGPU.
If you're sure enough that there is going to be a big crash I would move the money into gold, bonds or other more secure assets. After a crash you can invest again.
I don't know why buffet sold a lot of shares over the last few years to sit on a huge pile of cash, but I could guess.
The Job market looks like shit, people have no money to buy stuff and credit card debt is skyrocketing. When people can't buy stuff it is bad for the economy. Even if AI is revolutionary then we would need people spending money to keep the economy going, and with more AI taking jobs that wouldn't happen.
If AI doesn't work out the market is going to crash and the only companies keeping the market growing are going to wipe out all that growth.
No matter how I look at it I don't see a thriving market.
If you drive by a small market you often won't park your car to go there. Cars and trucks destroy streets fast. Having less of them keeps repairs less frequent. Infrastructure for walking and biking can exist for multiple decades or even millennia