Lower savings rate, higher inflation, higher interest rates, less capital available for investment. So most capital intensive sectors wouldn't do well.
A lot more volatility, without a (or much smaller one) buffer most economic shocks would have a bigger impact on the economy.
Also there would still be a lot of inequality it would just be intra-generational.
Then again.. all the annuity money has have to go somewhere. So maybe the insurance companies would become the primary sources of investment capital (which wouldn't be great). A lot of uncertainty though i.e. buying a house if you have a family would become much riskier..
I'd need a source to back up those claims, as you note it's not trivial to understand how economy would react.
I also don't see why buying a house would be much riskier? If you buy a house for your family it's because you either prefer the lifestyle or think it provides economic advantages over renting. Given you only need housing when your alive, I think what happens after you pass is not as major a concern as presented.
A source like what? I don't think there are many studies refuting bizarre not well thought out policies. Also it's pretty hard for me to argue against a suggestion that's so ill defined.
Albeit a massive increase in consumption and a reduction in savings would be the most obvious outcome (with all the implications of that).
> after you pass is not as major a concern as presented
Therefore there is no point for you to own your house. When you get older you either get a reverse mortgage or don't buy property in the first place. There would be no rational reason to own property beyond a certain age.
If no sources exist, then you must accept making claims such as this would 'lower savings rates' are simply not backed up. Maybe it will... maybe it won't.
So what if there is no reason to own property beyond a certain age? Even if we take this claim as true... that doesn't explain if this is a good or bad thing.
I don't, because this argument is nonsensical (I mean your point about source specifically). Unless you disagree with some of the core principles of modern economics (not saying that you have to agree with them..) that would be the most obvious outcome.
> So what if there is no reason to own property beyond a certain age?
Well that would mean that the savings rate would go down (for better or for worse).
You've not established that your suggestions are core principles of modern economics or derived from them.
For example, you are asserting there would be 'no reason to own property beyond a certain age'... which isn't supported, and then jumping to the conclusion that that would lower savigns rates.
The general consensus amongst most economists is that humans behave in a rational way? Not spending all the wealth you before you die would be irrational if your children won't inherit it.
Of course in reality that's often not the case especially these days so it might not be sufficient enough.
> clearly true, just supposition.
Well by such standards every discussion on any policy that hasn't been tried is meaningless because there isn't any empirical evidence.
I was demonstrating the Apples to Oranges comparison. If they were both free no one would pick DLSS. It shows Rasterizing is preferable. So comparing Rasterizing performance to DLSS performance is dishonest.
Yeah but they had pretty meagre memory bandwidth until now, aside from the parts they made exclusively for Xbox and Playstation. AMD didn't seem to be interested in bringing fast unified memory to real computers until Apple did it. Now they need to double up the bus again to make an M4 Max-alike...
In part because it's an odd compromise. With the exception of LLM's which are a decent development... there wasn't a lot of need to high memory, but moderate GPU compute parts. You'd either have a lot of memory and a CPU, or a lot of memory and a beefy GPU.
It isn't what the market wanted, and by market I mean OEMs, because I'm sure consumers would have loved it.
The OEMs buying APUs to use in laptops and SFF desktops were more interested in cutting costs than boosting graphics performance. Users who want better 3D performance can buy a higher end laptop with a discrete GPU and juicier profit margin.
True, but apple's the benchmark in this space and have managed thin laptops with good battery life and decent (but not class leading) GPU performance.
Doubling the memory width (and tripling the bandwidth) helped Apple's GPU performance substantially and should do the same for AMD. Which means that a larger fraction of the laptop market should consider it "good enough" and still have a reasonable TDP to avoid the 2" think laptop that last for less than an hour on battery while sounding like a hair dryer.
Those agreements would be >15 years old at this point, I doubt AMD would agree to sandbag their entire APU lineup going forward just to make the base model PS4 and Xbone look good, and I especially doubt that they would do that again with the PS5 and Xbox Series when they actually had money and room to negotiate. Likewise, it doesn't make sense as a restriction Microsoft or Sony would impose: the console business is one of convenience, not power. They aren't trying to beat PCs and they don't care if PCs are a better deal. They care if they can get you to buy a box that locks you into their DRM scheme.
Furthermore, during the chip shortages of the last few years, AMD was actually selling broken PS5 silicon for use as a normal Windows PC[0]. If there were restrictions on selling APUs above a certain performance level, then this PC wouldn't exist.
Historically PC OEMs cared about price more than graphics performance so that's what they got. If you look at mobile SoCs or the eDRAM-equipped SKUs Intel made for Apple you see more emphasis on memory & graphics performance similar to consoles.
One oil well can produce an amount of free energy (24/7) that a 100 acre wind farm can only produce sporadically, assuming the well is a reasonably high volume producer. It depends on the specific well/geology.
The issue with fossil fuels is that they liberate fossil carbon, which has larger macro effects on the global environment. (It injects a lot of ‘new’ carbon into the carbon cycle)
They also do sometimes have some medium sized local effects from spills or contamination. But those can usually be controlled.
Geothermal is also usually ‘low footprint/high value’, but is only viable in specific limited locations.
Solar, wind, hydropower, tidal energy all have large physical footprints for the amount of energy they produce. Aka ‘low density’. All are also somewhat tied to specific, and often limited geology.
For solar for instance, areas with a lot of desert or other open ‘non productive’ land nearby, it’s great (assuming decent insolation). In areas where land is at a premium for other uses, or is very rugged/high maintenance, it definitely is a problem. Aka cities, certain types of high intensity farmland, heavily forested areas, high snow load/storm areas, etc.
Solar is not an awesome economic choice in Siberia, for example. It is an awesome economic choice in Southern California, Arizona, Nevada, etc.
For areas with geography that supports it (typically the right kind of mountain ranges) and rainfall, hydropower is awesome, though has serious side effects on wildlife and river health. For a place that doesn’t have the right geography (say England), it’s a non starter.
> One oil well can produce an amount of free energy (24/7) that a 100 acre wind farm can only produce sporadically, assuming the well is a reasonably high volume producer. It depends on the specific well/geology.
Except it can't, a 100 acre wind farm can produce energy indefinitely while a oil well will eventually run dry.
The idea that fossil fuels are more ecologically favorable because it's 'dense' needs to address not only external factors, but that fossil fuels are non-renewable.
> Except it can't, a 100 acre wind farm can produce energy indefinitely while an oil well will eventually run dry.
Perhaps more true in that the wind (as far as we know) won’t run out but wind turbines do have a limited lifespan. After 20-30 years they usually need to be replaced. Some of the components are recycled but a significant portion - including the blades - are either not recyclable or not economically recyclable. Work is being done on this but there’s no guarantee it’ll produce dividends.
It depends entirely on what scope one considers for impact. Do we count maintenance roads? Total land area disturbed? Windmill foundation pads? Global co2 levels? Abandoned equipment in general? Noise levels over how much area?
What is ‘leftover’ from an abandoned well can be as simple as a buried 6” ground level plug, or as messy as an acre of abandoned equipment and a giant oil spill/hazmat area. Plus a billion tons of atmospheric co2 - which is invisible.
Oil is so widely used because it is incredibly cheap and easy to use at large scale, with minimal obviously visible consequence.
Because co2 is invisible. And as long as we don’t spill large quantities of it, it doesn’t seem to cause any visible problems.
The effect of the low density from wind, solar, etc. isn’t visible until you go to areas it is widely deployed and then do the math on how much energy they are actually producing, which is a small fraction of what would be produced if the same area was impacted to produce oil or nuclear.
"The movies that play in virtual screens are native to the films’ aspect ratios, which can vary movie to movie, eliminating the black bars of “letterboxing” and “pillarboxing” you typically have on iPads, iPhones, or MacBooks."
Then proceeds to show screenshots where more than 50% of the screen is background. Just because you decided to show cloud instead of black doesn't mean it's not letterboxing.
The screenshots are misleading. "Inside" an AVP watching a movie the corner to corner angle can exceed THX recommendation of 40 degrees.
Doesn't seem like a lot until you hold a protractor up to your eyeball. And then you realize how much area falls outside that angle, surroundings you don't think about at the theater.
The AVP has to render that unwatchable area for you as well, and it ends up in screenshots.
Lol, adding a hue is usually a crutch for a too small screen with lifted blacks... which doesn't paint the pro in a very positive light!
Ironically by adding a gue to a nomral screen, you're effectively 'adding' pixels to the display... unlike the pro which wastes pixels on the 'hue' because many of them are not in the ideal viewing angle.
So the first business has no competition... but also no defensibility?
The second business should be able to be much bigger AND easier, but you aren't focussing all your efforts on it because you're splitting your time with the first, non-defensible business?
It's good to be optimistic, but balance that with realism. It's easy to build a billion dollar business on paper, much harder in reality.
What's missing here is what value the writer is bringing to the table.
Let's look at the trade:
"I’m looking for a technical cofounder who is ready to commit in the next 2-3 months and work in-person in San Francisco. I’m looking for them to do Product, Design, and Engineering."
This requires a lead level engineer, say $200k to $500k/year salary in SF. Given that this is a 2~3 month engagement, we'd double that for contractor rate and pro rata. I'd estimate this is $100k to $250k of time.
"I’m committed to healthtech and have a few ideas, but willing to work on other ideas in healthtech."
Great, this is worth about $0.
This doesn't seem like a fair trade.
What's worse is that "Rob Balian" is a CTO with product manager background. Instead of looking for a co-founder to complement his skillset, he's duplicating the skill set.
Source needed RE brain.
Define innovate, in a way that a LLM can't and we definitively can prove a human can.