Almost every person that has told me about the perils of overpopulation...more people, has also told me that its in my best interest have open borders e.g. more people. Why the hypocrisy in message? The unbelievable immigration in my country is causing a reduction in quality of living not unlike what I would expect with overpopulation because.... it is overpopulation.
Why does everyone support wall streets "increase GDP at all costs" immigration platform? It seems to be astroturfed alot.
Pay a country's people more so that they have more time/resources to dedicate to making a family. Even better, incentivize families. Or is that too expensive for bankers?
> Why does everyone support wall streets "increase GDP at all costs" immigration platform?
All else being equal, more GDP (per person) means more wealth per person. More housing space, more heating, more antibiotics and children's sledges. So yeah, I support more GDP.
> Pay a country's people more so that they have more time/resources to dedicate to making a family
We've tried that; doesn't work. Not much at least. Sweden and France have had a bit of success, but not enough to even get back to sustainable fertility levels, let alone natural population growth.
> Pay a country's people more so that they have more time/resources to dedicate to making a family. Even better, incentivize families. Or is that too expensive for bankers?
For that to happen, resources need to be reallocated from somewhere else towards this. For that to happen, people would need to express this via voting.
> Why does everyone support wall streets "increase GDP at all costs" immigration platform?
Those resources don't come out of nowhere, so there is a need for immigration as well to get work done.
"Those resources don't come out of nowhere, so there is a need for immigration as well to get work done."
Efficiency gains in a process certainly create extra "resources" whatever they might be. But I do applaud you for not saying "we need immigration because we need ethnic food" like most people say nowadays.
> Efficiency gains in a process certainly create extra "resources" whatever they might be.
Sure, and most of the world has much better lives already because of that then their parents.
This is excluding US which had a unique position after ww2 which has eroded to some extent but is still much better then the rest of the world..
> But I do applaud you for not saying "we need immigration because we need ethnic food" like most people say nowadays.
I would guess that is dismissive on purpose, people saying that are avoiding a potentially sensitive topic which they do not care to engage in. (which I probably should as well, so yes, ethnic food is the reason)
I clicked on the link thinking it was about parasitic extraction and capacitance tables; referred to as "cap tables" in industry for circuit design. I was very disappointed.
I knew it was capital tables, but I do think we’re the only people in this thread who have absolutely no idea what’s going on. Sure sounds scandalous though.
I still have no idea what the company is. (Is it an accounting consulting?) There's a post up there with the context, but I lack context for understanding most of it.
But, anyway, it's not an interesting optimization algorithm that limits all kinds of values in all kinds of ways, so I'm not digging any further either.
(And yeah, I know what capitalization tables are too. I even have had to build ingestion software for some once. That shortening of the name is really confusing, but looks like it's standard.)
I did not read the article in-depth but class D audio amplifiers use variable pulse widths and then filter it before the speaker. Aside from very good efficiency you also remove the need for a transformer using this method hence why its used.
I'm not sure which is the hard part you're referring to- implementing the amplifier itself, or the board around it. I don't think an amateur would want to build their own class-D from raw components except for pedagogical purposes.
(i've been pretty happy with the results, I used the board to drive a couple speakers and the amplifier is not the first thing I'd fix to improve the audio quality.
Yes, but has a major purchaser of spectrum complained? No, because its CB and they're not interfering with AM/FM broadcast, first responders, aviation or cellular bands. Therefore, nothing will get done and I doubt the FCC is even monitoring it.
Everyone is saying "survivorship bias" but I don't think its that easy. How is survivorship biased by reparability? Is the widget still considered more durable if it breaks but can be fixed? I would say so.
There is some correlation here. If something 'never' breaks its not very likely to be repairable since no one will make spare parts for it. At the other side if something always breaks but is cheap in total cost, parts are commonly unavailable too, as people replace the entire item.
