I doubt their API would handle 100k requests per second. That math was roughly indictive of what the cost to send 100k requests per second would look like. He did mention that that was assuming the target didn't have rate limiting, either intentional or just pure limits of the hardware.
You don’t even always need a third party. My wife works in HR for the government and part of her job is literally to contact neighboring counties and send them requests for their salaries for various positions and levels while filling out salary requests from other counties.
Of course, being government, it’s all public information anyway so collaborating in this way is seen more of a performance increase vs manually accessing each counties salary information but it’s the same premise.
There’s nothing wrong with genetics and nothing wrong with stores having their own brand.
We just need regulations to ensure that vertical companies are engaging in arms length transactions. If Walmart charges a company $10 per linear foot of shelf space on the third row, then they need to internally bill the generic brand division the same rate.
How is it clearly anti-competitive if they are providing a better value for the consumer?
When a name brand has market power and charges a premium for a basic product, then another company entering the market and undercutting them is great for the consumer. We can make regulations to ensure that a distributor, advertiser, retailer and the product owner engage in arms length transactions but there’s nothing inherently wrong with a store brand offering products comparable to name brand at significantly reduced prices.
When considering "better value for the customer", remember that sellers are a customer of the marketplace too (arguably the primary customer!).
imo the problem is specifically generics branded and marketed by the marketplace. That's where a conflict of interest between the marketplace and sellers arises, which ultimately harms end-customers.
Amazon Private Brands (APB) typically buys from the same companies that make the random generics like "XOFUNBO" no-name brands. The issue is Amazon can use it's insider data to buy, brand, and market generics in-house, without paying the fees charged to sellers - achieving costs that 3p sellers fundamentally cannot compete with. Amazon's own corporate training highlights that sharing sales data with 3p sellers is illegal and anti-competitive, I don't know why APB should be seen as any different.
This is not even considering how sellers need to earn end-customer trust while Amazon can muscle coasting on their trust as the marketplace.
Marketplaces must be neutral ground for sellers, full stop. No seller can be given privileged access. Otherwise the market distorts to favor a seller and that ultimately harms the end-customers in the long-term by suppressing competition.
We are a social species, but we also heavily compare ourselves to others.
The quickest solution might be to remove yourself from others so that you don’t mentally make the comparison. The best long term solution might be to form the social bonds.
And sometimes you need to tackle the short term solution to change your mood in order to enact the long term solution.
Having a SAHP is always a difficult thing to compare to todays world. A lot of people can’t have a SAHP because their peers don’t have a SAHP. When your peers are willing and able to spend more on housing and cars… then you have to get the second income to keep up with them or accept a lifestyle more in line with lower income people (except with a SAHP).
People tend to underestimate the cost of living in a high demand place.
You could make top 10% incomes globally, but if you are living in a top 1% location then you are being priced out by the 9% of the population making more than you.
If you want to live with a certain lifestyle of cars/vacations/personal services etc then you can’t be spending up on the other parts of your budget like housing location.
Yeah, there's a telling degree of overlap between the "The American Dream is dead crowd" and the "I refuse to live anywhere but an expensive coastal city" crowd. Not to say that the latter can't be caused by the former, but it indicates a frustration with a particular experience that isn't really fully representative of what the "American Dream" is supposed to offer. Notably, for all of their complaining the actual emigration rate of this population seems to be very low.
While not unique, the Bay Area is also something of an outlier in that it's hard to drive out of extremely high housing prices from not only SF but the South Bay generally.
I live 60-90 minutes outside of the Boston metro and, while were I am isn't many areas of the Midwest cheap, it's pretty affordable. Except for one short stint, I've never had to commute into the city, so living in the city would be a lifestyle choice which has historically not been one that a lot of middle class families made--even when a lot of urban CoL was lower.
I would be cautious how much of your frustration is because of the US changing or not meeting your expectations vs you happening to make major life decision right when there happened to be major world changing events. (Covid, Russia/Ukraine primarily.)
Since you aren’t in your old life anymore, you don’t know exactly how good or bad it would have been had you stayed.
Moving on beyond that, some places are definitely worse off than others within the US. Housing where I live is getting more expensive, but incomes are also going up substantially. And they are building thousands of new housing.
You mention being a top 5% earner. Unless that is top 5% locally, you are probably using up a lot of that top 5% income to live in a top 1% location.
According to the stats, we make top 5% income of our area. It sure doesn't feel like it. Makes me wonder how people in much lower income who hasn't inherited their home can make ends meet here (the answer is probably not very well).
Regarding your first point, you are right, you can't A/B test your life. In any event I'm reporting my current experience, which is both not better than my previous and expected one.
Do you have the corresponding statistics (income percentiles vs. average house cost) for all areas in the US handy, allowing you to quickly determine this is not possible? Or do you not like the idea and therefore reject it?
because thats not the way debate works. you dont get to make a(n absurd) claim and then demand the other person disprove it with data across 100% of the spectrum.
I didn't say that this is how debates work. How they should work however:
> A: [some statement]
> B: I don't think that is the case. Could you share an example?
> A: [example]
See where nobody had to disprove anything with data across 100% of the spectrum? That's because nobody made the claim that A is wrong. You however made an absolute claim, so you have to provide the data for it.
* people in the area are not owning their houses, but (the companies owned by) people who live somewhere in Florida do (or the richer part of the same town)
* people bought their houses 40 years ago when it was still possible to do so, but would now be totally priced were they required to buy it now
* same but the rental equivalent for rent controlled apartments (or kind landlords)
* due to the interest rate increases, mortgages for new homes have increased rapidly, like even if the house price is the same as 1.5 years ago, the mortgage is now three times as much for the same down payment and duration.
Quick google shows that a Hyundai Ioniq gets around 4 miles per kWh. An average US household uses 886 kWh per month. You’d have to drive 3,500 miles a month to have the electric car use more energy than the entire household.
Yes, there is an energy cost in building the car, but there’s also an energy cost in building the refrigerator and dryer and washing machine etc in the house.
I’m sure some electric cars are worse than the Ioniq, but they’d have to be considerably worse to equal the energy used by a household.
I can't find any "average kwh for heating" numbers though. If the US number of roughly 10.000 kwh per year included heating, that could be roughly comparable to what the German average could be. Numbers that I find range from 14.000kwh for old homes with Gas usage to 3000kwh for modern homes with heat pumps.
Would make more sense than the US average being 4x while roughly using the same electronics.
Wow, that's terrible. Do Germans not have as good of climate control or something? I wonder what it would take to get German energy consumption up to a better level. It looks like wholesale electricity costs in Germany are around 4x higher than in the US.
>what it would take to get German energy consumption up to a better level
That's a good question. Prices are a good start. Consumer prices seem to be twice in G as in the US. Don't know where you get the "wholesale price is 4x in G". Most of what I can find is that wholesale is usually pretty close.
My guess of what G could do to increase consumption and thus moneys:
- Lower prices (duh). End user power is taxed heavily to subsidize industry power
- Remove mandatory energy labels on all electronics. Who really needs to know how much a TV or fridge is going to consume in power?
- Mandate "power-included" in rents. If you pay a fixed sum, you might as well leave the fridge open to cool the kitchen
- Mandate central heating and cooling. If you only pay a share of what you consume, might as well go full blast on everything
- stop subsidizing energy efficiency for new single and multi-tenant homes.
- stop building solid houses. Plywood walls are fine
And yet, america uses much more. Shouldn't that give you a pause? :)
Jokes aside, you're describing a correlation. America does not seem "more civilized" to me, you guys are just wasteful. Wasted energy does not lead to more civilization.
No; It's completely consistent with my model. America is more advanced by a huge margin. It's also evidently a more desirable place to live; the Germany-to-USA migration rate is something like 3x the other direction.
> Yes, there is an energy cost in building the car, but there’s also an energy cost in building the refrigerator and dryer and washing machine etc in the house.
I don't think you can really hand wave away that cost. My instinct is that battery, aluminum, and steel production should be very energy intensive.
The 3500+ pounds of "stuff" in your car is over an order of magnitude more "stuff" than a household appliance just by weight alone.
(Maybe we should forego the other luxuries as well, of course).
All that said I imagine the biggest direct end user energy usage would be the cost of HVAC systems running nearly continuously in inhospitable climates.
It’s not that bad. Fossil fuel burn is actually much worse. I used to think this as I thought buying used cars would be a great help but the break even point for the extra cost of building an entire vehicle is something like 2 years of driving. So building all new cars with half the fuel use could reduce overall emissions after about 4 years. Electric vehicles are worth it after 2-3 years. As long as your electric vehicles run for about 5 years, even if you make a whole new car, emissions would reduce considerably
When you look at it further, you find even an electric car uses 20-30kWh/100km at highway speeds. That basically a constant 20kW. Driving a car is just stupidly energy intensive and very little can be done about that. Trains and public transport have a huge benefit in energy use per person
