Online shopping is a demoralizing, soul-sucking, time and energy drain. Hundreds of options and no way to tell if anything is good. Reviews mean jack shit.
I absolutely disagree. Renting a room in a single family home vastly limits the number of people you have to share those intimate spaces like a kitchen or bathroom with. You also get the option to interview and pick who you’re sharing those spaces with. I lived with housemates for many years, and in dorms during university, and dorms are not even remotely the same from a social safety and privacy perspective.
Studio apartments seem like a better option. Also, from a property manager’s perspective, you generally want to minimize shared spaces because they’re a pain and annoying to deal with.
Yes and there is fierce competition for that in many larger cities, with sky-high prices to rent out a room. But they can't be offered at scale commercially because you'll never get the permits, and the only reason why you can rent these is usually because they're either operating completely under the table or via some carveouts that let property owner rent to 1 or 2 persons.
The pent up demand for this is obvious to anyone who's tried to secure a room only to have a gazillion people competing with them to pay $1000+ to rent an oversized closet to sleep in.
"Gas" is short for "gasoline" which means "gas oil". That is a perfectly cromulent name for a liquid.
"Football" is a different game in the US because it arrived there from England in the 19th century when carrying the ball was allowed. In England the sport eventually split into distinct sports: association football (aka soccer) and rugby. In America they evolved the game independently but didn't change the name.
Because changing a name that's been in use for decades is very confusing and unnecessary. A rose by another name etc.
The full names of the two rugby codes are "rugby union football" and "rugby league football". So Americans aren't alone in their cavalier use of the word "football".
It is the British that changed things. They also used to call it soccer and then changed in the 1980s. Canada and Australia still use soccer, probably cause they have native footballs.
Nice to see you again. Yeah, i feel it's a political thing where green initiatives are being pushed against the interest and benefit of voters. The benefits are continually overhyped and frankly in the UK we are seeing none of them. I actually quite like the idea of renewables and don't entirely understand Trumps pathological hatred of them, but i don't think politicians hamstringing our economy to win green points with their pals is a good thing. Also what's the plan here? Fall years behind the rest of the world while we switch over and then expect to magically catch up somehow?
We have policies that are good in principal but when they interact with other policy become unworkable for a reasonable cost. But then you focus on one individual area of policy rather than the system as a whole.
Also, in my experience the green initiatives generally have terrible publicity and these kind of articles are just pointing out some positives in a sea of negatives. What we endlessly miss is that the British public generally wants Co2 reduced and have got that.
The "political thing" is the oil industry working hard to make you feel like going renewable is a "political thing". It's a matter of life-or-death for them that you believe their lies.
If you like the idea of renewables take some time to understand the economics instead of spouting the same tired lies.
They don't "hamstring the economy". Nor will adopting them cause you to "fall behind". The "rest of the world" is rapidly adopting renewables.
> it's a space-based alternative that serves areas carriers have no financial incentive to cover
In a nutshell: they're serving a market that has less money to spend using more expensive tech than the current industry leaders. Maybe I'm wrong but it doesn't scream "massive profit".
I think Airplanes are going to be pretty profitable. They are sort of running a market cornering operation there. But, there will be competition eventually. Starlink is way faster than the alternatives so most airlines have switched and Starlink has rapidly increased their prices for aviation. Idk if it's enough though, they are definitely running lots of promos for home customers.
That sounds pretty niche. And airlines have already extremely thin margin (that have been eaten by fuel price increase). I wouldn’t be surprised if they drop that type of luxury
It’s another product for airlines to sell and make money off. It also serves to keep passengers entertained and content. It’s going to be a very strong market for Starlink IMHO.
> I think Airplanes are going to be pretty profitable.
Anything at sea, too. Going on a cruise? The cruise ship can offer you Wifi backed by Starlink for another few bucks. Or even your cell provider could get you hooked right up to Starlink for some phones.
Container ships, military vessels, even fishing expeditions could enjoy an internet connection and cell service.
It's big in the recreational boating community, as those folks generally have the disposable income to support a SpaceX ISP subscription.
Worldwide there's roughly 30 million recreational boats, whereas for commercial aircraft carrying people (not cargo) is more like 30k, so different orders if magnitude. It's highly likely boating would be a more profitable industry to satisfy demand for than airlines in the long term. That is unless they're charging exorbitantly more for airline contracts than personal boat use, which is totally possible.
Amazon Leo just signed delta as a customer so competition is indeed close behind.
I think SpaceX is an incredible company but at this valuation I’d expect it to have something as pervasive as the iPhone or Nvidia chips. It seems to have only small niches.
I have been flying a lot post Covid between it being a hobby of ours and consulting - I’m currently Platinum Medallion on Delta.
Frequent flyers choose their airlines for a lot of reasons - which airline has the most direct flights from their city, who has the best frequent flyer program, etc. The latency of the Internet is seldom a factor or the difference between 10Mbps and 50Mbps.
Non frequent flyers just buy the cheapest flights. The major three airlines make money off of business travelers, business and first class flights and credit cards.
If I’m flying for work and Starlink is that much better, quite possibly. My wife’s experience with other in-flight WiFi providers has been quite poor, often to the point that it barely works. Having said that, neither of us has been on a flight with Starlink yet.
No but the airline might choose starlink. I think a gogo business install is on the hundreds of thousands and annual costs in the tens of thousand for their Eutelesat based system.
There's enough vast terrestrial areas that have had no other options, so those areas may have pent up demand at least in the short term. However, I think they'll need to figure out how to further lower costs to target those poorer underserved communities that tend to come up in these discussions. That is, unless some sort of subsidy is put in place by governments that know that internet connected communities boost economic values, etc. Some such programs likely already exist in some form in the US, but are largely regional so may take some effort to integrate into those systems.
AFAICT, popular tech companies owned by cult of personalities tend to get overinflated evaluations. I agree that the promise of returns tends to be rosier than reality, but at least SpaceX makes a tangible product and isn't the average AI shilling company with no hope of returns. Here at least they have first mover advantage along with lower scaling costs than their competitors thanks to the rocketry side of the biz. I have enormous respect for what SpaceX has accomplished (even if I'm not a fan of the company's owner, etc.)
Some very rough math. $16 billion in EBITDA with 9million customers. This translates to about $1800 average annual subscription. Per month this is $150.
That is I think Starlink's target customers are ISP deprived. I asked Gemini estimate the size of that market. It said about 10 million in the US and over a 1 billion worldwide. I assume the Elon is pushing the 1 billion number. The problem I see is that outside the US, not everyone can pay $165 per month for internet.
You have to be more specific when talking about "socialist europe". The Netherlands, for example, has the best-managed pension system in the world. Despite what many people believe, "Europe" isn't one country and it doesn't have a single healthcare system, pension system, or anything else related to the welfare state.
US social security on the other hand is exactly as you describe pension systems in "socialist europe". Money taken from current workers and invested in state debt.
> "Hard line: Annual raise is 0%" -> What if it comes with a much larger stock grant? Or additional paid time off? Or something else you value? Will you really just mechanistically quit?
I don't want to be a pedant but more stock or time off are raises by another name. They're literally money the company gives you.
The company also would be giving you money if they, e.g. , gave you sets of annual Disney tickets, or a family membership in a luxury gym.
That's the whole point - there's an unlimited amount of potential outcomes that your original hard limit doesn't cover. Of course your final decision can be targeted towards "net value to you", but fundamentally, you can only assess net value once you have the facts.
Your hard limit becomes "I'll quit if I don't like it". Which, really, you don't need a "hard limit" for.
I do the bulk of my shopping IRL.
reply